Journal of Environmental Psychology (1989) 9, 89-101

SPACE, TIME, AND ACTIVITY IN THE HOME: A GENDER

ANALYSIS

S H E R R Y A H R E N T Z E N * , D O U G L A S W. L E V I N E t , and
W I L L I A M MICHELSON~:
* Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53201, U.S.A. t Program in Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine,
Irvine, California 92717, U.S.A. and ~. Department of Sociology, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2G8 Canada

Abstract
This study examines the variability within and between gender in the use of space in the
home. Secondary data analysis is undertaken of a time-budget survey of 538 family
households in Toronto. Among fully-employed, married men and women, gender
reflects different use of the home. Fully-employed mothers compared to fathers spend
more time in rooms with other family members; they are also more involved in
housekeeping and child-care activities in those rooms. Co-occupancy of the room and
how space in the home is used also varies among women of different employment and
marital status. Further work is advocated which incorporates finer-grained analyses of
the use and meaning of home along physical, temporal, and activity dimensions, as well
as analyses based on actual roles and social relations people assume rather than those
which are simply ascribed.

Introduction
The gender division of labour in the home has been, and continues to be, a prominent
topic in empirical and theoretical studies (Engels, 1902; Galbraith, 1973; Oakley, 1974;
Zaretsky, 1976). Only recently have researchers begun to focus on a related theme, that
of the gender division of residential space. Much of this latter research has been
directed or explained by the concept of 'separate spheres'. In this conceptualization
industrial and post-industrial societies and space are divided into public and private
spheres. W o m e n are identified with private space, best exemplified by the domicile, and
men with public space, the sphere of labour and politics (Wekerle, 1981; MacKenzie
and Rose, 1983, for reviews). This conceptual orientation is not only prominent in
academic circles (Rosaldo and Lamphere, 1974) but also popular ones. Kron's (1983)
book Home-Psych, for example, has a chapter describing women's greater expression
in and attachment to interior residential space, with men relegated to interests in the
neighbourhood, community, work, and outdoors.
There have, however, been challenges to this separate sphere orientation
(Sharistanian, 1986). These critics argue that in the twentieth century the distinctions
between public and private are becoming eroded due to the impact of mass media,
centralized government structures, and women's increased labour force participation,
a m o n g other trends. Consequently, a gender analysis of space cannot follow a simple

The authors are grateful to Arza Churchman for her suggestions on an earlier version.

02724944/89/020089 + 13 $03.00/0 © 1989 Academic Press Limited

90 S. Ahrentzen e t ai.

dichotomous (private/woman vs. public/man) orientation. Our intention in this study

is to examine whether or not there exists a gender division of space within the
microspace of the examined gender differences in the behaviour in and impressions of
various rooms of the home (only considering bedroom, bath, kitchen and living room).
Using a sample of 13 men and 13 women in Scotland currently involved in home
decoration, he found that women consistently listed more activities they associated
with all rooms. Women were also more likely than men to express feelings of being
crowded in the living room. In considering the kitchen and bedroom, men were more
concerned with the decor and construction, while women were more concerned about
the domestic activities which occurred in these rooms. Although these findings reflect
the opinions of a small non-representative sample, they do indicate that perhaps
women are more intensely involved than men with activities and other people in all
spaces of the home.
From interviews with members of 45 Israeli families, Churchman and Sebba (1985)
found that over half of the mothers considered the kitchen their personal territory.
Although the authors did not measure the amount of time spent in different home
spaces, it is possible that this sense of territoriality reflects women's greater time
involvement in the kitchen compared to other family members, not only in home
maintenance but also personally meaningful activities. For example, almost half of the
mothers mentioned that they entertained guests in the kitchen.
Research has also been conducted on differences between men and women in their
meaning of home. Hayward (1977) and Saegert and Winkel (1980) found that for
married women home was more an expression of identity, of family and personal
relationships, of personalization, and of refuge. Women who were primarily
homemakers felt more strongly about their homes as reflections of their identities
compared to those women sharing economic and household responsibilities with their
husbands. For married men, home was more likely to refer to a physical place.
Churchman and Sebba (1985) expanded on this work by examining the differences
not only of gender but also gender as it interacts with employment. To women,
regardless of employment status, home reflected a place for family, for self-expression
and security. However, employed women and men viewed home as a sense of control,
while full-time homemakers were less likely to see the home as a place of personal
control. Employment status or the amount of time spent in the home may result in a
different sense of control, or power, of the residence. Their study reveals the necessity of
examining not only differences between men and women in the interpretations of
residential space but also differences among women. More precisely we need to focus
on the actual roles and relationships men and women assume, rather than simply on sex
differences.
The roles men and women assume today have changed from those of even the
immediate past (i.e. the 1950s) as a result of many factors, primary ones being women's
increased labour force participation and divorce rates. Such trends have directed
researchers to examine whether domestic activities among women and men have also
changed. Their findings reveal that even when working full-time, women are more
responsible than men for the majority of childcare and housework duties, not only in
North American countries (Berk and Berk, 1979; Geerken and Gove, 1983; Michelson,
1985; Pleck, 1975'; Robinson, 1977; Vanek, 1984; Walker and Woods, 1976) but also in
European countries (Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway, 1983; Niemi et aL, ! 981;
Nordenstam, 1984) and Japan (Matsushima, 1982).
 Space, Time, and Activity 91

