S. Coltrane - Research On Household Labor - Modeling and Measuring The Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work

Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine
Family Work
Author(s): Scott Coltrane
Source: Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 1208-1233
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566732
Accessed: 13/01/2009 19:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council on Family Relations and National Council on Family Relations are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and the Family.
http://www.jstor.org
SCOTT
COLTRANEUniversityof California-Riverside
Researchon HouseholdLabor:ModelingandMeasuring
of RoutineFamilyWork
the SocialEmbeddedness
This article reviewsmore than 200 scholarlyar- assumptionsabout who should performunpaid
ticles and bookson householdlaborpublishedbe- family work have changed more slowly. And
tween 1989 and 1999. As a maturingarea of changes in domestic behaviorhave been slower
study, this body of researchhas been concerned still. Althoughthe vast majorityof both men and
with understandingand documentinghow house- women now agree that family labor should be
workis embeddedin complexand shiftingsocial shared,few men assume equal responsibilityfor
processes relating to the well-beingof families, householdtasks.On average,womenperformtwo
the constructionof gender,and the reproduction or three times as much houseworkas men, and
of society.Majortheoretical,methodological,and the vast majorityof men, as well as most women,
empiricalcontributionsto the studyof household ratethese arrangements as fair.In part,this is be-
laborare summarized,and suggestionsforfurther cause most husbandsare employed more hours
research are offered.In summary,women have and earnmore income thando theirwives. Com-
reduced and men have increased slightly their pared with past decades, women are doing less
hourly contributions to housework. Although houseworkand men are doing slightlymore, but
men'srelativecontributionshave increased,wom- the redistributionof household labor has been
en still do at least twice as much routinehouse- slower and less profoundthananticipated.In this
workas men. Consistentpredictorsof sharingin- review, I suggest that these patternscan only be
clude both women's and men's employment, understoodby attendingto the symbolic signifi-
earnings,genderideology,and life-courseissues. canceof householdlaborin the socialconstruction
More balanceddivisionsof houseworkare asso- of gender and by analyzingthe social, cultural,
ciatedwithwomenperceivingfairness,experienc-
economic, and political contexts in which men
ing less depression,and enjoyinghighermarital andwomenformfamilies,raisechildren,andsus-
satisfaction. tain households.
As a topic worthyof seriousacademicstudy,
Americanfamiliesarefacingcomplexandcontra- houseworkcame of age in the 1990s. Not only
dictorychallengesas we embarkon the 21st cen- did the numberof books and articleson the sub-
tury.Althoughbeliefs aboutthe appropriate roles ject expanddramaticallyduringthat decade, but
of men and womenin the workplacehave under- scholars from a wide range of academicdisci-
gone substantialshiftsin the past severaldecades, plines turnedtheirattentionto isolatingthe causes
and consequencesof divisionsof householdlabor
Sociology Department,University of California,Riverside, for men, women, children,families, and society.
CA 92521-0419 (coltrane@ucr.edu).
Many of these studiesattemptedto operationalize
Key Words: division of labor, domestic labor, fairness, concepts and test hypothesesemergingfrom the
family, gender, housework. time-useresearchtradition(Berk & Berk, 1979;
1208 Journalof Marriageand the Family62 (November2000): 1208-1233

Household Labor 1209
Robinson,1977), or from past interviewand ob- portantto the maintenanceof society as the pro-
servational studies (Hochschild, 1989; Hood, ductive work that occurs in the formal market
1983). The more than200 workscited in this re- economy.Recent estimatessuggest that the total
view do not exhaust researchon the topic, but amountof time spent in unpaidfamily work is
they do representa cross-sectionof influentialso- aboutequal to the time spentin paid labor(Rob-
cial science worksin the field. Becausethe foun- inson & Godbey, 1997). Nevertheless, family
dationfor this researchwas laid in past decades, work-and especially housework-tends to be
readersinterestedin the historyand development trivializedin the popularimagination,in partbe-
of the field are encouragedto consult classic cause it is considered"women'swork." Recent
houseworkand marriagestudies (Bernard,1972; researchconfirmsthat family work is sharplydi-
Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Oakley, 1974; Vanek, vided by gender, with women spending much
1974), and earlier reviews (England& Farkas, more time on these tasks than do men and typi-
1986;Ferree,1990;Miller& Garrison,1982;Os- cally takingresponsibilityfor monitoringand su-
mond & Thorne, 1993; Shelton & John, 1996; pervising the work even when they pay for do-
Szinovacz, 1987; Thompson& Walker,1989). mestic services or delegate tasks to others.
The most importanttheme to emerge from Researchalso shows thatwomenperformmoreof
householdlaborstudiesin the past decadeis that the houseworkwhen they are marriedand when
houseworkis embeddedin complex and shifting they become parents,whereasmen tend to per-
patternsof social relations.Althoughmost studies formless houseworkwhentheymarryandassume
focus on only a few aspectsof this embeddedness, a smallershareof the householdwork aftertheir
takentogether,they revealhow houseworkcannot wives have children.Because new motherstend
be understoodwithoutrealizinghow it is related to reduce their employmenthours, and new fa-
to gender,householdstructure,familyinteraction, thers often increasetheirs,findingsabouthouse-
and the operationof both formal and informal work are best understoodwithinlargereconomic,
market economies. Recent research documents social, and family contexts.When time spent on
how householdlaborbothreflectsandperpetuates both paid and unpaid work is combined, most
culturalunderstandingsof family love and per- studies find that the total numberof hours con-
sonal fulfillment,as well as helping to structure tributedby husbandsand wives is much more
race, class, and gender relations. In particular, equal.Nevertheless,when women shouldera dis-
studies from the 1990s investigatehow the allo- proportionateshare of responsibilityfor house-
cation of householdlaboris linked to life-course work,theirperceptionsof fairnessandmaritalsat-
issues, maritalquality,kin relations,interpersonal isfaction decline, and depending on gender
power, symbolic exchange, social comparison, ideology andothermediatingfactors,maritalcon-
fairnessevaluation,genderideology and display, flict and women's depressionincrease.For men,
providerrole identification,and the scheduling in contrast,divisionsof householdlaborand per-
and performanceof paid labor.This review sum- ceptionsof fairnessare typicallyunrelatedto per-
marizeshow researchershave attemptedto spec- sonal well-beingor maritalsatisfaction.
ify andevaluatethese linkagesusingvariousmea- Because genderis a majororganizingfeature
surementand modelingtechniques.I firstdiscuss of household labor, researchhas explored how
some reasonsfor studyinghouseholdlabor,define men's and women'stask performancediffers and
importantterms, and suggest how gender and how theirexperienceandevaluationof housework
housework are related. Major theoretical ap- tend to diverge.In general,women have felt ob-
proachesare then presented,followed by a brief ligated to performhousework,and men have as-
discussionof methodologicalissues and a review sumed that domestic work is primarilythe re-
of empiricalfindings organizedinto sections on sponsibility of mothers, wives, daughters,and
major predictors,fairness evaluations,and out- low-paidfemale housekeepers.In contrast,men's
come assessments. participationin houseworkhas appearedoptional,
with mostcouples-even those sharingsubstantial
amounts of family work-characterizing men's
LABOR?
WHY STUDYHOUSEHOLD
contributionsas "helping"theirwives or partners
Humanexistencedependson the routineactivities (Coltrane1996). Much recent researchalso at-
that feed, clothe, shelter,and care for both chil- temptsto isolate the conditionsunderwhich men
dren and adults.In theoreticalterms,this family and women might come to share more of the
work-or social reproductivelabor-is just as im- housework.Most studies show that women who
1210 Journal of Marriage and the Family
are employed longer hours, earn more money, as consideringnonmarried households(e.g., single
have more education,and endorsegenderequity parents,cohabitors,gay or lesbiancouples,single
do less housework,whereas men who are em- persons),and refiningvarioustechniquesfor col-
ployedfewerhours,have moreeducation,anden- lecting householdlabordata.
dorsegenderequitydo moreof the housework.A Accordingto severallarge-samplenationalsur-
preponderanceof researchalso shows that when veys conductedin the UnitedStates,the five most
husbandsdo more,wives arelikely to evaluatethe time-consumingmajorhouseholdtasksinclude(a)
division of labor as fair, which, in turn,is asso-meal preparationor cooking, (b) housecleaning,
ciated with variousmeasuresof positive marital (c) shoppingfor groceriesand householdgoods,
quality. (d) washingdishesor cleaningup aftermeals,and
Because of the potential benefits of sharing (e) laundry, including washing, ironing, and
family work,the rapidincreasein women'slabor mendingclothes (Blair& Lichter,1991;Robinson
force participation,and increasing popular en- & Godbey, 1997). As discussed below, these
dorsementof equityideals in marriage,manyob- householdtasks are not only the most time-con-
serverspredictedthat the division of household suming,but also are less optionaland less able to
labor would become more gender-neutral. Nev- be postponedthan otherhouseholdtasks such as
ertheless, studies published in the 1970s and gardeningor house repairs.These seeminglynev-
1980s seemedto offerlittle supportfor this notion er-endingtaskshave been labeled"nondiscretion-
(Miller & Garrison,1982; Thompson& Walker, ary," "mundane,""repetitive,""onerous,""un-
1989). This left researcherswith a majorunan- relenting,"and "boring"(Blair& Lichter,1991;
sweredquestion:"Whydon'tmen do more?"Be- Starrels,1994;Thompson& Walker,1989).In this
fore analyzingwhat 1990s researchtells us about article, I label these activities "routinehouse-
this and otherquestions,I define some important work," or simply "housework"(see also Col-
terms. trane, 1996; DeMaris & Longmore, 1996). Al-
though some people find pleasurein doing this
WHATIs HOUSEHOLD LABOR?
work,especiallythe cooking,mostmen andwom-
en reportthat they do not like housework(De-
In most studies, the concept of housework or Vault, 1991; Robinson& Milkie, 1997, 1998). I
householdlaboris rarelydefinedexplicitly,except label residual tasks such as household repairs,
for explaininghow variablesare measuredand yardcare, drivingotherpeople, or payingbills as
providingsome indicationof whetherchild care "occasional"or "other"householdlabor.In gen-
is includedin its definition.As Sheltonand John eral,these othertaskshave been foundto be more
(1996, p. 300) note, however,a fairly consistent time flexible,morediscretionary,andmoreenjoy-
conceptualizationhas emerged in the literature: able thaneverydayroutinehouseworktasks(Col-
"Houseworkmost often refers to unpaid work trane, 1998; Larson,Richards,& Perry-Jenkins,
done to maintain family members and/or a 1994).
home." Althoughthis concept can include child
minding, household management,and various GENDER AND HOUSEHOLDLABOR
kinds of emotionallabor,most householdlabor
studieshave excludedthese less visible or over- Nationalsurveysandtime-diarystudiesshow that
lapping types of "work" from study (Ferree, Americanhouseholdmembersspend2 or 3 hours
1990; Thompson& Walker,1989). As discussed on routinehouseworkfor every hour they spend
below, studies in the 1990s both continuedand on other householdlabor.Accordingto the Na-
problematizedthis conceptualizationof house- tional Survey of Families and Households
work, but the lack of attentionto child care and (NSFH),in 1992-1993 the averagemarriedwom-
emotionallaborcontinuedto be a majorshortcom- an did aboutthree times as much routinehouse-
ing of researchon housework.In addition,where- workas the averagemarriedman(32 vs. 10 hours
as previous studies tended to predict absolute per week), and the average marriedman did a
hoursof totalhouseholdlaborperformedby wom- little less than twice as much occasionalhouse-
en or men, many studiesin the 1990s used pro- hold laboras the averagemarriedwoman(10 vs.
portionalmeasuresfor marriedcouples and con- 6 hours per week). This division of labor is so
sideredthe gender-segregation of tasks.As noted influencedby genderthatthe averageman would
below, some studiesalso beganto look at the con- have to reallocatemore than 60% of his family
tributionsof children,kin, and paid help, as well workto otherchoresbeforegenderequalitywould
be achievedin the distributionof labortimeacross tasks can carry differentmeaningsaboutgender,

all domestictasks (Blair& Lichter,1991, p. 99). thatthese meaningsaresubjectto change,andthat
Some research still combines all forms of theremaybe severalgenderedthresholdsthatmen
household labor into one summarymeasureof must cross to become high participators(Twiggs,
hoursworked,failing to distinguishbetweenrou- McQuillan,& Ferree,1999). In addition,some re-
tine tasks and occasionaltasks (Lye & Biblarz, searchersuse nomenclaturethat focuses on the
1993; Sanchez & Thomson, 1997; Shelton & content, timing, or characterof the tasks them-
John,1993a, 1993b).In general,this approachex- selves. For example,Baxter (1997) capturedthe
plains only a small portion of the variance in distinctionbetweencooking and cleaning on the
household labor as a dependentvariableand is one handandyardworkand automaintenanceon
less successfulthan alternateapproachesin spec- the otherby labelingthem "inside"versus "out-
ifying how and why householdlabormightinflu- side" domestic tasks. Starrels (1994) used the
ence fairness evaluationsor maritalsatisfaction. term "daily"to measurecookingandmeal clean-
Similarly, a focus on men's absolute hours of up but noted that other "female gender-typed
houseworkhas had limited success. Reviewing tasks" such as shoppingfor groceriesand clean-
previous studies, Blair and Lichter (1991) con- ing house are more likely to occur on a weekly
cluded "the singularfocus on husbands'hours or nondailybasis. Barnettand Shen (1997) de-
workedmay be inappropriate or even misleading" veloped a promisingdistinctionbetween "high-
(p. 100). schedule-control" and "low-schedule-control"
A majorityof householdlaborstudiesnow rec- householdtasks(see also Bird& Ross, 1993;Ross
ognize and measure differences between task & Mirowsky,1992).In employingthe terms"rou-
types andconstructproportional measuresto com- tine housework"and "otherhouseholdlabor"in
pare husbands'and wives' contributions.In ac- this review,I call attentionto the characterof the
knowledgingthe gendertyping of householdla- tasks themselves, ratherthan to culturalbeliefs
bor, many researchers refer to the routine about the suitabilityof one gender to perform
houseworkchoresof cooking,cleaning,andshop- them.
ping as "female" (Presser,1994); "female-dom-
inated" (Blair & Lichter,1991); "female-stereo- WHO DOES WHAT?
typic" (Sanchez & Kane, 1996); "female
gender-typed" (Starrels, 1994); "traditionally Recent studiesusing randomsamplesand precise
feminine"(Orbuch& Eyster,1997), orjust "fem- measurementtechniquesdemonstratethat wom-
inine" (Antill, Goodnow, Russell, & Cotton, en-especially employedwomen-are doing less
1996). Conversely, less frequenttasks such as houseworkthan they used to and that men are
householdrepairs,mowing the lawn, and taking doing somewhatmore. Based on nationaltime-
care of cars are often labeled "male," "male- diary studies, Robinson and Godbey (1997) re-
dominated,""male-typed, "or "masculine"(Blair ported that American women's time spent on
& Lichter;Shelton,1992). A few researchersalso houseworkdeclined from 24 hours per week in
use a third category of "gender-neutral" when 1965 to 16 hoursin 1985, a decline of one third.
neithermen nor women are found to performa Duringthatperiod,employedwomencut back on
preponderanceof the hours for a particulartask the time they devoted to houseworkand shifted
(e.g., bill paying,driving). many chores to the weekends,so that they were
Oftenresearcherssignalthatthe tasksto which doing aboutone thirdless family work thannon-
they assign genderedtermsare neitherinherently employedwomen. At the same time, men's con-
nor absolutelygenderedby, for example,putting tributionsto routine houseworkincreasedfrom
the term in quotes: "masculinetasks" (Blair & about2 hoursper week to about4 hoursper week
Lichter,1991), "'feminine'tasks" (Hall, Walker, (Robinson& Godbey, 1997). As a consequence,
& Acock, 1995), "traditionally'female'"(Lennon men's proportionatecontributionto housework
& Rosenfeld, 1994). In applyinggenderedlabels doubledbetween1965 and 1985, fromabout15%
to these activities,researchersexplicitlyacknowl- to 33% of the total. Using a differentmethodol-
edge thatgenderinfluenceshouseholdlaborallo- ogy, the NSFH shows that women's housework
cation, althoughsuch labelingalso carriesa dan- contributionsdeclinedslightlyfrom 1987-1988 to
ger of perpetuating popular cultural 1992-1993, as men's continuedto increaseslow-
understandingsabout housework as "women's ly. Broadlysimilarresultshave been reportedus-
work." Recent research suggests that specific ing othernationaldata such as the NationalSur-
vey of Children, the National Longitudinal cookingandcleaning,especiallyif they areunder

