Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
Daphne John
Department of Sociology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio 44074
KEY WORDS:
ABSTRACT
In this chapter we review research on the division of household labor and its
consequences. The review summarizes research focused on issues of measurement, including research on methods of gathering data on housework time and
time use in general and discussions of various ways to operationalize the division
of household labor. Some attention is paid to historical and theoretical work on
housework and womens responsibility for it in particular, followed by a more
detailed discussion of current empirical approaches to explaining the division of
household labor as well as criticisms of these approaches. Finally, we review
research that examines the consequences of the division of household labor, focusing on those studies that examine its impact on labor force participation and
wages, marital and family satisfaction, psychological well-being, and perceptions
of fairness.
INTRODUCTION
The most notable characteristic of the current division of household labor is
that, whether employed or not, women continue to do the majority of housework
(Brines 1993, Marini & Shelton 1993, Robinson 1988). Current estimates are
that men do between 20% (Robinson 1988) and 35% (Presser 1994) of the
299
0360-0572/96/0815-0299$08.00
12:15
300
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
MEASUREMENT
Household labor is defined in a variety of ways and even when defined in a
consistent way, the precise method of measurement varies from study to study.
Housework is rarely defined explicitly in a study except for an indication of
whether childcare is included in its definition. Nevertheless, a fairly consistent
conceptualization has emerged in the literature. Housework most often refers
to unpaid work done to maintain family members and/or a home. As such,
emotion work and other invisible types of work are typically excluded from
analysis, although some studies mention the importance of this invisible labor.
In most studies, the definition of housework must be inferred from the way it
is measured.
Types of Instruments
One method used to gather information about housework time
is the time diary (Harvey 1993). In a time diary, the respondent (and sometimes
the spouse/partner) is asked to complete a diary accounting for his/her time for
a 24-hour period. Examples of studies of this type are the well-known surveys
of time use carried out by the Survey Research Center at the University of
Michigan in 19651966, 19751976, and 1981, and by the Survey Research
Center at the University of Maryland in 1985.
Time diaries differ in a variety of ways including whether respondents complete the diary during the day for which data are being collected or whether they
complete a diary retrospectively. Retrospective diaries completed one day later
are, compared to ongoing diaries, of almost equal value (Robinson 1985), and
accurate data about weekends can be obtained up to seven days later (Kalton
1985). Retrospective diaries are less expensive to use since only one visit by
an interviewer is required.
Time diaries are problematic to the extent that the diary day is not representative of the general pattern of activities during a day. This potential problem
is handled in most studies by ensuring that different days of the week are
TIME DIARIES
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
301
represented (Robinson 1977, Sanik 1981, Walker & Woods 1976) and, in some
cases, that data are collected in different seasons of the year (Hill 1985). In
spite of these efforts, it is difficult to obtain data for times around major holidays
(Lyberg 1989).
The reliability and validity of time diaries have been assessed by comparing
respondents and spouses accounts of when an activity occurred (Juster 1985),
as well as by comparing activities recorded in time diaries with those occurring when respondents reported their activity at the signal of a beeper set to
go off randomly (Robinson 1985). These studies report correlations between
estimates obtained by different methods of between .68 and .81.
Although Harvey (1993) reports that the time diary method is relatively robust
with respect to minor variations in format, others find that questionnaire format
has an effect on responses (Geurts & De Ree 1993). Another limitation of time
diaries, and other methods of gathering data about time use, is the difficulty in
dealing with tasks performed simultaneously (Nichols 1980, Warner 1986).
DIRECT QUESTIONS Direct questions about household labor time range from
questions that have respondents estimate their usual time spent on a list of household activities (National Survey of Families & Households 1987) to those that
have respondents indicate how much time they usually spend on housework
(Panel Study of Income Dynamics 1976, Quality of Employment Survey 1977).
There are few studies that compare time-diary to direct-question data, but those
that do find that direct questions typically produce higher time estimates than
time diary questions (Juster & Stafford 1991, Niemi 1993), especially for activities that occur frequently (Marini & Shelton 1993). For activities that occur infrequently, direct questions produce lower estimates, possibly because a longer
period of recall is required (Hill 1985). Marini & Shelton (1993) compare data
from the NSFH and from the Michigan Survey of Time Use (STU) and find
that, in general, the NSFH estimates, based on direct questions, result in higher
time estimates, but slightly lower estimates of task segregation. In general, the
quality of both direct-question and time-diary measures is improved by the use
of narrowly defined tasks.
OTHER MEASURES Some researchers focus on who performs specific tasks
rather than how much time is spent on those tasks (Berk & Berk 1978). In
a similar method, Blair & Lichter (1991) assess the amount of task segregation by calculating an index of segregation based on the Index of Dissimilarity.