Thus, the assumption o f similar roles (those of breadwinner, parent) shared by both
men and women does not necessarily result in egalitarian activities and responsibilities
in the home. Canter (1986) suggests that both roles and social rules define spatial
experience and preference. Similarly, the reliance on 'roles '~ alone as an explanatory
construct is criticized by many feminist scholars. As Lopata and Thorne (1978)
illustrate, although both men and women may assume the role of teacher, men and
women teachers differ in many important sociological aspects (e.g. income, status,
credibility) which affect experiences and expectations. The use of the term 'role'
emphasizes the individual and underemphasizes the sociological and political aspects
of activity, experience, and meaning. Thorne (1982) maintains that the focus on 'roles',
particularly gender or sex roles, obscures the differences in power relations between
men and women. A stronger explanatory concept for a separate sphere explanation of
space might be the social relationships of the participants of the setting, particularly the
power relationship, and the social meaning those relationships reflect. A husband and
wife, for instance, may have similar roles (e.g. both are parents, both are teachers) yet
their experience and use of a shared setting, in this case their home, will also be a factor
of the social relationship between them.
That experience and use of space are influenced not only by roles but by the social
relations of family members and the social meaning behind those positions and
relations is an underlying premise o f this study. In addition, we are concerned that a
gender analysis of the microspace of the home is missing in empirical and theoretical
work. A more practical and less theoretical concern is the continuing development of
homes based on domestic and labour patterns of thirty years ago. Although some
developers have developed new housing to address women's labour force
participation--The Working Women's Home in Scarborough, New Jersey, being one
example (Foderaro, 1986)--little empirical evidence is provided for how today's
families use the interior space of the home. The intent of this study is to examine how
men and women use spaces in the h o m e - - b y the amount of time, activity performed in
the space, and co-occupancy of space--and to examine how gender, social relations,
and work practices account for this.
The present study examines the spatial usage of the home not only between men and
women, but also among women o f different marital and employment status. It is
different from the previously-cited research in that the sample size is much larger, and
that the data reflect how adult family members use space in the home as measured by
the time engaged in activities, their location within the home, and co-occupancy (i.e.
whether or not there are other persons present) in these spaces. The hypotheses we
developed are based on the empirical findings that when husband and wife assume
both labour and domestic roles, women are still generally responsible for domestic and
family activities in the home. This social relationship--in which working wives still
maintain responsibility for the work of the home--will be reflected in women's greater
use of space pertaining to these responsibilities.
Also, as Churchman and Sebba have found, assuming an occupational position
gives many women a greater sense of personal control or power in the home. This
suggests that employed mothers, having a greater sense of personal control in the
home, will spend their time in the home differently than non-employed mothers, in
1The term role is often appliedloosely.In a reviewof the researchon role theory,Biddle(1986)suggeststhree
prevailingdefinitionsfor the term role:as characteristicbehaviours,socialparts to be played,and scripts for
social conduct. We use the term here in the first sense--characteristicbehaviours.
92 S. Ahrentzen e t al.