Surveys of YoungWomen,and the Panel Study 30 years of age (Robinson& Godbey, 1997). In
of Income Dynamics. The rate of increase in light of such findings,and in contrastto previous
men's absolutehoursof routinehouseworkactu- pessimismaboutmen's assumptionof housework
ally exceeded the rate of decrease in women's (e.g., Miller & Garrison, 1982; Thompson &
hours,but becausemen were startingfromsuch a Walker,1989), researchersin the 1990s tendedto
low level, theircontributionshave not approached voice guardedoptimismabouta narrowingof the
those of women.Becausethe averagewomanstill gendergap in housework.Manyprojectedthatas
does about three times the amount of routine women's opportunitiesin the labor marketim-
houseworkas the averageman does, researchers prove and as public supportfor genderequityin-
have focused on the importanceof genderin the creases,therewill be more sharingof housework
allocationof domestic work. In the last decade (Barnett& Shen, 1997; Brayfield,1992; Hersch
review, for example, Thompson and Walker & Stratton,1994;Pittman,Solheim,& Blanchard,
(1989) dismissedvirtuallyall othercommonlyad- 1996;Presser,1994;Waite& Goldscheider,1992).
vanced predictorsfor household labor sharing: Because findingsof greaterproportionatesharing
"women's employment, time availability, re- amongmarriedcouples are drivenmoreby wom-
sources,consciousideology,andpowerdo not ac- en's time adjustmentsthan men's, other scholars
count for why wives still do the bulk of family focus on how domesticlaborallocationcontinues
work" (p. 857). Similarly,Calasantiand Bailey to perpetuatewomen's oppression (Hartmann,
(1991) arguedthat "focusingon the persistence 1993; Sanchez,1996).
of the genderdifferencein the divisionof domes- Finally,householdlaborresearchin the 1990s
tic laborratherthanon factorsaccountingfor the became much more sophisticatedin its theories,
small amountof changemay be more fruitfulfor methods,andresearchquestions.As notedbelow,
understanding anderadicatinginequality"(p. 49). recent studies show that a wide range of social,
Whetherthe householdlabor "glass" appears economic, and interpersonalfactors combine to
half empty or half full depends on how much influencehouseholdlaborandthathouseworkper-
changeone expects.Recentresearchshowswe are formancehas complexeffects on maritalandfam-
far from reachinggenderparityin the sharingof ily relationships.Following some path-breaking
householdwork, yet most Americansjudge their studies in previous decades (e.g., Goodnow,
divisions of labor to be "fair."As a result, sig- 1988), more attentionhas been paid to the house-
nificantattentionhas been turnedtowardunder- hold tasks of children,with resultsgenerallysug-
standingthe role of fairnessevaluationsin the al- gesting thatteenagehouseworkis at least as gen-
location of household labor. As noted below, dered as that of adults. In addition,researchers
women continue to feel responsiblefor family have moved beyond marriedcouples to analyze
members'well-beingand aremorelikely thanare the causes and consequencesof householdlabor
men to adjusttheir work and home schedulesto performancefor cohabitors,gay and lesbiancou-
accommodateothers(Sanchez& Thomson,1997; ples, single parenthouseholds,single persons,re-
Shelton, 1992; Spain & Bianchi, 1996). Married tirees, kin networks,and paid domesticlaborers.
women are still expected to manage home and Researchersalso have begun documentingsimi-
family (Coltrane,1996;Ferree,1991;Hays, 1996; laritiesand differencesin houseworkamongrace/
Mederer,1993), and wives spend two or three ethnic groups and some studies have compared
times as many hourson houseworkas theirhus- patternsof houseworkin variouscountries.Taken
bands(Demo & Acock, 1993; Hersch& Stratton, as a whole, these studiesof householdlaborpro-
1997; Presser,1994). Not surprisingly,employed vide us with a betterunderstanding of the embed-
wives enjoy less leisure and experience more dedness of houseworkin various social institu-
stress than their husbandsdo (Barnett& Shen, tions and interpersonal processes and offer
1997; Hochschild,1989; Milkie & Petola, 1999; promisefor predictingfuturetrends.
Robinson& Godbey,1997; Schor,1991).
Despite continuing gender segregation in THEORETICAL IN THESTUDYOF
DEVELOPMENTS
householdtasks, many Americanhouseholdsare
HOUSEHOLD
LABOR
renegotiatingnorms and behaviors.Among mar-
ried women, 40% indicate that they want their The typical introductorysection of an empirical
husbandsto do more housework,and men are household labor journal article refers to three
more likely than ever to reportthat they enjoy "theories"of labor allocationas (a) relativere-
sources, (b) socialization-genderrole attitudes, titudes or deeply genderedpersonalities.Gender

and (c) time availability-constraints. The first constructiontheoriesare variouslylabeled "gen-
"theory" suggests that a person with more in- dertheory"(Ferree,1990, 1991;Potuchek,1992),
come will do less housework,the secondsuggests "doinggender"(Coltrane,1989;West& Fenster-
that people socializedto believe in gender-segre- maker,1993), "genderperspective"(Osmond&
gatedwork will conformto those beliefs, andthe Thorne,1993; Thompson,1993); "interactionist"
thirdsuggeststhatwhen people spendmore time (Pestello & Voydanoff, 1991), "relational"
in paid work they will spend less time in house- (Thompson & Walker, 1989), "symbolic ex-
work. Controlvariablesare typically added and change" (Brines, 1993; Hochschild, 1989), or
these three discrete hypothesesare tested in an gender "display" (Brines 1994; Fenstermaker,
effort to specify how and why couples divide 1996). Doing specific household tasks provides
housework.In the 1990s, an increasingnumberof opportunities to demonstrateto oneself andto oth-
scholarspublishedarticles and books presenting ers that one is a competentmemberof a sex cat-
moreelaboratereasonsfor accepting,challenging, egory with the capacityanddesireto performap-
and understandingthe allocationof family work. propriatelygenderedbehaviors(Berk, 1985;West
Some exploredin greaterdetail the multifaceted & Fenstermaker,1993). Hartmann(1993) called
underpinningsto the three common housework such theories "gender-plus"because they begin
predictorsand arguedfor a more complex theo- to specify how the performanceof tasks is about
reticalunderstandingof the many psychological, somethingelse besidesor in additionto the house-
interpersonal,institutional,cultural,andeconomic work, thus questioning assumptionsof human
forces involved. In the following brief review, I capitalor rationalchoice models (see below). A
discussconceptualdevelopmentsin householdla- largenumberof authorsduringthe 1990s drewon
bor studies under seven general headings. The a version of gender constructiontheory to help
fuzzy boundariesbetweencategoriessuggestthat explain household labor results (Blain, 1994;
theoriesin this areaareneitherexhaustivenormu- DeVault,1990, 1991;Erickson,1993; Greenstein,
tually exclusive, and deserve greaterelaboration 1996a;Hall et al., 1995; Mederer,1993; Perkins
in the coming decade. & DeMeis, 1997; Perry-Jenkins& Crouter,1990;
Perry-Jenkins,Seery, & Crouter,1992; Pifia,&
GenderConstruction Bengtson, 1993, 1995; Risman & Johnson-Su-
merford,1998; Sanchez & Kane, 1996; Thomp-
Given the failure of neo-classicaleconomic the- son, 1991;VanEvery, 1997;Zvonkovic,Greaves,
ories andthe threecommonhouseworkpredictors Schmiege,& Hall, 1996).
to explaindomesticdivisionsof laborin past de-
cades,researchersin the 1990sincreasinglyturned Economicand ExchangePerspectives
to theoriesthatincorporategenderin its symbolic
and performancedimensions.Perhapsthe most Brines (1993, p. 303) suggestedthat three over-
popularapproachto emerge in the last decade, lappingeconomic models of householdlabor al-
genderconstructiontheoriessuggest that women location have "come to dominate the research
and men perform different tasks because such agenda."The neoclassicaleconomictheoryof hu-
practices affirm and reproducegenderedselves, man capital investmentand its "new household
thus reproducinga gendered interactionorder. economics"variantssuggestthatmen andwomen
Drawingon symbolic interactionist,phenomeno- allocatetime to householdor paid workbasedon
logical, ethnomethodological, and feministunder- maximizingoverall utility or efficiency (Becker,
standingsof everydaylife, the genderconstruction 1981).Humancapitalis typicallymeasuredby ed-
approachposits active subjectslimited by situa- ucation,previouslabormarketexperience,andthe
tionalexigencies,social structuralconstraints,and wages or jobs availableto an employee (Bergen,
submerged power imbalances (Ferree, 1991; 1991).The resource-bargaining perspectivefocus-
Hochschild, 1989; Hood, 1983; Komter, 1989; es on familypower.It views the divisionof house-
Pestello & Voydanoff,1991;West& Fenstermak- hold laboras an outcomeof negotiationbetween
er, 1993). These theoriesare most similarto the people who use valuedresourcesto strikethe best
hypothesis of socialization-genderrole attitudes deal based on self-interest(Brines, 1993). The
noted above, but they reject the assumptionthat economicdependencymodel (whichothersmight
people are automaticallysocializedinto rigidgen- place in the institutionalor socialist-feministcat-
der roles or that they develop relativelyfixed at- egories discussed below) focuses on maritalex-
changes in the context of gender and class in- question the assumptionthat labor supply and
equalities.In this variant,women are assumedto household labor demand are separate(Nicol &
enter into a "contract"wherein they exchange Nakamura,1994) and have suggestedthat when
householdlabor in returnfor economic support women do more housework,theirwage rates are
from a mainbreadwinner(Brines,1993, 1994). depressed(Heath,Ciscel, & Sharp,1998; Hersch
In most householdlabor studies, these three & Stratton,1994, 1997). A small but increasing
economic-exchangeapproachesarelumpedinto a numberof economistsrecommendthattheoretical
single relativeresourcehypothesis,thoughBeck- models shouldattemptto incorporatemoresocio-
er's human capital theory, with its assumptions logical factorsrelatedto gender or work prefer-
aboutthe efficiencyof laborspecializationby gen- ences (Kooreman& Kapteyn, 1990; Van der
der,is sometimesoperationalized usingtimeavail- Lippe & Siegers, 1994).
ability.As othershave noted (Bergen, 1991; Fer-
ree, 1991; Peterson & Gerson, 1993), these
InstitutionalInfluences
theoriesare putativelygenderneutral,emphasize
choice, and assume that houseworkallocationis Related to the economic and exchange theories
governedby the rules and principlesof exchange describedabove are conceptualapproachesthat
relations.All threetheoriessharean emphasison focus on the constraintsimposed by the formal
how partners'earningsenterinto the allocationof economy, informal markets,state services, and
houseworkbetween husbandsand wives. Beller other institutions.Recent studies focus on job
(1993) notedthatBecker'sdivision-of-labormod- scheduling,showingthatshift workand flex-time
el does not accountfor individualsderivingutility promotehouseworksharing,as do non-overlap-
directlyfrom spendingtime in certainactivities, ping employmentschedulesfor spouses (Manke,
ratherthanjust from what is produced;in other Crouter,& McHale, 1994; Presser,1994). Prom-
words the model ignores that couples might get ising new researchandtheorizingin this areaalso
enjoymentout of cookinga mealtogetheror value focus on the purchaseof domestic services, in-
equityas a goal along with marginalutility.Even cluding meals, child care, and house cleaning
if they accept some of the utility maximization (Bergen, 1991; Cohen, 1998; Oropesa, 1993;
assumptionsof neoclassicalmodels of laborallo- Presser,1994), and on working-classand immi-
cation,most sociologistsinsistthatsocial andcul- grant women who provide these services (Baca
tural factors be included in theoreticalmodels Zinn, 1990; Glenn, 1992; Graham,1991). Other
alongwith macroeconomicopportunitystructures, researchlooks at the organizationof domesticand
the family economy, and humancapital charac- child-care work through kinship networks and
teristics(e.g., Bergen 1991; Bielby, 1993; Blum- neighborhoodsupport(e.g., Abel & Nelson, 1990;
berg& Colemen,1989).Refutingrelatedassump- Gallagher,1994;Gerstel& Gallagher,1994;Padg-
tions of neoclassical choice models, Glass and ett, 1997).Some cross-cultural researchin thistra-
Camarigg(1992) showedthatoccupationalgender dition has looked at how global economies and
segregationdoes not resultfromwomenchoosing immigrationinfluence divisions of labor; other
jobs that afford them more opportunitiesto per- studieshave examinedthe role of the statein pro-
form domestictasks. motingchild care and enforcingtax policies that
Although rarely citing the literaturenoted influence the allocation of housework (Baxter,
above, some economistsin the 1990s also began 1997; Hondagneu-Sotelo,1992; Miraftab,1994;
to challenge simplifying assumptionsof human Sanchez,1994b).Othertheoriesin the generalin-
capitalandhouseholdproductiontheories,includ- stitutionalcategory have provideda more com-
ing the ideas thattastes or preferencesfor house- prehensiveexplanationfor genderstratification by
work are fixed, exogenous,or irrelevantand that relyingon variouslevels of analysisandpostulat-
social and interpersonalinfluenceson marketand ing an interplayamongtechnological,market,po-
nonmarketlabor allocation are epiphenomenal litical, cultural,interactional,andpersonalfactors
(Barmby,1994). For example,JusterandStafford in the distributionof labor.Suchtheoriesposit re-
(1991, p. 506) noted thatthe humancapitalliter- ciprocallinks betweenthe genderorganizationof
atureon opportunitycosts of differentworkersig- reproductionand the genderorganizationof pro-
nores the preferencesof householdmembersfor duction.They also considersexualpolitics,polit-
differentactivities,even thoughthereis well-doc- ical economy,resourcemobilization,social con-
umentedevidence that those preferencesdiffer. flicts, and social movementsas they relateto the
Recent econometricstudiesalso have called into changinglife options of men and women (Chaf-
etz, 1990; Collins, Chafetz,Blumberg,Coltrane, ers) have staked out positions on family values,
& Turner,1993;Curtis& MacCorquodale,1990). divorce, same-sex marriage, domestic partner
Such integratedtheorieslend themselvesto cross- laws, abortionrights,welfare,covenantmarriage,
nationalstudies(Baxter,1997; Chafetz& Hagan, responsiblefatherhood,custody,and otherissues
1996; Sanchez1993, 1994b),but can also explain (e.g., Glenn, 1997;Popenoe,1996; Stacey, 1996).
individualbehavior(Blumberg& Coleman,1989; The generaldebatesaboutcultureandmoralityare
Gerson,1993). too broad to addresshere, but more narrowde-
bates about family work tend to revolve around
issues of whetherwomen are uniquelyqualified
Socialist-FeministTheories
to performfamily serviceandwhetherhousework
Socialist-Feministtheorieswere some of the first reflectscaringlove, oppression,or both. Conser-
to stress the systemic importanceof the sexual vative andreligiousversionssuggestthatmostac-
division of labor (e.g., Hartmann,1981). A dis- ademicmodels of houseworkfocus too much on
tinctive featureof this approachis its continued individualism,conflict, and inequality and not
emphaseson the dual systems of capitalismand enoughon spiritualityand the positive aspectsof
patriarchy(Agger& Shelton,1993;Wright,Shire, moral obligationand service to family members
Hwang,Dolan, & Baxter,1992). Otherdistinctive (Ahlander& Bahr,1995;Bahr& Ahlander,1996).
featuresincludeits politicalactivismandits atten- Liberaland feministversionssuggestthatpower,
tion to historicaldynamicsleadingto the present inequality,andlove areuniquelyintertwinedwith-
oppressive situation for working-class women in the householdeconomy,religion,and the gen-
(Baxter1993; Calasanti& Bailey, 1991;Jackson, eral culture(Hays, 1996; Sanchez,1996; Thomp-
1992; Kynaston, 1996). Socialist-feminismas- son, 1993). Recent scholarshipin the philosophy
sumes that asking about "sex-role"attitudeswill of moralshas begunto reconceptualizesocialjus-
not revealhow the sexualdivisionof laborserves tice as it relatesto gender,citizenship,andthe care
the interestsof both men and capital. This ap- of othersinside and outside of families, but this
proach shares some assumptionswith economic workhas rarelybeenrecognizedor appreciated by
theoriesbut denies the free-marketandindividual family science scholars(Cancian& Oliker,1999;
choice premisesof those theories.Socialist-femi- Okin, 1989; Tronto,1993).
nist researchon houseworkalso containsanalyses
of institutions,with primaryemphasis on how
Life-CourseFactors
race, class, and genderconstituteoverlappingbut
relatively autonomoushierarchiesin the world The 1990s saw a proliferationof middle-levelhy-
system(BacaZinn, 1990;Glenn,1992;VanEvery, potheses aboutthe impacton houseworkof age,
1997). work experiences, living arrangements,family
structure,life transitions,marriage,remarriage,
childbearing,teenagers,and other life-courseis-
MoralityTheories sues. This categoryreflects a loose conglomera-
Morality theories are simultaneouslythe oldest tion of hypothesesratherthan a unifiedbody of
andnewest to be appliedto housework.They can researchor theory.The conceptualapparatusfor
be considered foundationalbecause they come these varioushypothesesoften is left implicit,but
from ancientteachingsin religionandphilosophy role theory, family ecology, and various devel-
andbecausefamily social sciencewas foundedby opmental and socialization theories provide a
social reformersand moral crusaders.Morality backdropfor interpretingempiricalresults. For
theories of houseworkalso seem new, however, many of the reasonsnoted above and becauseof
because few family scholars from the 1950s normativepressures,transitionsinto marriageand
throughthe 1970s felt compelledto invokemoral childbearingare expected to increase women's
argumentswhen discussingwho should perform householdlabormorethanmen's(Blair& Lichter,
householdtasks.The generalcategoryof morality 1991; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; South & Spitze,
theories could be subsumedunder gender con- 1994). Because they are assumedto be less sub-
structionor institutionalapproachesbut is high- ject to marriagenorms and because they are
lightedherebecauseof its increasingprominence thoughtto embraceegalitarianideals,comparison
in public debates.Moralargumentshave became groupsof cohabitorsandsame-sexcouplesareex-
more common in the scholarlyliteratureas aca- pected to share more household labor than do
demics (along with politiciansand religiouslead- marriedcouples (Kurdek,1993; VanEvery,1993;
but see Giddings,1998). Becauseof the indepen- the rights of women, the appropriatework and
dence and multiple role identities available to familyroles of men andwomen,andwhetherchil-
those who wait longerto marryor have children, drenwill be harmedif they spendtime awayfrom
delayedtransitionsto marriageandparenthoodare their mothers.One of the NSFH items that best
also expectedto contributeto more equal contri- predicts sharing of housework among couples
butionsfromhusbandsandwives (Coltrane,1990; simplyasks "Do you believethatmenandwomen
Pittman& Blanchard,1996). Remarriageand a should share housework when both are em-
moreextensiveworkhistoryare also theorizedto ployed?" As proponentsof gender construction
decreasewomen'sshareof houseworkbecauseof approachesargue,theoreticalinterpretation of at-
the socializing impacts of prior experienceand titude findings is difficult, and scholars do not
weaker norms governing behavior (Demo & agreeon the depthor stabilityof genderattitudes
Acock, 1993;Ishii-Kuntz& Coltrane,1992b;Sul- and genderedpersonalities.Simple "tests"of so-
livan, 1997). Childless couples and single, di- cializationversussocial structural explanationsfor
vorced, or widowed people are also expectedto houseworkallocationhave become less common
do less houseworkbecauseof reducedworkload, recentlybecauseresearchershave begunto focus
althoughpredictionsfor retireesare more mixed on variousmediatorsandconsequences.Oftenin-
(South & Spitze, 1994; Szinovacz, 1992; Szino- voking theoreticalconstructssuch as role over-
vacz & Harpster,1994).Whereashavingmoreand load, role strain,or role conflict,morestudiesare
youngerchildrenis expected to increasethe de- investigatingcausal factorsand mediatingcondi-
mandfor housework,havingfewerandolderchil- tions in respondents'depressionand individual
drenis expectedto contributeto its performance, well-being, as well as in couples' conflict and
especially if they are daughters(Waite& Gold- maritalsatisfaction.A final use of psychological
scheider,1992). Not only might childrenadd to theoriesabouthouseholdlaborcomes from clini-
demandfor and performanceof housework,but cal, counseling,and social work fields. Most the-
parents'desiresto instillfamilyobligationin chil- ories postulatethat women in general, and em-
drenor to teach them gender-typedskills are ex- ployed women in particular,will functionbetter
pected to influencefamily work patterns(Good- and be less depressedif they can shed total re-
now, Bowes, Warton,Dawes, & Taylor,1991). sponsibilityfor houseworkand child care. Ther-
Althoughoften neglected,housingvariables(ten- apists and researcherspropose variousnonthrea-
ure, dwelling size, length of residence)are also tening ways to encourage men to pay more
relatedto life stagesand areexpectedto influence attentionto houseworkand specify some of the
householdlabordemand,performancecapability, potentialbeneficialimpactson marriagesand on
normativeobligations,and labor allocation.Re- men's emotionaldevelopment(Hawkins& Rob-
search in the coming decade ought to include erts, 1992; Mintz & Mahalik,1996; Rasmussen,
more of these demographicand life-coursevari- Hawkins,& Schwab, 1996). Otherssuggest how
ables and strive to articulatetheoreticalrelation- existingcounselingmodelsignoreissues of power
ships amongoverlappinghypotheses. and fail to hold men fully accountablefor house-
workandfamilymanagement(Braverman,1991).
Important conceptswithineachof the approach-
Psychologicaland SocializationTheories es notedaboveofferresearchers theoreticaltoolsto
Psychological or socialization theories suggest explorequestions about how and why housework
thatmen and women with "traditional"attitudes is divided and how divisions of householdlabor
will share less housework, whereas men and influenceindividualsandfamilies.Theorieswithin
women with "nontraditional" attitudeswill share each category are sometimes overlappingand
morehousework.Thesetheoriesassumethatfrom sometimescompeting,and thereis significantin-
childhoodon, men and women are socializedto terplayamongthe categories.Althoughit is inap-
conformto predetermined"sex roles" and there- propriateto assumethatone cantestfullytheutility
by develop gendered personalitiesand prefer- of one theoryversusanother,with the introduction
ences. Some researchin the 1990s continuedtests of comprehensivedatasets (e.g., NSFH) and new
of whether "androgynous"individuals (those dataanalysistechniques,researchers arebeginning
high on "femininity"and "masculinity")shared to specify the conditionsunderwhich one theory
more housework(Gunter& Gunter,1990). More betterpredictsmeasurableoutcomes.As notedbe-
commonin recent studies,however,are "gender low, givenfairlynarrowresearchquestions,precise
traditionalism"scales, includingquestionsabout measurement techniques,andcomparablelevels of
analysis,severalrobustpredictorshave begun to SurveyQuestions