This measure assesses gender differences in how women and men allocate
their housework time among tasks. Rather than using an estimate of time
expenditures, some studies use measures that indicate only the proportion of
housework done by the husband or wife (Warner 1986). Proportional measures
12:15
302
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
usually have respondents indicate whether the wife always, wife usually, both
wife and husband, husband usually or husband always does a particular household task (Blood & Wolfe 1960, Huber & Spitze 1983, Stafford et al 1977,
Ferree 1991), but some researchers calculate proportional measures from time
estimates (Ishii-Kuntz & Coltrane 1992a,b, Peters & Haldeman 1987). Finally,
some researchers have respondents indicate who is responsible for household
tasks, rather than only who performs the tasks (Geerken & Gove 1983), thus
allowing some assessment of management responsibility.
In addition to differences in how housework is measured, who provides the information about housework time varies as well. Some studies have one member
of a household provide estimates of all household members housework time,
while others have each member of the household, or each adult member, provide an estimate of their time expenditures. Respondents typically overestimate
their own housework time and underestimate the time spent by other household
members (Marini & Shelton 1993), leading some researchers to use averages
of respondent and spouse estimates of time when possible (Marini & Shelton
1993).
The variety of ways housework is measured both complicates any assessment
of the literature and indicates the need for development of reliable measures of
housework. Up to this point, most researchers are left to use whatever measures
of housework are available and then must contend with the problems this poses
when comparing their results to other studies.
HISTORICAL TREATMENTS
Historical discussions of household labor range from detailed documentation
of changes in how housework is defined and how it has been affected by technological innovations (Bose et al 1984, Cowan 1983, Strasser 1982) to analyses
of the impact of industrialization on the distribution of housework.
Technological developments and the mass production of household goods
led to the increased availability and use of what are often called laborsaving
devices (Bose 1979, Bose et al 1984, Day 1992, Jackson 1992, Strasser 1982).
Some argue that such technology homogenized household labor by standardizing what was expected in terms of household labor across social class, although
some maintain these standards by hiring outside help (Cowan 1983, Glenn
1992, Jackson 1992, Schor 1991, Strasser 1982). Other research suggests that
as women were drawn into the paid labor force, their time available for housework decreased, but technological innovations allowed them to maintain their
housework standards even though they were employed (Bose 1979, Bose et al
1984, Day 1992). Still others emphasize how innovations in household technologies served to reallocate womens time to household labor in the form of
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
303
new tasks that needed to be done (e.g. tub and toilet cleaning) or into upholding higher household standards (e.g. more complicated meals, cleaner carpets)
(Cowan 1983, Jackson 1992, McGaw 1982, Schor 1991). In fact, it did both;
new household technologies increased womens workload in some areas but
reduced the time required to complete other tasks (e.g. sew a garment). Although it is not clear that new household technologies allowed women to enter
the paid labor force, they were compatible with their labor force participation.
Industrialization, more generally, has been linked to the separation of paid
and unpaid work and the development of the role of housewife (Ahlander &
Bahr 1995, Bourke 1994, Lopata 1993, Valadez & Clignet 1984) as well as to
womens dependence on men through their reliance on their husbands wages
(Jackson 1992, Lamphere 1989, Lopata 1993). Bourke (1994) suggests that
increased wages in England in the late nineteenth century encouraged many
women to remain in the household instead of entering the paid labor force, thus
reinforcing the role of housewife.
12:15
304
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
they call a dependent labor model to account for the fact that womens employment results in a cumulation of demands on them rather than in change in
their husbands housework time. All of these studies characterize the division
of household labor as at least partly reflecting structural factors, but the method
of testing the influence of these factors is not consistent.
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
305
(Berardo et al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brayfield 1992, Brines 1993, Haddad 1994,
Hardesty & Bokemeier 1989, Kamo 1988, Presser 1994, South & Spitze 1994)
and negatively associated with their spouses or partners household labor time
(Kamo 1991, Shelton & John 1993a). These results are inconsistent with the
predictions of the relative resource approach and are sometimes interpreted as
indicating the relationship between education and ideology (Coverman 1985,
Farkas 1976, Presser 1994) or subculture (Huber & Spitze 1983). Several studies
find no association between mens education and housework time (Kamo 1991,
McAllister 1990) or that the effect disappears once gender ideology measures
are included (Kamo 1994).
The findings on the effect of womens education on the division of household
labor generally indicate that womens educational level is negatively associated
with their household labor time (Berardo et al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brines
1993, Shelton & John 1993a, South & Spitze 1994) and with the level of task
segregation (Blair & Lichter 1991). Although these findings are consistent with
the relative resources explanation, they also are consistent with the argument
that better educated women hold more egalitarian sex role attitudes and thus do
less housework, while better educated men do more (Huber & Spitze 1983).