particular minimizing their proportional use of those spaces reflecting housework

activities.
Although previous research suggests that employment status of women results in
different experiences of home space, there is no similar research examining marital
status. However, we might assume differences exist since in single-parent families there
will not be a parent-parent dyad; rather social relationships in the home will focus on
parent-child relations, as well as sibling relations, almost exclusively. In such cases,
power and control will primarily lie with the parent. We might speculate then that
single mothers spend less time than married mothers in those domestic space reflecting
housework activities. This hypothesis is also based on findings that in homes of
single-parent families, mothers spend less time in domestic work, and domestic
responsi[~ilities are more often shared with children (Michelson, 1985).
The specific hypotheses we examine include:
1. Among the full-time employed, there will be n o differences between men and
women in the amount of time spent in various rooms of the home except for those
reflecting centres of domestic chores (i.e. the kitchen).
2. In all rooms, full-time employed, married women will more likely than men be
engaged in domestic and child-care activities, and will more likely be with other
persons in those rooms.
3. Among women, employment status accounts for differences in the proportion of
time spent in different areas of the home. Employment status is reflected in different
activities in rooms, with non-employed women spending a greater proportion of their
time in domestic and child-care activities in all rooms.
4. Married mothers compared to single mothers of similar employment status will
spend more time in rooms reflecting domestic chores and more time in rooms with
others.

Method

Secondary data analyses were undertaken of a time-budget survey of family

households in Toronto during 1980. (Elaboration of this study and further detail of
methodology are available in Michelson, 1985.)

Sampling
Stratified random sampling of census tracts and then household addresses occurred.
Households were contacted and selected for further interviewing if they had children
under 14 years old. To achieve sufficient sample sizes of families using particular day-
care options and of single-parent families, 'oversampling' of these types of households
occurred during screening procedures. A total of 538 families was selected for final
study; of these, 538 mothers and 404 fathers completed time budgets.

Procedure
Each household was contacted by an interviewer and asked to complete a time-budget
form (see description below) of activities they performed the previous day (interviews
were conducted Tuesday through Saturday). All members of the household over the
age of 10 completed forms. For those children under 10 years of age, their mothers
completed their forms. Another questionnaire was given to the mothers to complete;
information from this instrument was not included in these analyses and will not be
 Space, Time, and Activity 93

described here. The typical interview, with all family members and then with the
mother, took approximately 3 hours. Each family was paid $10 for participation.

Time-budget instrument
A time budget is a record of what an individual did during a 24-hour-period
(Michelson, 1987). Participants were asked to list the activities they engaged in during
the day in chronological order, indicating the beginning and end times of each activity,
where they were located while performing that activity, which other persons were
involved in the activity with them, and whether or not there were secondary activities
occurring simultaneously (e.g. while ironing one may be listening to the radio).
Validity tests were performed on the time-budget instrument (Michelson, 1985) from
a sample of 37 families who were interviewed and observed on 3 different days.
Comparing observations with self-reports on a long list of specific activities, women
failed to report half of what they did (comprising 25 % of their time). However, when a
checklist was included to remind them of activities, 80% of the activities were reported.
Those most easily remembered were active, time-consuming activities like eating,
television watching, meal preparation, cleaning, and playing with children. An analysis
of more generalized activity categories of daily activities showed quite high
intermethod validity (Ziegler and Michelson, 1980). No validity assessments were made
on location of activities.

Assumptions and variables of the secondary analysis

Although the original study collected information from all household members, for
this analysis only information from mothers and fathers was analysed. All activity took
place during the week, and all fathers were fully employed. Respondent characteristics
include gender (male, female), marital status (married or non-married), and, for women,
employment status (full-time employed--FTE; part-time employed--PTE; and not
employed--NE). Employment status was categorized by respondents' answers to the
question, 'Do you have full-time, part-time, or no paid employment'?
Time spent in only four rooms of the home--the living room, kitchen, bedroom(s),
and bathroom(s)--was analysed. Although many households had more than these
rooms (e.g. laundry room, den), others did not. From the data, it was impossible to
know reliably whether or not a household had a certain room other than these four
core rooms. For example, people who had a dining room and did not spend time in it,
and those who did not have a dining room, were recorded the same (i.e. no time spent in
dining room). Thus, only those rooms common to all households were analysed.
Validity problems associated with this discrepancy in number of rooms among families
are discussed in a later section.
Listed activities were coded into one of 100 detailed categories (see Szalai, 1972 for
further description of these categories). These detailed categories were subsumed under
10 larger categories, of which 5 are used here because of their applicability to home
activities:
domestic work which includes preparation and cooking of food, indoor cleaning,
laundry, ironing, repair and upkeep of clothes, gardening, animal care, upkeep of
heat and water supplies, etc.;
child-care activities such as feeding and bathing of children, reading of stories, indoor
games, medical care, being affectionate with child, putting to bed;etc.;
94 S. Ahrentzen et aL