emerge.The task for the next decadeis to specify
conceptuallinks amongcommonpredictorsandto Direct questionsabout time spent on household
developmorecomprehensive theoreticalmodelsof laborhave been askedin manynationalandsome
householdproduction,laborsegmentation,gender regionalphone,mail, andin-personinterviewsur-
differentiation,family functioning,and personal veys. Respondentstypicallyare askedhow much
well-being. time they "usually"spend per week on specific
householdactivitiesor how muchtime they spent
"yesterday"on selected activities.Comparisons
METHODOLOGICAL
ISSUES with time diarystudiesshow thatresultsarehigh-
ly correlatedbut thatdirect-questionsurveyspro-
Informationabout householdlabor in the 1990s duce estimatesof time spentthat are often 25%-
was collectedusing time diariesand surveyques- 50% higher,especially for frequentlyperformed
tions, but studiesalso used othermethodssuch as activities(Juster& Safford,1991;Marini& Shel-
qualitativedepth interviews,direct observations, ton, 1993; Press & Townsley,1998). For less fre-
meth-
discourse analysis, historical-comparative quently performed activities, survey questions
ods, and longitudinalstudydesigns. may producelower estimates,especiallyif the pe-
riod of recall is long (Marini& Shelton, 1993;
TimeDiaries Shelton & John, 1996). Both men and women
tendto overestimatetheirown contributionsin di-
In time diary studies, individualsare asked to rect-questionsurveys and to double-counttime
completelogs accountingfor time spent on vari- spentin simultaneousactivities;some studiessug-
ous activities,usually for a 24-hourperiod,with gest that men may inflate their estimates more
results collected via phone, mail, or in person than women because of cognitive biases relating
(Harvey,1993;Marini& Shelton,1993;Robinson to salience effects and ego-enhancement(Col-
& Godbey, 1997). Importanttemporalvariables trane,1996; Kiger& Riley, 1996;Marini& Shel-
within the time diary method include length of ton, 1993; Press & Townsley,1998). In addition,
recording period and whether respondentsare missing responsesmay predominateamong cou-
askedto reportactivitiesat the end of the day or ples in which husbandscontributelittle to house-
retrospectivelyon the next day.Daily activitycol- work, leadingto overestimatesof husbands'con-
lected on the next day differslittle fromthatcol- tributions in data sets such as the NSFH
lected on the same day, and weekendinformation (Szinovacz& Harpster,1994), and more research
often is collected up to a week later with little is needed on how and why couples who do not
distortion(Robinson& Godbey, 1997). Time di- answer detailed questions on houseworkmight
ariesgenerallyareconsideredto generatethe most differ from others. Proportionalestimates of a
accurate(and lower) estimatesof time spent on spouse's time spent in household labor are ap-
specificactivities,althoughsimultaneousactivities proximatelyequal whetherdiariesor surveys are
are sometimesignoredor underestimated,and if used (Sullivan,1997),but while they may be both
the day selectedis not representative, otherbiases reliableand valid, proportionalmeasuresare dif-
may enter (Niemi, 1993; Robinson & Godbey, ficultto interpretbecausethey cannotbe used for
1997). Most researchersreportthat variationsin all households,do not measurehow muchtime is
question formatproduceonly minor changes in spent on housework,and do not reflect whether
results(Harvey,1993; Shelton& John, 1996), al- shifts result from wives doing less or husbands
though differences in diary layout can slightly doing more (Marini& Shelton, 1993).
changeestimatesof activitypatternsover the day Variationin questionwordingfor surveyitems
(Geurts& DeRee, 1993). The diary-likeExperi- includeaskinghow muchtime respondentsspend
ence SamplingMethod,in whichparticipantscar- in a typicalweek on "housework"(Brines,1994);
ry pagers and are signaledat randomtimes and asking who does each of a list of tasks (Baxter,
asked to fill out activity and subjectivestate re- 1997;Ferree,1991), sometimesfollowedby ques-
ports,has also been used to verify time diary es- tions abouthow often (Robinson& Spitze, 1992);
timates(Juster& Stafford,1991) andto studyhow askingwhatpercentageof each task was done by
householdlaboris associatedwithemotionalwell- each spouse (Wrightet al., 1992); and asking
being or distress (Larsonet al., 1994; Larson& whetherwomen had sole responsibilityor shared
Almeida, 1999). responsibilityfor a list of tasks (Waite& Gold-
scheider, 1992). In general, researchers have data sets such as the NSFH, with substantialin-
moved away from asking simple proportionate formationon both household labor and family
questions(who does more tasks) and towardcol- functioning,allowedfor the testingof varioushy-
lecting hourly estimatesof performancebecause pothesesaboutthe entireU.S. populationandspe-
more narrowlydefinedtasks producemore accu- cific subgroups, although problems associated
rate estimates(Shelton& John, 1996). As noted with frequentreanalysis of the same data also
above,manyresearchersconverthourlyestimates emergedin the 1990s. Relativelyrecentandmore
into proportionate measuresof routinehousework sophisticateddata-analyticand modeling tech-
to capturetasksegregation(Blair& Lichter,1991; niques were also introducedto householdlabor
Coltrane& Ishii-Kuntz,1992; Demo & Acock, studies during the decade: log linear modeling
1993; Glass & Fujimoto,1994; Perry-Jenkins& (Dancer & Gilbert, 1993), multinominallogistic
Folk, 1994). Using hourly estimates alone can regression(Waite& Goldscheider,1992), hierar-
maskissues of equity,butusingproportional mea- chal structuralequationmodeling-LISREL(Col-
sures alone can mask substantialdifferencesin trane & Ishii-Kuntz, 1992; Pifia & Bengtson,
performance,so some researchersadvocateusing 1995), hierarchicalregression (Perry-Jenkins&
both(Barnett& Shen, 1997).Whereaspaststudies Folk, 1994), maximum likelihood estimation-
often collected informationaboutvarioushouse- TOBIT(Brines,1994), andmultipleclassification
holdmembers'taskperformancefromwives only, analysis(Robinson& Milkie, 1998).
many studiesin the 1990s used estimatesof self
and spouse contributionsto each task from both
OtherMethods
husbandsand wives (typicallyaveragedto mini-
mize reportingbiases; see Coltrane,1996). Some Althoughmost householdlaborstudiesin the de-
recentstudiesalso collect houseworkinformation cade collected and analyzed quantitativedata,
from and about children (Antill et al., 1996; many studies used observationaland less struc-
Goodnow, Bowes, Warton, Dawes, & Taylor, turedinterviewtechniquesto generatequalitative
1991;Mankeet al., 1994;McHale,Bartko,Crou- data,describesocialprocesses,andconstructideal
ter, & Perry-Jenkins,1990). Finally, although types. Perhapsbest known of the studiesin this
most houseworkstudies have not includedmea- categoryareHochschild'sTheSecondShift(1989)
suresof child care,using bothin the samemodels and The TimeBind (1997) andDeVault'sFeeding
can help explicate their interrelations(Almeida, the Family (1991), both of which generatednew
Maggs,& Galambos,1993;Ishii-Kuntz& Coltra- insights and hypotheses.Othercase studies and
ne, 1992a). interview-basedresearchprojectsilluminatedhow
Severalinnovationsin surveydesign and con- family life, gender,andhouseholdlaborareinter-
tent also emergedin the 1990s, includingthe use twined and mutually produced (e.g., Coltrane,
of card-sortingtechniquesto measurerelativetask 1996; Doucet, 1995; Gager,1998; Gerson,1993;
performance(Coltrane,1996;Risman& Johnson- Hays, 1996;Potuchek,1992;Ribbens& Edwards,
Sumerford,1998).Researchersdevisednew ques- 1995; Risman & Johnson-Sumerford, 1998;
tionnaireinstrumentsto measurefairness (Haw- Wharton,1994; Zvonkovicet al., 1996). A few
kins, Marshall,& Allen, 1998), task management studies explicitly adopted discourse analysis to
(Mederer,1993), maternalgatekeeping(Allen & understandhow housework,gender,and family
Hawkins, 1999), control over houseworksched- are constructedthroughnarratives(Blain, 1994;
uling (Barnett& Shen, 1997), personalobligation DeVault,1990; West & Fenstermaker, 1993).
to performtasks (Perkins& DeMeis, 1996), fam- A new developmentin householdlaborstudies
ily social class (Wrightet al., 1992), andprovider was signaledby the large numberof comparative
role identity (Perry-Jenkinset al., 1992). Others andcross-nationalstudiesthatappearedduringthe
employed survey variables not often used in decade.Althoughresultswereoftenlimited,using
householdlaborstudies,such as non-overlapping the nation-stateas a unitof analysisshowedprom-
work hours (Presser,1994), work-placeauthority ise for developinga sociologicalunderstanding of
(Brayfield,1992),occupationalautonomyfor both links betweenhouseholdlaborand othercultural,
spouses (Perry-Jenkins& Folk, 1994), paid do- institutional,and structuralfactors. In general,
mestic labor (Oropesa, 1993), home ownership men in virtuallyall countriesstudied increased
(South& Spitze, 1994), age at firstbirth(Coltrane their contributionsto household labor slightly
& Ishii-Kuntz,1992), and previouscohabitation from previousdecades(Juster& Stafford,1991).
(Sullivan1997). The availabilityof largenational Canadianstudies show resultsbroadlysimilarto
similar studies conductedin the United States, With the proliferationof historicalstudiesof ev-
with Canadianmen perhapsdoing a little more erydaylife, historiansof houseworkhave a wealth
than U.S. men (Baxter,1997; Blain, 1994; Bray- of new materialfrom which to draw. Historical
field, 1992; Haddad, 1994; Harrell, 1995; Nak- studiesof houseworkcan informeconomicmod-
haie, 1995; Wrightet al., 1992). Studiesin Aus- els andrefineestimatesof productiveoutput(Fol-
traliayielded similarresultsto those fromCanada bre & Wagman,1993), but culturalhistoriescarry
(Antill et al., 1996; Baxter, 1997; Wrightet al., the mostpotentialfor understanding houseworkin
1992), and studiesin England,mostlyqualitative, its social context. Analyses of the emergenceof
reportextremelywide diversityin results(Bonney separate spheres and an ideology of intensive
& Reinbach,1993; Doucet, 1995; Hakim, 1996; mothering are particularlyenlightening (Hays,
Sullivan,1997;VanEvery,1997).Withsome vari- 1996;Jackson,1992; Siegel, 1998), as are studies
ation, studies show that Swedishmen do slightly of how immigrantsandwomenof color have per-
more houseworkthan U.S. men and Norwegian formed domestic labor (Glenn, 1992; Palmer,
men (Baxter,1997;Calasanti& Bailey, 1991;Jus- 1989; Romero, 1992). Historicalstudies suggest
ter & Stafford, 1991; Kalleberg & Rosenfeld, thatfuturehouseholdlaborresearchshouldincor-
1990; Wrightet al., 1992). Conversely,studies poratemeasuresof paid domesticlabor,substitu-
show that Japanesemen do less than U.S. men tion of services, and housework standardsinto
(Juster& Stafford,1991; Kamo, 1994; Strober& theirallocationmodels.
Chan, 1998). Few comparisonshave been made
to less developed countries, although Sanchez EMPIRICALFINDINGS
(1993, 1994b)foundthatthreeof five Asiancoun-
trieshave greaterratesof sharingthanis exhibited Predictorsof HouseholdLabor
in the UnitedStates.Otherresearchersinvestigate
householdlaborin Turkey(Bolak, 1997), the for- In contrastto researchconductedin earlier de-
mer Yugoslavia, (Massey, Hahn, & Sekulic, cades, 1990s studies find that men's share of
1995), and Mexico (Miraftab,1994). Although houseworkhas several consistentpredictors,in-
these transnationaland comparativestudiesoften cluding women'semploymentpatterns,ideology,
set out to isolate the potentialimpactof statepol- and earnings, followed by men's employment
icy or taxationon domesticlabor sharing,meth- hoursandideology.Otherpredictorsof men'srel-
odologicalproblemsare great,and findingsignif- ative share of housework, including age, life-
icant differences in predicteddirectionsis rare courseissues, maritalstatus,andchildren,arealso
(Kalleberg& Rosenfeld,1990). foundto influencethe relativeshareof housework
One of the most importantmethodologicalde- performedby men. The few studiesthatmeasure
velopmentsof the decadewas a move towardlon- initiationor managementof family workfindthat
gitudinalstudies.Becausecorrelationsfromcross- women almostinvariablyassumea managerrole,
sectional analyses can reflect spurious with men occasionally serving as their helpers
associations,manyresearcherscalledfor morede- (Blain, 1994; Coltrane,1996; Gunter& Gunter,
tailedlongitudinalstudies(Jacobs,1993; Sanchez 1990; Hawkins, Roberts, Christiansen,& Mar-
& Thomson,1997).The availabilityof housework shall, 1994;Mederer,1993;West& Fenstermaker,
questionsin nationallongitudinaldata sets such 1993). The genderdivision of householdlaboris
as the NSFH, the NationalLongitudinalSurveys typicallyattributedto men's reluctanceto assume
of YoungWomen,andthe PanelStudyof Income responsibility,but some studiesalso discusswom-
Dynamicsmade testing of causalpathwaysmore en's reluctanceto relinquishcontrol over family
possible duringthe 1990s. Led by developmental work (Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Ferree, 1991;
paradigms,both quantitativeand qualitativestud- Haas, 1992; Hawkins & Roberts, 1992; Hays,
ies looked at changesin parentingandhousework 1996). Studiesusing measuresof men's absolute
over time (Almeidaet al., 1993;Cowan& Cowan, time spenton all typesof householdlaboridentify
1992; Deutsch,Lussier,& Servis, 1993; Johnson fewer significantpredictorsand explainless vari-
& Huston,1998;MacDermid,Huston,& McHale, ance thanstudiesusing women'shoursor propor-
1990; Pittmanet al., 1996; Sullivan,1997; Zvon- tionalmeasuresof routinehousework.In addition,
ovic et al., 1996). Part method and part subject the samepredictorsdo not necessarilyapplyto all
matter,the ultimate longitudinalapproach-his- people or even to the same person at different
torical studies-continued to inform our under- times or under differentcircumstances(Gerson,
standing of household labor during the 1990s. 1993), leadingsome to promotelooking at bread-
winner-homemaker familiesseparatelyfromdual- sharemore of the houseworkwith theirhusbands

earnerfamilies or dividing samplesaccordingto (Brayfield, 1992; Perry-Jenkins& Folk, 1994;
family structureor life stage (Bonney & Rein- Presser,1994; but see Brines, 1993).
bach, 1993; Doucet, 1995; Hakim, 1996; Perry-
Jenkinset al., 1992; Sullivan,1997). Men'sEmployment. As for women,less paidwork
generally means more family work for men, but
Women'sEmployment.Of the time availability low levels of housework and greater variation
variables,women's employmenthours have the amongmen producessome mixed results.Men's
strongestand most consistenteffects on women's commitmentto employmentis a weakerand less
absolutelevels of houseworkand men's shareof consistentpredictorof householdlaborthan it is
housework.Robinsonand Godbey (1997) report for women, especially when a large numberof
that employed women do one third less family predictorsare entered into multivariatemodels.
workthannonemployedwomen.Withfew excep- Using nationalsamples,researcherstypicallyfind
tions,dual-earnercouplesarefoundto sharemore that men who are employed fewer hours do a
family work thanmale-onlybreadwinnercouples greatershare of housework,child care, or both
(DeMeis & Perkins, 1996; Fish, New, & Van (Baxter,1993; Brines, 1993; Ishii-Kuntz& Col-
Cleave, 1992; Presser,1994; Starrells,1994; Sul- trane, 1992a; Greenstein,1996a; Haddad,1994;
livan, 1997; but see Hossain & Roopnarine, Hersch& Stratton,1994; Waite& Goldscheider,
1993). Studies now find that women routinely 1992), as do men whose employmenthoursdo not
spendless time on houseworkwhen they are em- overlapwith theirwives' (Presser,1994). In con-
ployedlongerhours,andmen living with themdo trast, some studies find no relationshipbetween
a greatershareof the domesticwork (Almeidaet men's employmenthours and their housework
al., 1993; Baxter, 1993; Blair & Lichter,1991; (Almeidaet al, 1993;John& Shelton,1997; Sul-
Brayfield,1992; Calasanti& Bailey, 1991; Col- livan, 1997).Resultsconcerningmen'sunemploy-
trane& Ishii-Kuntz,1992;Demo & Acock, 1993; mentarealso mixed,with some findingthatBlack
Goldscheider& Waite, 1991; Greenstein,1996a; and White unemployedmen do more housework
Heath & Bourne, 1995; Kalleberg& Rosenfeld, (Orbuch& Eyster,1997) and othersfindingthat
1990; Peterson& Gerson, 1993; Shelton, 1990; unemployedBlack men do less housework(Shel-
Shelton & John, 1993a; Wright et al., 1992). ton & John, 1993b). Small sample studies from
When women spend more time on the job, they the 1990scontinueto show thatmostmenidentify
also spend less time providinghelp and support themselvesas primarybreadwinners andthatboth
to extendedkin (Gerstel& Gallagher,1994). The men and women are reluctantto acceptwives as
relationshipbetweenwomen'semploymenthours equal providers(Bergen, 1991; Biemat & Wort-
and men's houseworkis more varied.Some stud- man, 1991; Larsonet al., 1994; Perry-Jenkins&
ies find that women's employmenthours are re- Crouter,1992;Rubin,1994). In some studies,ac-
lated both to men's absolutehours and propor- cepting wives as coprovidersis identifiedas the
tionalcontributionsto housework(Almeidaet al., key factor in reallocatingfamily work (Coltrane
1993; Blair & Lichter,1991), whereasothersfind & Valdez, 1993; Hood, 1993; Potuchek,1992).
that women'semploymenthoursare significantly
relatedonly to men's proportionatecontributions Earnings.In general,wives who makemoremon-
(Larsonet al., 1994). When women are involved ey enjoy more equal divisions of labor.Results
in shift-workor flex-timeemployment,men con- were mixed in past studies, whereasresearchin
tributemore to housework(Silver & Goldschei- the 1990s suggestedthat when relativeearnings
der, 1994), especially if there is non-overlapbe- betweenhusbandsand wives are more equal,the
tweenspouses'employmenthours(Presser,1994). relative distributionof householdtasks is more
Otheraspectsof women'semploymentalso may balanced.Some find thatwhen women'sabsolute
influencehouseholdlaborallocation.Some small levels of earningsgo up, their absolutelevels of
samplestudiessuggestthatwomenin professional time spent on houseworkgo down (Beller, 1993;
jobs do morehouseworkbecausetheycompensate Brines, 1993; Hersch& Stratton,1997; Silver &
for gender-atypicalbreadwinning patterns(Biemat Goldscheider,1994). Smallerabsoluteincomedif-
& Wortman,1991; Deutsch et al., 1993; Hochs- ferencesbetweenhusbandsand wives are associ-
child, 1989),butotherstudiesusingrepresentative atedwith morehouseworksharing(Baxter,1993),
samplesfindthatwomenwithhigheroccupational andwives' proportionate shareof earningsis con-
prestige, or more workplace authoritytend to sistentlyassociatedwith more equal divisions of
housework(Blair & Lichter,1991; Brayfield, work(Bergen,1991;Hersch& Stratton,1994;

1992;Calasanti& Bailey,1991;Coltrane,1996; Pittman& Blanchard,1996;Presser,1994;Or-
Deutschet al., 1993;Greenstein, 1996a;Harrell, buch& Eyster,1997;Sanchez& Thomson,1997;
1995;Heath& Bourne,1995;Hersch& Stratton, South& Spitze,1994),purchasemoredomestic
1994;Sanchez& Thomson,1997;Starrels,1994; services(Cohen,1998),andhavechildren whodo
Steil & Weltman,1991;Sullivan,1997;Vander less housework (Waite& Goldscheider, 1992).In
Lippe& Siegers,1994). contrast,menwithmoreeducationgenerallydo
A simpleeconomicor powerinterpretation of morehousework(Bergen,1991;Haddad,1994;
theseresultsdoes not hold acrossthe full range Orbuch& Eyster,1997;Pittman& Blanchard,
of incomes.As notedabove,whenmenareun- 1996;Presser,1994;South& Spitze,1994;Waite
employed, theysometimes dolesshousework. For & Goldscheider, 1992).
example,Brines(1994)foundthatdependent hus-
bandsdo lesshousework themoretheydependon Ideology.Studiesfromthe 1990sshowthatwom-
theirwivesfor income,notingthatthisdynamic en's egalitarian genderideologyis a consistent
is particularly
evidentamong(althoughnot lim- predictor of household laborsharing.
Whenwives
ited to) marriedmenin low-incomehouseholds. feel morestronglythatbothpaidworkandfamily
At the oppositeend of the incomepyramid, dif- workshouldbe sharedandwhentheyagreemore
ferentpatternsemerge.Wealthier men do little fully with statementsabout equalitybetween
housework, butthe amounttheirwivesdo varies womenandmen,they are morelikelyto share
Women'shigheroccupational
significantly. status houseworkwith husbands.Some studiesalso
andincome(butnotmen's)is stronglyassociated showthatmoreegalitarian mensharemorehouse-
with the purchaseof domesticservices(Cohen, workor childcare(Almeidaet al., 1993;Blair&
1998;Oropesa,1993).Resultsfromsamplesur- Johnson,1992;Baxter,1993;Calasanti & Bailey,
veys usingquantitative dataandresultsfromhis- 1991;Greenstein,1996a,1996b;Harrell,1995;
toricalandethnographic studiesusingqualitative Ishii-Kuntz & Coltrane,1992a;Mederer & Wein-
datathusconvergeon a generalfinding:women's stein,1992;Orbuch &Eyster,1997;Perry-Jenkins
economicresourcesallow themto reducetheir & Crouter,1990;Pittman& Blanchard,1996;
own housework contributionsand "buyout" of Presser,1994;Starrels,1994;Waite& Goldschei-
gendereddomesticobligations. Upwardly mobile der,1992;Wrightet al., 1992;butsee Sanchez&
andwell-educated womenarethe mostlikelyto Thomson,1997).The fit betweenspouses'atti-
purchase domesticservices,whether performed in tudes is also important: Spouseswith similar
theirown homesor embeddedin the food and viewsarelikelyto putthoseidealsinpractice(i.e.,
products theypurchase forthefamilyfromoutside morecongruentegalitarians sharemorehouse-
the home (Oropesa,1993).It is predominantly work, more congruenttraditionalsshare less)
White,middle-class womenwho consumethese (Greenstein,1996a;MacDermidet al., 1990).
servicesandproducts, andit is immigrant, ethnic Baxter(1993)suggestedthatone'sown attitudes
minority, andworking-class womenwhoproduce impingemoredirectlyon one'sowntasksthando
and providethem (Glenn,1992).How women theattitudes (1994)found
of one'sspouse.Starrels
nearthebottomof the earningspyramidmanage thatan earningsgenderattitudes interactionterm
to carefortheirownhomesandfamiliesis a topic is thebestpredictor of housework sharingin mul-
that more survey and quantitativestudiesof tivariate
models.
household laborshouldaddressin thecomingde-
cade. Age and Life-CourseIssues.Becausethe meaning
of houseworkvariesbetweengenerations, some
Education.Educationoftenis used as a control studiesfocuson cohorteffectsin its distribution
variablein multivariatemodelspredicting house- (Barnett & Shen,1997).Ingeneral,youngerwom-
holddivisionsof labor.Interpretation of findings en do less housework andsharemoreof it than
is complicatedby conceptualconfusionabout do olderwomen(Hersch& Stratton, 1994;Shel-
whetheryearsof educationshouldbe considered ton & John,1993a;Van der Lippe& Siegers,
a measureof humancapitalaccumulation, a rel- 1994), promptingsome to call for studiesof
ativeresource, a component of socialclass,anin- young just-marrieds(South & Spitze, 1994;
dicatorof ideologyor attitudes,or a life-course Perkins& DeMeis,1996).Othersfindthatwhen
transitionexperience.In general,studiessuggest ideology and other variablesare enteredinto
thatwomenwithmoreeducationdo less house- multivariate models,cohorteffectsbecomenon-
significant(Presser,1994).Anotherfindingrelated fewer hourson the job and begin to put in signif-