TABLE 1
Average time (reported in minutes) spent in particular rooms Jbr full-time employed
married mothers and fathers, adjusted for family income and family size

Total time Time alone Time with others

Room Women Men Women Men Women Men

Living room 79 95 16 17 63 78
Kitchen 135 75~ 28 14b 108 61c
Bedroom(s) 479 444 80 99 399 345a
Bathroom(s) 36 28 20 20 16 8e
n (152) (135) (152) (135) (152) (135)
aF=25.37 1,283df P<0.001 q=0.29
bF = 9-68 1,283df P < 0.01 //=0-18
CF=18-38 1,283df P<0.001 /1=0.25
dF =4"21 1,283df P <0"05 q =0"12
eF=10"74 1,283df P<0"001 q=0'19

private needs activities include personal hygiene care, medical care, meals and snacks,
sleep, etc.;
active leisure activities include hobbies, needlework, artistic creations, playing
musical instrument, etc.; and
passive leisure activities such as listening to radio, watching TV, reading, conversing,
relaxing, etc.

Findings
Analyses of covariance were conducted on minutes spent in each room, with income
and family size included as control variables. All means reported here are adjusted for
these two variables. Tests for interactions between covariates and factors on each
dependent variable were conducted using multiple regression; no significant
interactions were found.

Differences between full-time employed, married men and women

Table 1 shows the absolute time spent by full-time employed (FTE), married men and
women 2 in different areas of the home. FTE men and women spend relatively the same
amount of time in three of the core spaces. But women spend more time in the kitchen.
When time and co-occupancy are analysed together, women spend significantly more
time than do men in the kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom(s) with other persons
present. Thus, although F T E women may spend the same amount of time as men in
bedrooms and baths, they are spending more time in those rooms when others are
present. In addition, women spend twice as much time in the kitchen alone than do
men.
Do these fully-employed men and women use the spaces differently? Table 2 shows
the average time spent in a room engaged in a specific activity. We can see from this
table that the amount of time spent in these spaces performing specific activities varies.
In the living room men spend more time than women in passive leisure activities. In the

2On average, FTE married men work slightly longer than FTE married women.
 Space, Time, and Activity 95

TABLE 2
Average time (reported in minutes) spent in particular
room engaged in specific activity for full-time employed,
married mothers and fathers, adjusted for family income
and family size

Women Men

Living Room
Domestic work 8 5
Child care 11 5
Private needs I0 15
Passive leisure 40 62 a
Active leisure 3 2
Kitchen
Domestic work 80 24 b
Child care 10 4
Private needs 35 34
Passive leisure 10 12
Active leisure 0 0
Bedroom(s)
Domestic work 6 0c
Child care 20 7a
Private needs 429 417
Bathroom(s)
Domestic work 0 0
Child care 9 1~
Private needs 28 23
(152) (135)

a F =4.84 1,283df P < 0'01 ~/= 0.13

bF=59.66 1,283df P<0.001 q=0.42
CF=17.67 1,283df P<0.001 r/-0.24
aF=12.87 1,283df P<0-001 ~/=0.21
eF=19.25 1,283df P<0'001 q=0.25

kitchen, w o m e n spend m o r e time t h a n m e n engaged in d o m e s t i c work, while in the

b e d r o o m s a n d b a t h r o o m s , w o m e n s p e n d m o r e time t h a n men engaged in child-ca~e
duties.

Differences between women of different employment status

A m o n g women, differences in e m p l o y m e n t status a c c o u n t n o t o n l y for the o b v i o u s l y
different a m o u n t s o f time spent at h o m e b u t also for different proportions o f time at
h o m e spent in the kitchen, b e d r o o m , a n d b a t h r o o m (Table 3). 3 In p a r t i c u l a r F T E
m o t h e r s spend a greater p r o p o r t i o n o f their time at h o m e in the b e d r o o m a n d a lesser
p r o p o r t i o n o f time in the kitchen t h a n d o p a r t - t i m e (PTE) o r n o n - e m p l o y e d (NE)
mothers. These trends generally hold when c o n s i d e r i n g c o - o c c u p a n c y . M o r e o v e r , the
s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e s effectively m i n i m i z e d differences in family c o m p o s i t i o n a m o n g
w o m e n in different e m p l o y m e n t statuses.
E x a m i n i n g the average p r o p o r t i o n o f time in the r o o m engaged in specific activities

3 Percentages for each room do not total 100% because not all activities are reported in this study (e.g.
studying, civic activities).
96 S. Ahrentzen et al.

TABLE 3
Average proportion of time in home spent in rooms for mothers of different employment, adjusted
.for Jamily income and family size

Employment Status

Total time Time alone Time with others

FTE PTE NE FTE PTE NE FTE PTE NE

Room
Living Room 12% 12% 15% 3% 2% 3% 8% 8% 11%
Kitchen 16% 23% 23%" 4% 6% 5% d 12% 17% 17% 0
Bedroom(s) " 56% 46% 44% h 17% 13% ll%e 39% 33% 32% h
Bathroom(s) 5% 4% 3% c 3% 2% 1%f 2% 2% 2%
n (205) (91) (201) (205) (91) (201) (205) (91) (201)

F=13.81 2,492df P<0.001 q=0.23

b F=20.46 2,492df P<0.001 q=0.28
c F=3.78 2,492df P<0.05 q=0.13
d F - 3"05 2,492df P < 0"05 q =0"11
"F=3"83 2,492df P < 0"05 q =0"12
S F = 4"62 2,492df P < 0'01 q =0"14
gF=ll'79 2,492df P<0"001 q=0"21
hF=3.89 2,492df P<0"05 q:0"12

by the employment status of women, we see few significant differences (Table 4); the
more substantive ones being that full-time employed women spend a greater
proportion of their time at home in the bathroom attending to private needs than part-
time and non-employed mothers (64% for FTE, 56% for PTE, and 50% for N E
mothers) and a greater proportion of their time at home in bedrooms than non-
employed mothers, also attending to private needs, presumably sleeping (84% for FTE,
78% for PTE, and 77% for NE).

Differences between women of different marital status

Married mothers spend a larger proportion of their day at home in the kitchen than do
single mothers; single mothers spend a larger proportion of time in bedrooms (Table 5).
Analyses that examine co-occupancy reveal differences between single and married
mothers in use of the living room, kitchen, and bedrooms, with single mothers spending
less proportion of their time at home in those spaces with others.
However these differences may reflect the differences in employment status between
married and single mothers. Table 6, examining differences between married and single
women within same employment status, shows no differences for total time spent in
these spaces. However, within both FTE and N E groups, single mothers spend more
time alone in bedrooms and living rooms than married mothers. ~

Summary and conclusions

Gender differences
Findings indicate that when married men and women have the same full-time
employment status, they spend the same amount of time in core rooms of the home
except for the kitchen. However in all rooms examined they differed on whether or not
4Part-time employed mothers were dropped from these analyses because of the small number (n = 10).
 Space, Time, and Activity 97

TABLE 4
Average proportion of time in home spent in specific rooms
engaged in specific activity for mothers of different employment
status, adjusted for family income and family size
FTE PTE NE

Liv&g room
Domestic work 6% 7% 8%
Child care 9% 10% 11%
Private needs 10% 11% 9%
Passive leisure 39% 33% 42%
Active leisure 1% 2% 3%
Kitchen
Domestic work 56% 57% 55%
Child care 8% 8% 10%
Private needs 24% 21% 23%
Passive leisure 5% 8% 8% a
Active leisure 0 1% 0b
Bedroom(s)
Domestic work 2% 6% 4% c
Child care 6% 8% 10% n
Private needs 84% 78% 77% e
Bathroom(s)
Domestic work 2% 4% 4%
Child care 14% 14% 19%
Private needs 64% 56% 50% y
(205) (91) (201)

a F=3.37 2,492df P<0'05 r/=0-12

b F=3.89 2,492df P<0"05 r/=0.12
c F=6.41 2,492df P<0-0I q=0.16
a F=3-90 2,492df P<0"05 q=0"13
eF=3.11 2,492df P<0-05 r/=0.11
IF=6"49 2,492df P<0-01 q=0"16