to age is that the larger the age gap between icantlymorehoursof domesticwork (Sanchez&
spouses, the less the couple shares housework Thomson, 1997; Shelton, 1992). Other studies
(Presser,1994). Some studies find that men in- show thatmore preschoolchildrenare associated
creasetheircontributionsto householdlaborafter with morehoursof householdlaborfor both men
retirement,althoughthey do so for affiliativerea- and women (Baxter,1994; Bergen, 1991;Presser,
sons and remainin a helperrole (Pifia& Bengt- 1994; Vander Lippe & Seigers, 1994). Neverthe-
son, 1995; Szinovacz, 1992). Some suggest that less, because women increase their hours more
retirementdoes not changethe genderdivisionof thanmen do, they end up doing a largershareof
labor significantly,althoughsome women expect family work as the numberof childrenincreases
it (Robinson& Spitze, 1992; Ward, 1993), and (Greenstein, 1996a; Hersch & Stratton, 1994;
othersspecify how past employment,retirement, Shelton& John, 1993a;Perkins& DeMeis, 1996;
and gender interactto influence task allocation Presser,1994; Shelton& John, 1993a, 1996; Van
(Szinovacz& Harpster,1994). der Lippe & Seigers, 1994; but see Kamo, 1991
on the nonlinearityof effects). A few studiessug-
MaritalStatus.Being marriedmeansmorehouse- gest that later transitionsto parenthoodproduce
work for women and less for men (Gupta,1999; moreequaldivisionsof child careandhousework
Nock, 1998; Shelton, 1992). Single and cohabit- (Coltrane,1990; Coltrane& Ishii-Kuntz,1992;
ing womenperformless houseworkthando mar- Pittman& Blanchard,1996). As men do more
ried women, but single and cohabitingmen per- child care,they may also do morehousework,es-
form more housework than do married men pecially if the firstbornchild is a boy (Fish et al.,
(Nock, 1998;Perkins& DeMeis, 1996;Shelton& 1996; Ishii-Kuntz & Coltrane, 1992a; Presser,
John, 1993a). Because single mothers perform 1994).
aboutas muchhouseworkas do marriedmothers
(Demo & Acock, 1993), marriedfathersmay do Race and Ethnicity.Householdlaborstudiesin the
about as much household work as they create 1990s began to take race seriously.Most studies
(Hartmann,1981). When single-motherand sin- find that Black men do more houseworkthan do
gle-fatherhouseholdsare compared,women do Whitemen, net of otherpredictors,but thatBlack
more houseworkthan do men, suggesting that women still do almosttwice as muchhousework
even without a spouse, houseworkis still gen- as do Black men (Bergen, 1991; Broman,1991;
dered (Fassinger,1993; Hall et al., 1995). Nev- Heath & Bourne, 1995; Hossain & Roopnarine,
ertheless,single fathersdo more houseworkthan 1993; John & Shelton, 1997; Orbuch& Eyster,
do marriedfathers,and thereforethe difference 1997;Padgett,1997;Sanchez& Thomson,1997).
betweenmen's and women'shouseworkin single Some find thatcommonpredictorvariableswork
parentfamiliesis less thanit is in two-parentfam- somewhatdifferentlyfor Blacks, in partbecause
ilies. The firstmarriagemay be the most likely to of more egalitarianattitudesand greateremploy-
producegendereddivisions of labor because re- ment and earningsequalitybetweenspouses(Or-
marriedhouseholdssharemore thanfirstmarried buch & Eyster, 1997). For example, employed
ones (Demo & Acock, 1993; Ishii-Kuntz& Col- Black women do fewer hoursof houseworkthan
trane, 1992b; Pyke & Coltrane,1996; Sullivan, do other women (Silver & Goldscheider,1994)
1997; but see Presser,1994). but Black men do more hours of houseworkif
they are employed (Shelton & John, 1993b).
Presenceof Children.Studiesshow thatthe tran- Some find that Black men are less likely to per-
sition to parenthoodis associatedwith movement ceive the divisionof householdlaboras unfairto
towardless sharingof family work betweenmen theirwives as are White men (DeMaris& Long-
and women (Cowan& Cowan, 1992; Johnson& more, 1996; John, Shelton, & Luschen, 1995).
Huston, 1998; MacDermidet al., 1990; Shelton, Othersfind uniquepatternsof laborallocationin
1992).Womentendto feel moreobligationto per- Black families when extendedkin are included,
form householdlabor when they have children, with Black adultchildrenliving at home contrib-
just as they do when they get married(Perkins& uting more than Whites (Spitze & Ward,1995)
DeMeis, 1996; Wharton,1994). When couples andBlackmen doingmore(Padgett,1997) or less
have children,men tend to work more hours at (Wilson,Tolson,Hinton,& Kiernan,1990) when
paidjobs but do not necessarilyput in morehours grandmothersand other kin contribute.Prelimi-
of housework.Women,in contrast,tend to work nary findingsalso suggestthatnonresidentBlack
fatherscontributemorethando nonresidentWhite which they are doing the least amountof house-
fathers(Wilsonet al., 1990). workandunfairthose in whichthey aredoingthe
Findingsarecontradictory concerningthe shar- most (Suitor,1991).Equitytheorypositsthatpart-
ing of family work in Latinofamilies,with some ners will feel uncomfortablewith situationsin
suggesting there is slightly more sharing than which they are either over- or under-benefitted,
amongWhitefamilies(Mirande,1997; Shelton& suggestingthat both men and women will see as
John, 1993b) and some suggestingthere is less most fair those situationsin which they sharethe
(Golding, 1990). Most studies show similarpat- householdlaboraboutequally(Pinfia & Bengtson,
ternsof associationbetweenvariableswhetherthe 1993). Challengesto these theories come from
couples are Latinoor Anglo (Coltrane& Valdez, studiesshowingthateven employedwomen tend
1993; Golding, 1990; Herrera& del Campo, to label unbalanceddivisionsof laboras fair and
1995; John et al., 1995), althoughDeMarisand fromresearchshowingthatmen who do littleper-
Longmore(1996) found Latinomen and women sist in seeing the allocationof householdtasksas
to be less likely to view householdlaboras unfair fair (Ward,1993). Suitor(1991) replicatedthe oft-
to the wife thandid Anglo men and women.In a cited U-shaped curve of maritalsatisfactionby
unique contribution,Hondagneu-Sotelo(1992) findingthat wives' satisfactionwith the division
documentedthe independenteffects of immigra- of householdlabor is highest in the preparental
tion on laborsharingin MexicanAmericanfam- and postparentalstages and lowest when children
ilies. Work on other ethnic minoritiesin North are present(i.e., when women do the most do-
America is still rare, although Johnson (1998) mestic work).In contrast,husbands'fairnessrat-
found some cultural norms promoting sharing ings and satisfactionwith houseworkshow little
among Vietnamese and Laotians in the United variationacrossthe life course.
States,andBrayfield(1992) foundthatFrenchCa- Thompson(1991) refinedMajor's(1987) dis-
nadians share more houseworkthan do English tributivejustice frameworkto show how outcome
Canadians. values, comparisonreferents, and justifications
shape gendered differences in entitlementthat
lead wives to evaluateunbalanceddivisionsof la-
FairnessEvaluations
bor as fair (see also Ferree, 1990; Gager, 1998;
Althoughwomen performtwo thirdsof the total Hochschild,1989;Major,1993;Pyke & Coltrane,
householdlabor,only aboutone thirdof themrate 1996). In brief, wives shouldbettergraspthe in-
their division of labor as unfair,promptingre- justice of the existing division of houseworkif
searchersin the 1990s to investigatewhatfairness they lack valued outcomes, comparetheir hus-
evaluationsmean. Accordingto Lennonand Ro- band'scontributionsto their own, and rejectjus-
senfeld(1994), couplesdo not use 50%as an "eq- tificationsfor unequalperformance(Major,1993;
uity point"-men find the division of laborto be Thompson, 1991). Contraryto earlier findings
fairwhenthey contribute36%of the timedevoted showing little variationin fairness evaluations,
to householdtasks, whereaswomen find the di- many 1990s studies showed that wives' partici-
vision of labor to be fair when they contribute pation in householdlabor (measuredin absolute
66% of the total. Such findingssuggest that un- hours, as a proportionof couple time in house-
equal divisions of labor are acceptedas normal work, or as responsibilityfor householdmanage-
andhelp explainwhy paststudieshavefoundlittle ment)is associatedwith variationin women's,and
relationbetweenactualdivisionsof laborandper- sometimesmen's, sense of fairness (Greenstein,
ceptionsof fairness.Nevertheless,researchin the 1996b; Hawkins, Marshall, & Meiners, 1995;
1990s begins to isolateconditionsassociatedwith Mederer,1993; Sanchez,1994a;Sanchez& Kane,
labelingdivisionsof householdlaboras "fair"or 1996). Althoughmost people rate theirown con-
"unfair."Some also call attentionto measurement tributionsas fair,men's lower levels of participa-
problemsin the area of fairnessevaluations,es- tion in householdlabor generallyare associated
pecially with an NSFH item thatlacks unidimen- with bothmen andwomenseeingmoreunfairness
sionalityandis difficultto interpret(Smith,Gager, in the division of family work (Blair & Johnson,
& Morgan,1998). 1992;Dancer& Gilbert,1993;Greenstein,1996b;
Resourcetheoriesand theirderivativespredict Sanchez 1994a), especially when men contribute
how people make fairness evaluations about little to the routinetasksof cooking,cleaning,and
housework.Classical exchange theory suggests washing(DeMaris& Longmore,1996;Johnet al.,
that women will see as fair those situationsin 1995; Lennon& Rosenfield,1994; Perry-Jenkins
& Folk, 1994; Robinson& Spitze, 1992; but see (Blain, 1994; Blair & Johnson, 1992; Coltrane,
Wilkie,Ferree,& Ratcliff, 1998). Findingsdiffer 1996; DeVault, 1991; Erickson, 1993; Gager,
on how much men and women pay attentionto 1998; Hawkinset al., 1995; Johnson& Huston,
theirown contributions,but most studiesfindthat 1998; Kane & Sanchez, 1994; Pifia & Bengtson,
when one spouse does less and the other does 1993; Stohs, 1994; Thompson,1993). Although
more, the chances of perceiving unfairnessin- this symbolicequationof houseworkandcarecan
crease (Dancer and Gilbert, 1993; John et al., lead to demandsfor moretaskperformance,it can
1995; Robinson& Spitze, 1992). In contrast,as also encouragewomen to considermen'sexpres-
men do more of the occasional tasks (such as sions of affectionor positive intent as sufficient,
washingthe car),both spousesare more likely to therebylowering their expectationsand judging
judge the division of householdlabor as fair to current unbalancedlabor arrangementsas fair
wives (DeMaris& Longmore,1996). (Hochschild,1989). In addition,men's contribu-
Fairnessevaluationsalso areinfluencedby em- tions to houseworktend to be noticed and nego-
ployment,education,and ideology, but 1990s re- tiated, whereas women's are taken for granted
sults were mixed. Severalstudiesfind a negative (Robinson& Spitze, 1992). As predicted,the se-
relationshipbetween women's paid work hours lection anduse of cross-genderreferentsseems to
and fairnessevaluations(Greenstein,1996b;San- lead womento judge divisionsof laboras less fair
chez, 1994a;Sanchez& Kane,1996;but see Blair (Hawkinset al., 1995), whereasthe selection of
& Johnson,1992). Some find that men's greater same-genderreferentsis associatedwith evalua-
employmenthoursare relatedto their own eval- tions of greaterfairness (Coltrane,1990; Gager,
uations of fairnessin the division of household 1998). In a relatedfinding,invokinghigh house-
labor(Ward,1993),whereasothersfindthatmen's keepingstandardstendsto providejustificationfor
greateremploymenthoursarerelatedto theireval- husbands' nonperformanceof household tasks
uationsof unfairness(Robinson& Spitze, 1992). (Allen & Hawkins,1998; Coltrane,1996; Ferree,
DeMaris & Longmore (1996) found that hus- 1990; Hawkinset al., 1995).
bands' greater employment hours, relative to Otherstudiesconsiderfairnessas a mediating,
wives', encouragewives (butnot husbands)to see or intervening,variablebetween the division of
the division of houseworkas fair to her.Women householdlaborand personalor maritalwell-be-
with less educationthantheirhusbandsand those ing (Dancer& Gilbert,1993;Kluwer,Heesink,&
who perceivethe costs of leavingthe marriageto Vande Vliert, 1996;Lennon& Rosenfield,1994;
be high perceivemorefairness(Lennon& Rosen- Perry-Jenkins& Folk, 1994; Pifia & Bengtson,
field, 1994;Wilkieet al., 1998), andhigherlevels 1993; Robinson & Spitze, 1992; Suitor, 1991;
of educationfor both spousesare associatedwith Ward,1993; Wilkie et al., 1998). Wives are less
seeing less fairness in the division of labor satisfiedwith the divisionof laborwhenthe actual
(DeMaris& Longmore,1996; John et al., 1995; time they spendon houseworkis higherthanwhat
Robinson & Spitze, 1992). Some studies show they would preferto spend(Kluweret al., 1996).
thatwomen,and sometimesmen, with moreegal- Fairnessevaluationsalso affect personalwell-be-
itariangenderattitudessee moreunfairnessto the ing. Whenthe distributionof householdtasksap-
wife in householdlaborallocation(Blair& John- pears to be fair, wives display few symptomsof
son, 1992; DeMaris& Longmore,1996; John et depression,but when it is perceived as unfair,
al., 1995; Sanchez& Kane, 1996), and some find women'sdepressionis higher(Glass& Fujimoto,
that women's fairnessevaluationsare dispropor- 1994; Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994). Satisfaction
tionatelyinfluencedby men'sconventionalgender with spousal help is positively associatedwith
attitudes (Sanchez, 1994a). Greenstein(1996b) positive maritalinteraction,maritalcloseness, af-
noteda significantinteractionbetweengenderide- firmation,and positive affect;it is negativelyre-
ology and housework,with the actualdivisionof latedto maritalconflict,thoughtsof divorce,neg-
laborhavingless effect on fairnessevaluationsthe ative affect, and depression(Pifia & Bengtson,
more conventionalthe wife's views on gender. 1993). Similarly, althoughperceived unfairness
We can betterunderstandfairnessevaluations predictsbothunhappinessanddistressfor women,
if we acknowledgethe insight from gendercon- it predictsneitherfor men (Robinson& Spitze,
structiontheories that women (and sometimes 1992). Perceivedfairnessalso contributesto mar-
men) perceiveboth their own and their spouse's ital satisfactionor maritalquality,especially for
houseworkto carryemotionalmessages,frequent- women (Blair, 1993; Dancer & Gilbert, 1993;
ly representing love, caring, or appreciation Suitor, 1991; Ward, 1993; Wilkie et al., 1998).
Spouses who hold more comparableperceptions Eyster,1997;Pifia& Bengtson,1993). Most stud-

of fairnessalso reporthighermaritalsatisfaction ies find thatthe fit betweenhusband'sand wive's
(Dancer& Gilbert,1993). Wives' perceptionsof ideology is extremelyimportantto maritalsatis-
unfairnessalso arerelatedto maritalconflict(Klu- faction,as is the congruencebetweenspouses'at-
wer et al., 1996; Perry-Jenkins& Folk, 1994; titudes and actions. In general,if spouses align
Stohs, 1995), with those couples having more their attitudesand divisions of householdlabor,
conventionalgenderideologymorelikely to avoid then theirmaritalhappinessis higher(McHale&
conflict and experience negative consequences Crouter,1992; Perry-Jenkins& Crouter,1990).
(Kluwer,Heesink,& Vande Vliert,1997).Finally, Because men continue to do substantiallyless
dissatisfactionwith the householddivision of la- houseworkthan do women, however,a gender-
bor may be a more importantcatalystfor change bifurcatedpatternemerges:Womenwho believe
thanperceptionsof its unfairness.Men arealmost in sharinghouseworktend to have lower marital
universallysatisfiedwith the division of house- satisfactionthan others and men who believe in
work, whereaswomen are often less satisfied,es- sharingtend to have higher maritalsatisfaction
pecially if they hold egalitarianattitudesand like than others (Lye & Biblarz, 1993). Similarly,
their paid work (Baxter & Western,1998). Al- when men aremoreegalitarianthanwives, marital
though findings about fairness evaluationsvary disagreementsarefewer,butwhenwives aremore
considerably,the majorityof studiesin the 1990s egalitarianthanhusbands(the moretypicalcase),
concludedthatthe singlemostimportantpredictor then marital disagreementsare more common
of a wife's fairnessevaluationis what portionof (Lye & Biblarz,1993).Becausehouseworkis typ-
the routinehouseworkher husbandcontributes. ically perceivedas optionalfor men andrequired
of women, it is generallyup to women to bring
aboutchange.Only when womenperceivethe di-
OutcomeAssessments
vision of laborto be unfair,does the level of mar-
Divisions of householdlaborare directlyand in- ital conflict go up (Blair, 1993; Perry-Jenkins&
directly linked to depression.Althoughdetailed Folk, 1994; Wilkie et al., 1998). Maritalconflict,
outcome studies are still rare, researchindicates in turnis relatedto lower maritalsatisfactionand
that performinglargeramountsof routine,repet- higherratesof depression.Womenare thus faced
itive houseworkis associatedwith more depres- with a double bind: They can push for change,
sion in women and sometimesin men (Barnett& threateningthe relationship,or they can acceptan
Shen, 1997; Glass & Fujimoto, 1994; Golding, unbalanceddivision of labor, labeling it "fair"
1990; Larsonet al., 1994). Previousstudiesfind- (Hochschild,1989).
ing no such relationshipfor men typicallydid not
differentiatebetweentypes of householdlabornor
Children'sHousework
controlfor the frequencyand scheduleflexibility
of the tasks (see Barnett& Shen, 1997). Some Householdlabor studies of the 1990s were also
researchershave foundthatwomen's "homemak- more likely to include children.Questionswere
er-role quality" moderatesthe relationshipbe- askedabouthow muchandunderwhatconditions
tween job stress and psychological well-being sons and daughtersperformhouseworkand what
(Barnett,1994; Kibria,Barnett,Baruch,Marshall, impactsuch performancehas for the childrenand
& Pleck, 1990). It appearsthat it is primarily families.Using NSFHdata,Blair(1992a)reported
men'sparticipationin the routinerepetitivechores that in families with school-aged children, 5.9
of cooking, cleaning, and washing that relieves hoursof routinehouseworkareperformedby (all)
women'sburden,contributesto theirsense of fair- childreneachweek, representingabout13%of the
ness, andhence lowerstheirchancesof being de- routinehouseworkhours for the household (al-
pressed.For theirpart,men oftenreportsome dif- most as muchas contributedby fathers).Children
ficulty assuming more responsibilityfor family do the workbecauseparentsare attemptingto so-
work,althoughinitialfrustrationis typicallyshort cialize them or becausethe parents(andchildren)
lived (Coltrane,1996; Cowan & Cowan, 1992; are respondingto householdlabordemand(Blair,
Hawkinset al., 1994). 1992a; Gill, 1998; Goodnow et al., 1991). Ac-
Several studies also have found that marital cording to Goodnow et al. (1991), children's
satisfactionincreasesin relationto the amountof houseworkis analyzedaccordingto gender,age
routinehouseworkthatis sharedby spouses(Bier- of child, and purposeof the tasks-primarily in
nat & Wortman,1991; Erickson,1993;Orbuch& terms of self versus family care. Youngerchil-
dren'shouseworkis less typedby genderthanthat stressed,and have worse relationswith theirpar-

of adultsor teenagers(Hilton& Haldeman,1991; ents (Crouter,McHale,& Bartko,1993). Finally,
McHale et al., 1990). As childrenapproachthe adult sons living with their parentscreate more
teenageyears,however,they take on more tasks, housework than they perform, whereas adult
which become more segregatedby gender(Antill daughtersperformmorehouseworkthanthey cre-
et al., 1996; Benin & Edwards,1990; Goldschei- ate (South & Spitze, 1994). In addition,Glenn
der& Waite,1991;Goodnowet al., 1991).Studies (1992) discussed how privilegedWhite children
find that young teenage girls do abouttwice the learna subtleform of racismwatchingwomenof
amountof householdlaboras youngteenageboys color performthe dirtiestdomesticwork.
do (Juster& Stafford,1991), with girls concen-
tratingtheir efforts on routine inside chores of CONCLUSION
cookingandcleaningandboys concentrating their
efforts on occasionaloutsidechores such as yard In conclusion,most men still do muchless house-
care (Antillet al., 1996; Blair, 1992b;Goldschei- work thanwomen do, with marriedmen creating
der & Waite, 1991; McHale et al., 1990). Some about as much demand for household labor as
researchershave found that childrenin two-par- they perform.In the pastdecade,researchershave
ent, dual-earnerfamilies and childrenof highly documentedhow women'scontributions to house-
educatedparentsdo less houseworkthando chil- work have declined and shown how men's con-
dren in other family types (Benin & Edwards, tributionshave increasedat a slower pace. Al-
1990; Demo & Acock, 1993;Mankeet al., 1994; thoughwe can betterpredictvariationin women's
Waite & Goldscheider,1992). Whereasgirls in performanceof housework,we arejust beginning
single-parentfamilies often do all types of tasks to understandwhy men do so little andto specify
and tend to put in more householdwork hours the conditionsassociatedwith men doing more.
than girls in other family types, boys in single- We also have begun to isolate causes and conse-
parentfamilieshave been foundto do less routine quences of variousdivisions of paid and unpaid
houseworkthanboys in two-parentfamilies(Hil- laborfor individuals,families,and society.
ton & Haldeman,1991; McHale et al., 1990). If Womenstill performmost routinecookingand
the mother'shoursof employmentarelonger,chil- cleaning tasks, and althoughfewer men confine
dren(especiallygirls)performmoreof the house- theireffortsto the occasionaloutsidechore,hus-
work, suggestingthat daughtersare substituting bands rarely take full responsibilityfor a wide
for the mother's hours (Bergen, 1991; Blair, range of household tasks. We now know that
1992a;Goldscheider& Waite,1991). Some stud- when men performmore of the routine house-
ies also have suggestedthatdaughters'housework work, employedwomen feel that the division of
time substitutes for fathers' housework time laboris fairer,areless depressed,andenjoyhigher
(Mankeet al., 1994;Waite& Goldscheider,1992; levels of maritalsatisfaction.Using refinedmea-
but see Padgett,1997), althoughgirls' participa- sures and more representativesamples, we also
tion in householdtasks seems to be dwindlingto know thatthe employmenthoursof bothmen and
boys' levels in manyhouseholds(Goldscheider& women,theirrelativeearnings,theirbeliefs about
Waite,1991). Stepparents, parentswithegalitarian genderand family, and theirliving arrangements
gender ideology, and those who give their chil- all influence the allocation of household tasks.
drenmoreencouragementaremorelikely to have Familysize, age, life stage,ethnicity,presenceand
sons who share more of the routinehousework contributionof children,and a host of otherfac-
(Antillet al., 1996;Blair,1992b;Demo & Acock, tors also enterinto the householdlaborallocation
1993;Weisner& Gamier,1994).Conversely,first- process. Althoughwe cannot yet adjudicatebe-
marriedbiological parentsand those with more tweenmost competingtheories,we arebetterable
conventionalgenderideology are more likely to to understandthathouseholdlaborembodiesa set
assign gender-typedtasks to theirchildrenand to of complex materialand symbolicpracticesthat
requirethatdaughtersdo more(Benin& Edwards, constituteand reproducedaily life. Becausemost
1990; Blair, 1992b). Following a similarpattern, houseworkcontinuesto be performedby women,
boys from dual-earnerfamilies who do more wives, and daughters,and because most women
houseworkare more satisfied,less stressed,and buy out of onerousdomestictaskswhen they can
have betterrelationswith their parents,whereas affordto, we oughtnot lose sight of the fact that
boys from single-earnerfamilies who do more domestic labor allocationis embeddedin social
housework report being less satisfied, more arrangements thatperpetuateclass, race,and gen-
derinequities.The taskbeforeus is thusto specify low-schedule-controlhouseworktasks, and psycho-

in moredetailhow the performanceof housework couples.Jour-
logical distress:A studyof dual-earner
nal of Family Issues, 18, 403-428.
in differentfamilies is implicatedin variouscul- Baxter, J. (1993). Work at home: The domestic division
tural,economic,andgender-reproductive process- of labour. Queensland, Australia: University of
es. In particular,we need to do a betterjob of QueenslandPress.
assessingcontributionsto routinechoresin a wid- Baxter,J. (1997). Genderequalityand participationin
housework:A cross-nationalperspective.Journalof
er rangeof households,use bothabsoluteandpro- Comparative Family Studies, 28, 220-247.
portionalmeasures,and focus on how relativere- Baxter, J., & Western,M. (1998). Satisfactionwith
sources, genderideology, interpersonalrelations, housework:Examiningthe paradox.Sociology, 32,
and economic factors influence fairness evalua- 101-120.
tions and individualwell-being.Only by refining Becker, G. A. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cam-
bridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
our measurementand data analysis techniques, Beller, A. H. (1993). The division of laborby gender.
specifying linkages among different levels of Rationality and Society, 5, 398-407.
analysis, and continuingto evaluate competing Benin, M. H., & Edwards, D. A. (1990). Adoles-
theoreticalapproacheswill we be able to assess cents&abos;chores: The difference between dual-
and single-earner families. Journal of Marriage and
how and why householdlaboris associatedwith the Family, 52, 361-373.
genderand how it mightchangein the future. Bergen, E. (1991). The economic context of labor al-
Jour-
location:Implicationsfor genderstratification.
NOTE nal of Family Issues, 12, 140-157.
Berk,R. A., & Berk,S. F. (1979). Laborand leisureat
I thankMicheleAdamsfor expertresearchassistance. home: The content and organization of the household
day. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.
REFERENCES Berk, S. E (1985). The gender factory: The apportion-
ment of work in American households. New York:
Abel, E. K., & Nelson, M. K. (1990). Circlesof care: PlenumPress.
Work and identity in women's lives. Albany, NY: Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York:
StateUniversityof New YorkPress. World.
Agger,B., & Shelton,B. A. (1993). Shotgunwedding, Bielby, D. D. (1993). Explaininggender stratification
unhappymarriage,no-faultdivorce?Rethinkingthe and inequalityin the workplace.Rationalityand So-
feminism-Marxism relationship.In P. England(Ed.), ciety, 5, 367-374.
Theory on gender/feminism on Theory (pp. 25-41). Biemat,M., & Wortman,C. B. (1991). Sharingof home
New York:Aldine de Gruyter. responsibilities between professionally employed
Ahlander,N. R., & Bahr,K. S. (1995). Beyond drudg- women and their husbands. Journal of Personality
ery, power, and equity: Towardan expandeddis- and Social Psychology, 60, 844-860.
courseon the moraldimensionsof houseworkin fam- Bird, C. E., & Ross, C. E. (1993). Houseworkersand
ilies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 54- paid workers:Qualitiesof the work and effects on
68. personal control. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
Allen, S. M., & Hawkins,A. J. (1999). Maternalgate- ily, 55, 913-925.
keeping:Mothersbeliefs and behaviorsthat inhibit Blain, J. (1994). Discoursesof agencyanddomesticla-
greaterfatherinvolvementin familywork.Journalof bor:Familydiscourseand genderedpracticein dual-
Marriage and the Family, 61, 199-212. earner families. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 515-
Almeida, D. M., Maggs, J. L., & Galambos,N. L. 549.
(1993). Wives' employmenthours and spousalpar- Blair,S. L. (1992a). Children'sparticipationin house-
ticipation in family work. Journal of Family Psy- hold labor:Child socializationversus the need for
chology, 7, 233-244. household labor. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
Antill, J. K., Goodnow,J. J., Russell, G., & Cotton,S. 21, 241-258.
(1996). The influenceof parentsand family context Blair,S. L. (1992b).The sex-typingof childrens'house-
on children'sinvolvementin household tasks. Sex hold labor:Parentalinfluenceon daughters'andsons'
Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 215-236. housework. Youth and Society, 24, 178-203.
BacaZinn,M. (1990). Family,feminism,andrace.Gen- Blair, S. L., (1993). Employment,family, and percep-
der & Society, 4, 68-82. tions of maritalqualityamong husbandsand wives.
Bahr,K. S., & Ahlander,N. R. (1996). Morality,femi- Journal of Family Issues, 14, 189-212.
nism, and family work-Reply. Journalof Marriage Blair, S. L., & Johnson,M. P (1992). Wives' percep-
and the Family, 58, 520-525. tions of the fairnessof the division of householdla-
Barmby,T (1994). Householdlaborsupply:Somenotes bor: The intersectionof houseworkand ideology.
on estimatinga modelwith Paretooptimaloutcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 570-581.
The Journal of Human Resources, 29, 932-940. Blair,S. L., & Lichter,D. T. (1991). Measuringthe di-
Barnett,R. C. (1994). Home-to-workspilloverrevisit- vision of household labor: Gender segregationof
ed-a study of full-timeemployedwomen in dual- housework among American couples. Journal of
earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, Family Issues, 12, 91-113.
56, 647-656. Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbandsand
Barnett,R. C., & Shen,Y.-C.(1997). Gender,high- and wives. New York:Free Press.
Blumberg,R. L., & Coleman,M. T. (1989). A theoret- Curtis,R. E, & MacCorquodale, P.(1990). Stabilityand
ical look at the balance of power in the American change in genderrelations.Sociological Theory,8,
couple.Journalof FamilyIssues, 10, 225-250. 136-152.
Bolak, H. C. (1997). Whenwives are majorproviders: Dancer,L. S., & Gilbert,L. A. (1993). Spouses'family
Culture,gender,andfamilywork.Gender& Society, work participationand its relationto wives' occupa-
11, 409-433. tional level. Sex Roles: A Journalof Research,28,
Bonney,N., & Reinach,E. (1993). Houseworkrecon- 127-145.
sidered:The Oakleythesis 20 yearslater.Work,Em- DeMaris,A., & Longmore,M. A. (1996). Ideology,
ployment,and Society,7, 615-627. power, and equity: Testing competingexplanations
Braverman,L. (1991). The dilemmaof housework:A for the perceptionof fairnessin householdlabor.So-
feministresponseto Gottman,Napier,and Pittman. cial Forces, 74, 1043-1071.
Journalof Maritaland FamilyTherapy,17, 25-28. DeMeis,D. K., & Perkins,H. W.(1996). "Supermoms"
Brayfield,A. A. (1992). Employmentresourcesand of the nineties:Homemakerand employedmothers'
houseworkin Canada.Journalof Marriageand the performanceandperceptionsof the motherhoodrole.
Family,54, 19-30. Journalof FamilyIssues, 17, 776-792.
Brines, J. (1993). The exchange value of housework. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1993). Familydiversity
Rationalityand Society,5, 302-340. and the division of domesticlabor:How muchhave
Brines, J. (1994). Economicdependency,gender,and things really changed?Family Relations,42, 323-
the division of labor at home. AmericanJournalof 331.
Sociology,100, 652-688. Deutsch,F. M., Lussier,J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993).
Broman,L. L. (1991). Gender,work,family roles, and Husbandsat home: Predictorsof paternalparticipa-
psychologicalwell-beingof Blacks.Journalof Mar- tion in childcareand housework.Journalof Person-
riage and the Family,53, 509-520. ality and Social Psychology,65, 1154-1166.
Calasanti,T. M., & Bailey, C. A. (1991). Genderin- DeVault,M. (1990). Conflictover housework:A prob-
equalityand the division of householdlabor in the lem that (still) has no name. In L. Kriesberg(Ed.),
United States and Sweden:A socialist-feministap- Researchin social movements,conflict,and change.
proach.Social Problems,38, 34-53. Greenwich,CT:JAI Press.
Cancian,F, & Oliker,S. (1999). Genderandcare. New- DeVault,M. (1991). Feedingthefamily: Thesocial or-
bury Park,CA: Sage. ganizationof caring and genderedwork. Chicago:
Chafetz,J. S. (1990). Genderequity:An integratedthe- Universityof ChicagoPress.
ory of stabilityandchange.NewburyPark,CA:Sage. Doucet, A. (1995). Genderequalityand genderdiffer-
Chafetz,J. S., & Hagan,J. H. (1996). The genderdi- ences in household work and parenting.Women's
vision of laborand family changein industrialsoci- StudiesInternationalForum,18, 271-284.
eties: A theoreticalaccounting.Journalof Compar- England,P., & Farkas,G. (1986). Households,employ-
ative FamilyStudies,27, 187-216. ment, and gender:A social, economic, and demo-
Cohen, P. N. (1998). Replacinghouseworkin the ser- graphicview. New York:Aldine.
vice economy: Gender,class, and race-ethnicityin Erickson,R. J. (1993). Reconceptualizing
service spending.Gender& Society,12, 219-231. familywork:
The effect of emotionworkon perceptionsof marital
Collins, R., Chafetz,J. S., Blumberg,R. L., Coltrane, quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
S., & Turner,J. (1993). Towardan integratedtheory 888-900.
of genderstratification.
SociologicalPerspectives,36,
185-216. Fassinger,P.A. (1993). Meaningsof houseworkfor sin-
Coltrane,S. (1989). Householdlabor and the routine gle fathersandmothers.In J. Hood (Ed),Men, Work,
and Family(pp. 195-216). NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
productionof gender.Social Problems,36, 473-490. Fenstermaker,S. (1996). The dynamics of time use.
Coltrane,S. (1990). Birth timing and the division of
labor in dual-earnerfamilies: Exploratoryfindings Journalof FamilyandEconomicIssues,17, 231-243.
and suggestionsfor futureresearch.Journalof Fam- Ferree,M. M. (1990). Beyond separatespheres:Femi-
nism and family research.Journalof Marriageand
ily Issues, 11, 157-181.
Coltrane,S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood,house- the Family,52, 866-884.
work,and genderequity.New York:OxfordUniver- Ferree,M. M. (1991). The genderdivision of laborin
sity Press. two-earnermarriages:Dimensionsof variabilityand
Coltrane,S. (1998). Gender& Families.NewburyPark, change.Journalof FamilyIssues, 12, 158-180.
CA: Pine ForgePress. Fish, L. S., New, R. S., & Van Cleave, N. J. (1992).
Coltrane,S., & Ishii-Kuntz,M. (1992). Men's house- Sharedparentingin dual-incomefamilies.American
work:A life-courseperspective.Journalof Marriage Orthopsychiatric Association,Inc. 62, 83-92.
and the Family,54, 43-57. Folbre,N., & Wagman,B. (1993). Countinghousework:
Coltrane,S. & Valdez,E. (1993). Reluctantcompliance: New estimatesof real productin the United States,
Work/familyrole allocationin dual-earnerChicano 1800-1860. Journalof EconomicHistory,53, 275-
families.In J. C. Hood (Ed.),Men, workandfamily 288.
(pp. 151-175). NewburyPark,CA: Sage. Gager,C. T. (1998). The role of valuedoutcomes,jus-
Cowan,C. P., & Cowan,P. A. (1992). Whenpartners tifications,andcomparisonreferentsin perceptionsof
become parents: The big life change for couples. fairnessamongdual-earnercouples.Journalof Fam-
New York:Basic Books. ily Issues, 19, 622-649.
Crouter,A. C., McHale,S. M., & Bartko,W.T. (1993). Gallagher,S. K. (1994). Doing theirshare-comparing
Genderas an organizingfeaturein parent-childrela- patternsof help given by older and youngeradults.
tionships.Journalof Social Issues, 161-174. Journalof Marriageand the Family,56, 567-578.
Gerson, K. (1993). No man's land: Men's changing A re-examinationof "time-availability."