TABLE 5
Average proportion of time in home spent in rooms for mothers of different marital
status, adjusted for family income and family size
Marital status

Total time Time alone Time with others

Room Married Single Married Single Married Single

Living r o o m 13% 13% 2% 6% c 10% 6% e

Kitchen 21% 15% a 5% 5% 16% 10% s
Bedroom(s) 47% 57% b 9% 33% a 38% 23% 0
Bathroom(s) 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%
n (400) (97) (400) (97) (400) (97)

aF=10.92 1,493df P<0.001 q=0.18

bF=10.95 1,493df P<0.001 r/=0.18
c F=10"54 1,493df P<0.001 q=0"17
a F=73.42 1,493df P<0.001 r/-0.43
e F=4'17 1,493df P < 0.05 q=0"ll
SF=ll-85 1,493df P<0-001 r/=0.18
gF=18"00 1,493df P<0-001 r/=0"22
98 S. Ahrentzen et al.

TABLE 6
For mothers o f same employment status, average time spent (reported in minutes) in
rooms, broken down by marital status, adjusted for family income and family size

Full-time employed

Total time Time alone Time with others

Room Married Single Married Single Married Single

Living room 93 91 20 48 a 73 43
Kitchen 135 106 28 32 107 74
Bedroom(s) 481 532 69 339b 392 193C
Bathroom(s) 34 38 19 23 15 15
n (152) (53) (152) (53) (152) (53)

Non-employed

Total time Time alone Time with others

Room Married Single Married Single Married Single

Living room 176 215 39 86d 137 129

Kitchen 257 233 56 44 202 189
Bedroom(s) 517 489 114 245 e 402 24M
Bathroom(s) 45 16 21 11 24 6
n (167) (34) (167) (34) (167) (34)

"F=3.76 1,201df P<0.05 q=0.17

bF=50.89 1,201df P<0.001 q=0.57
F=17'06 1,20ldf P<0-001 r/=0.35
d F=4.46 1,197df P<0.05 ~/=0.18
e F=7'06 1,197df P<0-01 r/=0.23
r F =7"04 1,197df P< 0.01 q =0.23

they are alone and on what they do in those spaces. Thus, although the time spent in the
rooms is essentially the same for employed mothers and fathers, the experiences of
those spaces differ. In the living room, men compared to women are more often
involved in passive leisure activities like reading or watching television. In the kitchen,
women are more likely than men to be involved in domestic work. In bedrooms and
bathrooms married women are more likely than men to be involved in taking care of
children.
Married, fully-employed women compared to men spend their time in the home in
activities with others. Given the greater amount of time engaged in child-care duties by
women for this sample (Michelson, 1985), it may be safe to presume that this time is
spent with children. Thus, although full-time employment diminishes the difference
between men and women in the distribution of time spent in particular rooms of the
home, it does not similarly adjust for the activities and interactions with others in these
rooms.
As mentioned before, other rooms of the home besides these four were not included
in the analyses. It is possible that compensation or adaptation occurs in other spaces of
the home. It may be that to get away from others, women retreat to other available
rooms of the home such as a study or a basement. Certainly Virginia Woolfwas not the
first woman to seek a refuge, or a room of one's own, in the home (Woolf, 1929).
 Space, Time, and Activity 99

However, other studies indicate such extra rooms are infrequently available to women,
being more commonly the domain of men (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton,
1981; Churchman and Sebba, 1985).

Differences among women

Differences among women exist based on employment and marital status. Full-time
employed women spend a greater proportion of time in the bedroom and less time in
the kitchen. When in the bedroom they spend a larger proportion of time than the
others sleeping and less in domestic and child-care duties.
Marital status also accounts for differences in space usage. Married women spend a
greater proportion of their time in the kitchen, and in them with others, but less of their
time at home in the bedroom. They spend more time than single mothers in the kitchen
and living room with others. Since analyses statistically controlled for the size of
family, these differences cannot be explained by larger numbers of persons in the
married women's homes. More likely these findings reflect the larger number of adult
members (i.e. spouse) at home. It may be that single women spend more time alone in a
living room, not because there are less people to associate with, but less adult members
to be with in this more social area o f the home.
However, when looking at marital status differences among women of similar
employment status, differences between single and married women in the time spent in
these rooms disappear. Marital status does not seem to be a major factor in explaining
different time usage of space when employment factors are taken into account.
However, again when we look at who else is in the room, we find that for bedrooms and
lix~ing rooms, married mothers are less likely to be in those spaces alone compared to
single mothers regardless of employment status.