Internation-
commitmentto family and work. New York:Basic al Journalof Sociologyof the Family,24, 87-111.
Books. Hakim, C. (1996). The sexual division of labour and
Gerstel, N., & Gallagher, S. (1994). Caring for kith and women'sheterogeneity.BritishJournalof Sociology,
kin: Gender, employment, and the privatization of 47, 178-188.
care. Social Problems,41, 519-539. Hall, L. D., Walker, A. J., & Acock, A. C. (1995). Gen-
Geurts, J., & De Ree, J. (1993). Influence of research der and family work in one-parent households. Jour-
design on time use estimates.Social IndicatorsRe- nal of Marriageand the Family,57, 685-692.
search, 30, 245-284. Harrell, W. A. (1995). Husband's involvement in house-
Giddings, L. A. (1998). Political economy and the con- work: Effects of relative earning power and mascu-
struction of gender: The example of housework with- line orientation.Psychological Reports, 77, 1331-
in same-sexhouseholds.FeministEconomics,4, 97- 1337.
106. Hartmann,H. (1981). The family as the locus of gender,
Gill, G. K. (1998). The strategic involvement of chil- class, and political struggle: The example of house-
dren in housework: An Australian case of two-in- work. Signs: Journalof Womenin Cultureand So-
come families.InternationalJournalof Comparative ciety, 6, 366-394.
Sociology,39, 301-314. Hartmann, H. (1993). Comment on the exchange value
Glass, J., & Camarigg, V. (1992). Gender, parenthood, of housework and theories of gender stratification.
and job-family compatibility.AmericanJournal of Rationalityand Society,5, 375-385.
Sociology,98, 131-151. Harvey, A. S. (1993). Guidelines for time use data col-
Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1994). Housework, paid work, lection.Social IndicatorsResearch,30, 197-228.
and depression among husbands and wives. Journal Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Allen, S. M. (1998).
of Healthand Social Behavior,35, 179-191. The orientation toward domestic labor questionnaire:
Glenn, E. N. (1992). From servitude to service work: Exploring dual-earner wives' sense of fairness about
Historical continuities in the racial division of paid familywork.Journalof FamilyPsychology,12, 244-
reproductivelabor.Signs:Journalof Womenin Cul- 258.
ture and Society,18, 1-43. Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Meiners, K. M.
Glenn,N. (1997). Closedhearts,closedminds:Thetext- (1995). Exploring wives' sense of fairness about fam-
book story of marriage. New York: Institute for ily work: An initial test of the distributive-justice
American Values. framework.Journalof FamilyIssues, 16, 693-721.
Golding, J. M. (1990). Division of household labor, Hawkins, A. J., & Roberts, T.-A. (1992). Designing a
strain, and depressive symptoms among Mexican primary intervention to help dual-earner couples
Americansand Non-HispanicWhites.Psychologyof share houseworkand child care. Family Relations,
WomenQuarterly,14, 103-117. 41, 169-177.
Goldscheider,F.K., & Waite,L. J. (1991).Newfamilies, Hawkins, A. J., Roberts, T.-A., Christiansen, S. L., &
no families? Berkeley,CA: Universityof California Marshall, C. M. (1994). An evaluation of a program
Press. to help dual-earner couples share the second shift.
Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Children's housework: Its nature FamilyRelations,43, 213-220.
and functions.PsychologicalBulletin,163, 5-26. Hays, S. (1996). The culturalcontradictionsof moth-
erhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Goodnow, J. J., Bowes, J. M., Warton, P. M., Dawes,
L. J., & Taylor, A. J. (1991). Would you ask someone Heath, J. A. (1990). Non-employed women, marriage
andthe SisyphusSyndrome.Journalof EconomicIs-
else to do this task? Parents' and children's ideas
abouthouseholdwork requests.DevelopmentalPsy- sues, 24, 103-114.
Heath, J. A., & Bourne, W. D. (1995). Husbands and
chology,27, 817-828. housework:Parityor parody.Social Science Quar-
Graham, H. (1991). The concept of caring in feminist
terly, 76, 195-202.
research:The case of domesticservice.Sociology,25, Heath, J. A., Ciscel, D. H., & Sharp, D. C. (1998). Too
61-79.
many hours-too little pay: The impact of market and
Greenstein, T. N. (1996a). Husbands' participation in householdhourson women'swork lives. Journalof
domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives' and hus- EconomicIssues, 32, 587-594.
bands' gender ideologies. Journalof Marriageand Herrera, R. S., & del Campo, R. L. (1995). Beyond the
the Family,58, 585-595. superwoman syndrome: Work satisfaction and family
Greenstein, T. N. (1996b). Gender ideology and percep- functioning among working-class, Mexican American
tions of the fairness of the division of household la- women.HispanicJournalof BehavioralSciences,17,
bor: Effects on maritalquality. Social Forces, 74, 49-60.
1029-1042. Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1997). Housework, fixed
Gunter, N. C., & Gunter, B. G. (1990). Domestic divi- effects, and wages of marriedworkers.Journal of
sion of labor among working couples: Does androg- HumanResources,32, 285-307.
yny makea difference.Psychologyof WomenQuar- Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1994). Housework, wages,
terly, 14, 355-370. and the division of housework time for employed
Gupta, S. (1999). The effects of marital status transi- spouses.AmericanEconomicReview,84, 120-125.
tions on men's houseworkperformance.Journalof Hilton, J. M., & Haldeman, V. A. (1991). Gender dif-
Marriageand the Family,61, 700-711. ferences in the performance of household tasks by
Haas, L. (1992). Equalparenthoodand social policy. adults and children in single-parent and two-parent,
Albany, NY: SUNY Press. two-earnerfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 12,
Haddad, T. (1994). Men's contribution to family work: 114-130.
Hochschild,A. R. (1997). The time bind. New York: perceptionsof householdlabor.TheJournalof Psy-
Holt. chology, 130, 357-370.
Hochschild,A. R., with Machung,A. (1989). Thesec- Kluwer,E. S., Heesink,J. A. M., & Van de Vliert, E.
ond shift. New York: Avon. (1996). Maritalconflictaboutthe divisionof house-
Hondagneu-Sotelo,P. (1992). Overcomingpatriarchal hold labor and paid work. Journal of Marriage and
constraints:The reconstructionof gender relations the Family, 58, 958-969.
amongMexicanimmigrantwomenandmen. Gender Kluwer,E. S., Heesink,J. A. M., & Van de Vliert,E.
& Society, 6, 393-415. (1997). The maritaldynamicsof conflictover the di-
Hood, J. C. (1983). Becoming a two-job family. New vision of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
York:Praeger. 59, 635-653.
Hood, J. C. (1993). Men, work, and family. Newbury Komter,A. (1989). Hiddenpowerin marriage.Gender
Park,CA: Sage. & Society, 3, 187-216.
Hossain, Z., & Roopnarine,J. L. (1993). Division of Kooreman,P., & Kapteyn,A. (1990). On the empirical
householdlabor and child care in dual-earnerAfri- implementationof some game theoreticmodels of
can-Americanfamilies with infants. Sex Roles, 29, household labor supply. The Journal of Human Re-
571-583. sources, 25, 584-598.
Ishii-Kuntz,M., & Coltrane,S. (1992a). Predictingthe Kurdek,L. A. (1993). The allocationof householdlabor
sharingof householdlabor:Are parentingandhouse- in gay, lesbian, and heterosexualmarriedcouples.
work distinct? Sociological Perspectives, 35, 629- Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127-139.
647. Kynaston, C. (1996). The everyday exploitationof
Ishii-Kuntz,M., & Coltrane,S. (1992b). Remarriage, women:Houseworkandthe patriarchal modeof pro-
andhouseholdlabor.Journalof Family
stepparenting, duction. Women's Studies International Forum, 19,
Issues, 13, 215-233. 221-237.
Jackson,S. (1992). Towardsa historicalsociology of Larson,R. W., & Almeida, D. M. (1999). Emotional
housework:A materialistfeministanalysis.Women's transmissionin the daily lives of families: A new
Studies International Forum, 15, 153-172. paradigmfor studying family process. Journal of
Jacobs,J. (1993). Economicand sociologicalexplana- Marriage and the Family 61, 5-20.
tions of gender inequality. Rationality and Society, 5, Larson,R. W., Richards,M. H., & Perry-Jenkins,M.
386-397. (1994). Divergentworlds: The daily emotionalex-
John,D., & Shelton,B. A. (1997). The productionof perienceof mothersand fathersin the domesticand
genderamongBlackandWhitewomenandmen:The public spheres. Journal of Personality and Social
case of household labor. Sex Roles: A Journal of Re- Psychology, 67, 1034-1046.
search, 36, 171-193. Lennon,M. C., & Rosenfield,S. (1994). Relativefair-
John,D., Shelton,B. A., & Luschen,K. (1995). Race, ness and the divisionof housework:The importance
ethnicity,genderandperceptionsof fairness.Journal of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506-
of Family Issues, 16, 357-379. 531.
Johnson,E. M., & Huston,T. L. (1998). The perils of Lye, D. N., & Biblarz,T. J. (1993). The effects of at-
love, or why wives adaptto husbandsduringthe tran- titudestowardfamilylife andgenderroleson marital
sition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 157-188.
Family, 60, 195-204. MacDermid,S. M., Huston,T L., & McHale, S. M.
Johnson,P. J. (1998). Performanceof householdtasks (1990). Changesin marriageassociatedwith the tran-
by Vietnameseand Laotianrefugees:Traditionand sitionto parenthood: Individualdifferencesas a func-
change. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 245-273. tion of sex-roleattitudesand changesin the division
Juster,F T, & Stafford,E P. (1991). The allocationof of household labor. Journal of Marriage and the
time: Empirical findings, behavioral models, and Family, 52, 475-486.
problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Lit- Major,B. (1987). Gender,justice, and the psychology
erature, 29, 471-522. of entitlement.P. Shaver& C. Hendricks(Eds.),Re-
Kalleberg,A. L., & Rosenfeld,R. A. (1990). Workin view of personality and social psychology (pp. 124-
the family and in the labormarket:A cross-national, 140). NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
reciprocal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Major,B. (1993). Gender,entitlement,and the distri-
Family, 52, 331-346. bution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49,
Kamo,Y. (1991). A non-lineareffect of the numberof 141-159.
childrenon the division of householdlabor.Socio- Manke,B. S. B. L., Crouter,A. C., & McHale,S. M.
logical Perspectives, 34, 205-218. (1994). The three corners of domestic labor:
Kamo, Y. (1994). Division of householdwork in the Mother's,father's,andchildren'sweekdayandweek-
United States and Japan. Journal of Family Issues, end housework. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
15, 348-378. 56, 657-668.
Kane,E. W., & Sanchez,L. (1994). Familystatusand Marini,M. M., & Shelton, B. A. (1993). Measuring
criticismof genderinequalityat home andwork.So- household work: Recent experience in the United
cial Forces, 72, 1079-1102. States. Social Science Research, 22, 361-382.
Kibria,N., Bamett,R. C., Baruch,G. K., Marshall,N. Massey,G., Hahn,K., & SekulicDusko.(1995). Wom-
L., & Pleck, J. H. (1990). Homemaking-rolequality en, men and the "secondshift" in socialistYugosla-
and the psychologicalwell-beinganddistressof em- via. Gender & Society, 9, 359-379.
ployed women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 22, McHale,S. M., Bartko,W. T, Crouter,A. C., & Perry-
327-347. Jenkins,M. (1990). Children'shouseworkand psy-
Kiger,G., & Riley, P. J. (1996). Genderdifferencesin chosocial functioning:The mediatingeffects of par-
ents' sex-role behaviors and attitudes. Child family effects on the second-shiftdomestic activity
Development,61, 1413-1426. of college-educatedyoung adult.Gender& Society,
McHale,S. M., & Crouter,A. C. (1992). You can't al- 10, 78-93.
ways get whatyou want-incongruencebetweensex- Perry-Jenkins, M., & Crouter,A. C. (1990). Men'spro-
role attitudesand family work roles and its implica- vider-roleattitudes:Implicationsfor householdwork
tions for marriage.Journal of Marriage and the andmaritalsatisfaction.Journalof FamilyIssues,11,
Family,54, 537-547. 136-156.
Mederer,H. J. (1993). Division of laborin two-earner Perry-Jenkins,M., & Folk, K. (1994). Class, couples,
homes:Taskaccomplishment versushouseholdmain- and conflict:Effects of the division of laboron as-
tenanceas criticalvariablesin perceptionsaboutfam- sessmentsof marriagein dual-earnerfamilies.Jour-
ily work. Journalof Marriageand the Family, 55, nal of Marriageand the Family,56, 165-180.
133-145. Perry-Jenkins, M., Seery, B., & Crouter,A. C. (1992).
Mederer,H. J., & Weinstein,L. (1992). Choices and Linkages between women's provider-roleattitudes,
constraintsin a two-personcareer:Ideology,division psychologicalwell-being, and family relationships.
of labor,and well-being among submarineofficers' Psychologyof WomenQuarterly,16, 311-329.
wives. Journalof FamilyIssues, 13, 334-350. Pestello, F. G., & Voydanoff,P. (1991). In searchof
Milkie, M., & Peltola, P. (1999). Playingall the roles: mesostructurein the family: An interactionistap-
Genderand the work-familybalancingact. Journal proachto divisionof labor.SymbolicInteraction,14,
of Marriageand the Family,61, 476-490. 105-128.
Miller, J., & Garrison,H. H. (1982). Sex roles: The Peterson,R. R., & Gerson,K. (1993). A social-struc-
division of laborat home and in the workplace.An- turalexplanationof mens' andwomens'domesticre-
nual Reviewof Sociology,8, 237-262. sponsibility.Journalof Marriageand the Family,55,
Mintz,R. D., & Mahalik,J. R. (1996). Genderrole ori- 508-510.
entationand conflictas predictorsof familyroles for Pifia,D. L., & Bengtson,V. L. (1993). The divisionof
men. Sex Roles:A Journalof Research,34, 805-821. household labor and wive's happiness-Ideology,
Miraftab,F (1994). (Re)production at home:Reconcep- employment,and perceptionsof support.Journalof
tualizinghome and family.Journalof FamilyIssues, Marriageand the Family,55, 901-912.
15, 467-489. Pifia, D. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995). Division of
Mirande,A. (1997). Hombreset Machos:Masculinity household labor and the well-being of retirement-
and LatinoCulture.Boulder,CO: Westview. aged wives. The Gerontologist,35, 308-317.
Nakhaie,M. R. (1995). Houseworkin Canada:The na- Pittman,J. E, & Blanchard,D. (1996). The effects of
tional picture.Journalof ComparativeFamilyStud- work historyand timingof marriageon the division
ies, 26, 409-429. of householdlabor:A life-courseperspective.Jour-
Nicol, C. J., & Nakamura,A. (1994). Laborsupplyand nal of Marriageand the Family,58, 78-90.
child statuseffects on householddemands.TheJour- Pittman,J. E, Solheim,C. A., & Blanchard,D. (1996).
nal of HumanResources,29, 588-599. Stress as a driver of the allocationof housework.
Niemi, I. (1993). Systematicerrorin behavioralmea- Journalof Marriageand the Family,58, 456-468.
surement:Comparingresultsfrominterviewandtime Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father:Compelling
budgetstudies.Social IndicatorsResearch, 30, 229- new evidencethatfatherhoodandmarriageareindis-
244. pensablefor the good of childrenand society. New
Nock, S. (1998). Marriagein men's lives. New York: York:MartinKessler/FreePress.
OxfordUniversityPress. Potuchek,J. L. (1992). Employedwives' orientationsto
Oakley,A. (1974). The sociology of housework.New breadwinning:A gendertheory analysis.Journalof
York:Pantheon. Marriageand the Family,54, 548-558.
Okin, S. M. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. Press, J. E., & Townsley,E. (1998). Wives' and hus-
New York:Basic Books. bands'houseworkreporting:Gender,class, andsocial
Orbuch,T.L., & Eyster,S. L. (1997). Divisionof house- desirability.Gender& Society,12, 188-218.
hold laboramongBlack couples and Whitecouples. Presser,H. B. (1994). Employmentschedules among
Social Forces, 76, 301-332. dual-earnerspousesandthe divisionof householdla-
Oropesa,R. S. (1993). Using the service economy to bor by gender.AmericanSociological Review, 59,
relieve the doubleburden:Femalelaborforce partic- 348-364.
ipationand service purchases.Journalof FamilyIs- Pyke,K., & Coltrane,S. (1996). Entitlement,obligation,
sues, 14, 438-473. and gratitudein family work.Journalof FamilyIs-
Osmond,M. W., & Thorne,B. (1993). Feministtheo- sues, 17, 60-82.
ries:The socialconstructionof genderin familiesand Rasmussen,K. S., Hawkins,A. J., & Schwab, K. P.
society.In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty,R. LaRossa,W. (1996). Increasinghusband'sinvolvementin domes-
R. Shumm,& S. K. Steinmetz(Eds.),Sourcebookof tic labor:Issues for therapists.Contemporary Family
family theories and methods (pp. 591-623). New Therapy,18, 209-223.
York:Plenum. Ribbens,J., & Edwards,R. (1995). Introducingquali-
Padgett,D. L. (1997). The contributionof supportnet- tativeresearchon womenin familiesandhouseholds.
worksto householdlaborin AfricanAmericanfam- Women'sStudiesInternationalForum,18, 247-258.
ilies. Journalof FamilyIssues, 18, 227-250. Risman,B. J., & Johnson-Sumerford, D. (1998). Doing
Palmer,P.(1989).Domesticityand dirt:Housewivesand it fairly:A studyof postgendermarriages.Journalof
domesticservantsin the United States, 1920-1945. Marriageand the Family,60, 23-40.
Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress. Robinson,J. (1977). How Americansuse time. New
Perkins,H. W., & DeMeis, D. K. (1996). Genderand York:Praeger.
Robinson,J., & Spitze, G. (1992). Whistle while you Silver,H., & Goldscheider,E (1994). Flexibleworkand
work?The effect of householdtask performanceon housework:Workandfamilyconstraintson women's
women'sandmen'swell-being.Social ScienceQuar- domestic labor. Social Forces, 72, 1103-1119.
terly, 73, 844-861. Smith, H. L., Gager,C. T., & Morgan,S. P. (1998).
Robinson,J., & Godbey,G. (1997). Timefor life. Uni- Identifyingunderlyingdimensionsin spouses' eval-
versity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University uationsof fairnessin the divisionof householdlabor.
Press. Social Science Research, 27, 305-327.
Robinson,J. P., & Milkie,M. (1997). Danceswith dust South,S. J., & Spitze,G. (1994). Houseworkin marital
bunnies:Housecleaningin America.AmericanDem- and nonmarital households. American Sociological
ographics, 59, 37-40. Review, 59, 327-347.
Robinson,J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (1998). Back to the Spain,D., & Bianchi,S. (1996). Balancingact: Moth-
basics: Trendsin and role determinantsof women's erhood, marriage and employment among American
attitudes toward housework. Journal of Marriage and women.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
the Family, 60, 205-218. Spitze, G., & Ward,R. (1995). Householdlaborin in-
Romero,M. (1992).Maidin the U.S.A.New York:Rou- tergenerational households. Journal of Marriage and
tledge. the Family, 57, 355-361.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky,J. (1992). Households,em- Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking
ployment,andthe senseof control.SocialPsychology family values in the postmodern age. Boston: Beacon
Quarterly, 55, 217-235. Press.
Rubin, L. (1994). Families on the fault line. New York: Starrels,M. E. (1994). Husbands'involvementin fe-
Harper. male gender-typedhouseholdchores. Sex Roles: A
Sanchez,L. (1993). Women'spower and the gendered Journal of Research, 31, 473-491.
divisionof domesticlaborin the third-world.Gender Steil, J. M., & Weltman,K. (1991). Maritalinequality:
& Society,7, 434-459. The importanceof resources,personalattributes,and
Sanchez,L. (1994a). Gender,laborallocations,and the social normson careervaluingand the allocationof
psychology of entitlementwithin the home. Social domestic responsibilitie. Sex Roles: A Journal of Re-
Forces, 73, 533-553. search,24, 161-179.
Sanchez,L. (1994b). Materialresources,family struc- Stohs, J. H. (1994). Alternativeethics in employed
ture resources,and husband'shouseworkparticipa- women'shouseholdlabor.Journalof FamilyIssues,
tion:A cross-nationalcomparison.Journalof Family 15, 550-561.
Issues, 15, 379-402. Stohs, J. H. (1995). Predictorsof conflict over the
Sanchez,L. (1996). Feminism,family work,and moral householddivisionof laboramongwomenemployed
discourse-Beyond drudgery,power, and equity- full-time. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 33, 257-
Comment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 275.
514-520. Strober,M. H., & Chan,A. M. K. (1998). Husbands,
Sanchez,L., & Kane,E. W. (1996). Women'sandmen's wives, andhousework:Graduatesof StanfordandTo-
constructionsof perceptionsof houseworkfairness. kyo universities. Feminist Economics, 4, 97-127.
Journal of Family Issues, 17, 358-387.
Suitor,J. J. (1991). Maritalqualityandsatisfactionwith
Sanchez,L., & Thomson,E. (1997). Becomingmothers the divisionof householdlaboracrossthe familylife
and fathers:Parenthood,gender,and the division of
cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 221-
labor. Gender & Society, 11, 747-772.
230.
Schor,J. (1991). TheoverworkedAmerican.New York: Sullivan,0. (1997). The divisionof houseworkamong
BasicBooks.
"remarried" couples. Journal of Family Issues, 18,
Shelton, B. A. (1990). The distributionof household 205-223.
tasks:Does wife's employmentstatusmake a differ-
ence? Journal of Family Issues, 11, 115-135. Szinovacz,M. (1987). Familypower.In M. Sussman&
S. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage and the
Shelton, B. A. (1992). Women, men and time: Gender
differences in paid work, housework and leisure Family.New York:Plenum.
(Contributionsin Women'sStudies 127). New York: Szinovacz,M. (1992). Is houseworkgood for retirees?
GreenwoodPress. Family Relations, 41, 230-238.
Shelton,B. A., & John,D. (1993a).Does maritalstatus Szinovacz,M., & Harpster,P. (1994). Couples'employ-
make a difference?Houseworkamong marriedand ment/retirement
statusand the divisionof household
cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Is- tasks. Journals of Gerontology, 49, S125-S137.
sues, 14, 401-420. Thompson,L. (1991). Familywork:Women'ssense of
Shelton,B. A., & John,D. (1993b).Ethnicity,race,and fairness.Journalof FamilyIssues, 12, 181-196.
difference:A comparisonof White,Black, and His- Thompson,L. (1993). Conceptualizinggenderin mar-
panic men's household labor time. In J. C. Hood riage:The case of maritalcare.Journalof Marriage
(Ed.), Men, work, and family (pp. 131-150). New- and the Family, 55, 557-569.
bury Park,CA: Sage. Thompson,L., & Walker,A. J. (1989). Genderin fam-
Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of ilies: Womenand men in marriage,work, and par-
household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, enthood.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51,
299-322. 845-871.
Siegel, R. B. (1998). Valuinghousework:Nineteenth- Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political ar-
centuryanxietiesabout the commodificationof do- gument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.
mestic labor. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, Twiggs,J. E., McQuillan,J., & Ferree,M. M. (1999).
1437-1451. Meaningand measurement:Reconceptualizingmea-
sures of the division of householdlabor.Journalof accomplishmentof gender.In P. England(Ed.), The-

Marriageand the Family,61, 712-724. ory on gender/feminismon theory (pp. 151-174).
Vanek,J. (1974). Time spent in housework.Scientific New York:Aldine deGruyter.
American,231, 116-120. Wharton,C. S. (1994). Findingtime for the "Second
Van der Lippe, T, & Siegers,J. J. (1994). Division of Shift": The impact of flexible work schedules on
householdand paid labourbetweenpartners:Effects women'sdoubledays.Gender& Society,8, 189-205.
of relativewage ratesandsocialnorms.KYKLOS, 47, Wilkie,J. R., Ferree,M. M., & Ratcliff,K. S. (1998).
109-136. Genderandfairness:Maritalsatisfactionin two-earn-
VanEvery,J. (1997). Understanding genderedinequali- er couples.Journalof Marriageand the Family,60,
ty: Reconceptualizinghousework.Women'sStudies 577-594.
InternationalForum,20, 411-420. Wilson,M. N., Tolson,T.F.J., Hinton,I. D., & Kiernan,
Waite,L., & Goldscheider,F K. (1992). Workin the M. (1990). Flexibilityand sharingof childcareduties
home:Theproductivecontextof familyrelationships. in Black families.Sex Roles:A Journalof Research,
S. J. South, & S. E. Tolnay (Eds.), The changing 22, 409-425.
Americanfamily (pp. 267-299). Boulder,CO: West- Wright,E. O., Shire, K., Hwang, S.-L., Dolan, M., &
view. Baxter,J. (1992). The non-effectsof class on the gen-
Ward,R. A. (1993). Maritalhappinessand household der division of labor in the home: A comparative
equityin laterlife. Journalof Marriageand the Fam- study of Sweden and the United States. Gender &
ily, 55, 427-438. Society,6, 252-282.
Weisner,T. S., & Garnier,H. (1994). Domestic tasks, Zvonkovic,A. M., Greaves,K. M., Schmiege,C. J., &
genderegalitarianvaluesandchildren'sgendertyping Hall,L. D. (1996). The maritalconstructionof gender
in conventionaland nonconventionalfamilies. Sex through work and family decisions: A qualitative
Roles:A Journalof Research,30, 23-54. analysis. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 58,
West, C., & Fenstermaker,S. (1993). Power and the 91-100.

S. Coltrane - Research On Household Labor - Modeling and Measuring The Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. Coltrane - Research On Household Labor - Modeling and Measuring The Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine

1208 Journalof Marriageand the Family62 (November2000): 1208-1233

be achievedin the distributionof labortimeacross tasks can carry differentmeaningsaboutgender,

vey of Children, the National Longitudinal cookingandcleaning,especiallyif they areunder

sources, (b) socialization-genderrole attitudes, titudes or deeply genderedpersonalities.Gender

analysis,severalrobustpredictorshave begun to SurveyQuestions

winner-homemaker familiesseparatelyfromdual- sharemore of the houseworkwith theirhusbands

housework(Blair & Lichter,1991; Brayfield, work(Bergen,1991;Hersch& Stratton,1994;

significant(Presser,1994).Anotherfindingrelated fewer hourson the job and begin to put in signif-

Spouses who hold more comparableperceptions Eyster,1997;Pifia& Bengtson,1993). Most stud-

dren'shouseworkis less typedby genderthanthat stressed,and have worse relationswith theirpar-

derinequities.The taskbeforeus is thusto specify low-schedule-controlhouseworktasks, and psycho-

Gerson, K. (1993). No man's land: Men's changing A re-examinationof "time-availability."

sures of the division of householdlabor.Journalof accomplishmentof gender.In P. England(Ed.), The-

You might also like