Concluding remarks
In 1986, Franck urged environmental design researchers to critically inspect the
meanings and assumptions behind the categories they use in theory and research.
Gender is too often treated in research as a variable instead of an analytic
construct. When treated as the former, gender is simply analogous to sex differences.
When treated as the latter, gender becomes a means of interpreting socially constructed
roles and relationships, ascribed to and/or actually assumed by men and
women. Rather than addressing women as a homogeneous group per se, researchers
need to take a finer look at the specific qualities and characteristics distinct to men and
women which provide them with their distinct, or shared, experiences.
In this study, we made an initial attempt at this type of analysis, by separately
examining differences due to sex, employment, and marital status. These three are
complexly interrelated in the use of space in the home. Among women, employment
status makes a difference. And among persons of the same employment and marital
status, gender makes a difference. Experiences of space in the home, of how we use it
and who we use it with, reflect the extent of outside employment and the domestic
duties typically ascribed to and undertaken by women regardless of their work roles
outside the home.
This study illustrates the importance of making a finer differentiation not only
among social characteristics of gender and employment, but also of place and time and
activity. Differences between men and women lie not simply in time and place, but what
is happening within the same time and place.
100 S. Ahrentzen e t al.

The next step is to examine the integration of spatial arrangements, spatial usage,
and psychological attachment o f the home. The works by Hayward (1977) and Saegert
and Winkel (1980) provide a foundation for new research directions. In assessing
different segments of the home, Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) show
that women compared to men hold special attachments to the more communal areas of
the home, such as the kitchen, dining room, and living room. Women's emphasis on
communal rooms is further supported by a laboratory study of college undergraduates
constructing home models (Keeley and Edney, 1983). While women designed smaller
houses, they devoted a greater proportion of home space to communal rooms, such as
living room, dining room, kitchen, and corridors, than to bedrooms. Gender differences
in attachment and spatial emphasis found in these studies may reflect not only
differences in occupancy time but also in the type of activity and the presence of other
people associated with that occupancy. However, such trends should not necessarily be
considered unconditional needs or desires since women have traditionally been
constrained from spatial independence by economic discrimination, societal
ideologies, and cultural norms.
Further attention needs to be paid to the spatial arrangement of the home. A goal for
subsequent research endeavours is to provide information and support for designing
homes which complement the lifestyles of those living there. Smith (1971) provides
some examples of various housing layouts and their implications for accessibility and
permeability of household relationships. A kitchen that is enclosed and tangential to
the rest of the home versus one that is open and central may have different implications
for a resident's usage and relationship to others in the home.
We advocate work which further examines the meaning and experience of spaces in
the home, and assesses the extent to which this reflects usage, activity, design,
household composition and organization, social contact, and time. We also advocate
work which examines the meaning of gender by the myriad roles and social
relationships, both ascribed and assumed, by men and women today.

References

Allen, S. (1983). Production and reproduction: The lives of women homeworkers. Sociological
Review, 37, 649-665.
Berk, R. A. and Berk, S. F. (1979). Labor and Leisure at Home. Beverley Hills: Sage.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92.
Canter, D. (1986). Putting situations in their place: Foundations for a bridge between social and
environmental psychology. In A. Furnham (ed.) Social Behavior in Context. London: Allyn
& Bacon.
Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway. (1983). The Time-Budget Survey, 1980-81. Norges
Offlcielle Statistikk B378. Oslo: Kongsvinger.
Churchman, A. and Sebba, R. (1985) Women's territoriality in the home. In M. Safir, M. T.
Mednick, D. Israeli and J. Bernard (eds) Women's Worlds. New York: Praeger.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic
Symbols and The Self. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engels, F. (1902). The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and The State. Chicago: Kerr & Co.
Foderaro, L. W. (September 21, 1986). A dream revisited: Ideal home looks different to women
now. Milwaukee Journal, IF, 3F.
Franck, K. A. (1986). The cost of knowing: A call for examining categories in environmental
design research. In J. Wineman, R. Barnes and C. Zimring (eds) The Costs of Not Knowing...
Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of Environmental Design Research Association.
Washington, D.C.: EDRA.
Galbraith, J. K. (1973). Economics and the Public Purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
 Space, Time, and Activity 101

Geerken, M. & Gove, W. R. (1983). At Home and at Work: The Family's Allocation of Labor.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hanson, S. and Hanson, P. (1981). The impact of married women's employment on household
travel patterns: A Swedish example. Transportation, 10, 165.
Hayward, G. (1977). Psychological Concepts of Home among Urban Middle Class Families with
Young Children. Doctoral Dissertation, Environmental Psychology Program, City
University of New York.
Keeley, R. M. and Edney, J. J. (1983). Model house designs for privacy, security, and social
interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 219-228.
Kron, J. (1983). Home-Psych. New York: Clarkson Potter.
Lopata, H. Z. and Thorne, B. (1978). On the term 'sex roles'. Signs, 3, 718-721.
MacKenzie, S. and Rose, D. (1983). Industrial change, the domestic economy, and home life. In
J. Anderson, S. Duncan and R. Hudson (eds) Redundant Spaces in Cities and Regions.
London: Academic Press.
Matsushima, C. (1982). Time-input and household work-output studies in Japan. In Z. Staikov
(ed.) It's About Time. Sofia: Jusautor.
Michelson, W. (1985). From Sun to Sun: Daily Obligations and Community Structure in the Lives
of Employed Women and Their Families. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Michelson, W. (1987). Measuring macroenvironment and behavior: The time budget and time
geography. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, and W. Michelson (eds), Methods in
Environmental and Behavior Research. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Niemi, I. et al. (1981) Use of Time in Finland. Study No. 65. Helsinki: Central Statistical Office of
Finland.
Nordenstam, U. (1984). Oforandrade konsroller i hummen [Unchanged sex roles in the home].
Valfards Bulletinen, 1, 10-11.
Oakley, A. (1974). Woman's Work: The Housewife, Past and Present. New York: Vintage.
Pleck, J. (1985). Working Wives/Working Husbands. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Robinson, J. P. (1977). How Americans Use Time. New York: Praeger.
Rosaldo, M. Z. and Lamphere, L. (1974). Women, culture, and society: A theoretical overview. In
M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds) Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Saegert, S. and Winkel, G. (1980) The home: A critical problem for changing sex roles. In G. R.
Wekerle, R. Peterson and D. Morley (eds) New Space for Women. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sharistanian, J. (1986). Introduction: Women's lives in the public and domestic spheres. In J.
Sharistanian (ed.) Gender, Ideology and Action: Historical Perspectives on Women's Public
Lives. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Smith, D. E. (1971) Household spaceand familyorganization. Pacific SociologicalReview,14, 53-78.
Szalai, A., et al. (1972). The Use of Time. The Hague: Mouton.
Thorne, B. (1982). Feminist rethinking of the family. In B. Thorne and M. Yalom (eds) Rethinking
the Family: Some Feminist Questions. New York: Longman.
Tognoli, J. (1980). Differences in women's and men's responses to domestic space. Sex Roles, 6,
833-842.
Tognoli, J. (1978). Men's relationship with domestic space. Paper presented at the Ninth
Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Tucson, Arizona.
Vanek, J. (1984). Housewives as workers. In P. Voydanoff (ed.), Work and Family. Palo Alto:
Mayfield.
Walker, K. and Woods, M. E. (1976). Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Family
Goods and Services. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Family of the American Home
Economics Association.
Wekerle, G. R. (1981). Women in the urban environment. In C. R. Stimpson, E. Dixler, M. J.
Nelson and K. B. Yatrakis (eds) Women and the American City. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981.
Woolf, V. (1929). A Room of One's Own. London: Hogarth.
Zaretsky, E. (1976). Capitalism, the Family and Personal Life. New York: Harper Colophon.
Ziegler, S. and Michelson, W. (1981). Complementary methods of data gathering in literate
urban populations. Human Organization, 40, 323-329.
Manuscript received February 1988
Revised manuscript received 4 October 1988