Occupational prestige, another measure of resources, is less consistently
associated with housework time than are earnings or education level in the
few models that include it. As predicted by the relative resource model, some
researchers report that mens occupational status is negatively associated with
their housework time (McAllister 1990), but more find that it is either positively
associated with their housework time (Berk & Berk 1978, Deutsch et al 1993)
or not associated with it (Aytac 1990, Coverman 1985). Aytac (1990) finds
that men whose wives are decision-makers on the job are more likely to share
household labor than are men whose wives do not have such authority on the
job. Presser (1994) reports that both women and men in professional couples
spend less time on housework than women and men in other types of couples.
Most studies find no association between womens occupational status and
their household labor time (Calasanti & Bailey 1991, McAllister 1990).
Hardesty & Bokemeier (1989) operationalize occupations as male or female
dominated and find no association between occupation and housework time for
women, but Brayfields (1992) study reveals that a womans workplace authority relative to her husband is negatively associated with her housework time for
women in higher supervisory positions, but not for women with lower supervisory positions. Studies of the effect of social class on the division of household
labor typically find little or no effect of social class (Gregson & Lowe 1993,
Wright et al 1992), further suggesting that household labor and standards have
been homogenized.
12:15
306
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
Thus, the most support for the relative resources explanation derives from the
association between earnings and housework time, although the gender difference in the association cannot be accounted for in the relative resource model. In
addition, the association between earnings and housework time may also reflect
households attempts to distribute housework efficiently (Becker 1981, 1985).
According to the ideology explanation, women and men with more egalitarian attitudes will have a more equal division of household labor than those
with more traditional attitudes. Specifically, men with more traditional sex role
attitudes are expected to spend less time on housework than those with less
traditional attitudes (Huber & Spitze 1983), while the reverse is expected for
women (Brayfield 1992). The findings of most studies are consistent with these
expectations, although the strength of the association between attitudes and
housework time usually is weak.
Most studies find that the more egalitarian mens gender role attitudes, the
more equal the division of household labor, but they typically use proportional
measures of mens share of housework (Blair & Lichter 1991, Kamo 1988, 1994,
Presser 1994, Ross 1987). The results are not completely consistent, however.
Brayfield (1992) reports that mens attitudes about whether housework should
be shared when both husband and wife are employed full-time are not associated
with their share of housework, but she uses only one item to assess attitudes,
compared to others who use multiple indicators of attitudes (Blair & Lichter
1991, Kamo 1988, Presser 1994, Ross 1987). To the extent that there is an
association between mens gender role attitudes and their proportional share of
housework, it is most likely due to its effect on their wives housework time
(Kamo 1991, Shelton & John 1993a, Presser 1994).
Fewer studies find an association between womens gender role attitudes and
the division of household labor, but those that do find that women with more
egalitarian attitudes spend less time on housework (Brayfield 1992, Presser
1994) and experience less task segregation (see also Atkinson & Huston 1984,
Gunter & Gunter 1990). However, a number of other researchers find no effect
of womens gender role attitudes on their housework time (Ross 1987, Shelton
& John 1993a).
Although gender role attitudes are measured in a variety of ways, most studies
indicate that mens attitudes are more strongly associated with the division of
household labor than are womens, but that attitudes do not account for very
much of the variation in the division of household labor. Those studies that find
no association between attitudes and the division of household labor typically
have weak measures of attitudes (Shelton & John 1993a) or housework (Ross
1987). Researchers with time estimates of housework and multiple indicators
of gender role attitudes usually report an association between them.
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
307
12:15
308
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
division of household labor, even in the absence of any increase in mens housework time (some studies use only proportional measures but find that the division of household labor is more equal when wives are employed (Maret &
Finlay 1984, Newell 1993, Shamir 1986, Spitze 1986). It is less clear whether
mens housework time varies by their wives employment status or paid work
time, but if there is some increase it is smaller than the decrease in womens
housework time. Mens paid work is consistently and negatively associated
with their housework time.
Using work schedule to indicate time constraints and the ability to respond to
demands, Presser (1994) reports that men who work different hours than their
wives spend more time on housework than those who work the same hours (see
also Blair & Lichter 1991, Brayfield 1995, Kingston & Nock 1985, Wharton
1994). Pleck & Staines (1985) find that both womens and mens housework
time is positively associated with working different hours than a spouse. However, Barnett & Baruch (1987) find no association between flexibility of wifes
work schedule and husbands participation in household labor.
Similarly, some studies focus on comparisons of dual-earner and singleearner households. Generally, these studies find that women in dual-earner
households still are responsible for the majority of household labor (Berardo
et al 1987, Bergmann 1986), and that the division is often sex-typed by task
(Coltrane 1990, Mederer 1993), although women in dual-earner households
typically have less responsibility for such tasks than do women in single-earner
households (Maret & Finlay 1984).
The effect of children on womens and mens housework time is similar to the
effect of womens employment in that children have a larger effect on womens
housework time than on mens (Gershuny & Robinson 1988, Shelton 1992).
The more children there are in a household, especially the more preschool children, the more time women, and to a lesser extent men, spend on housework
(Berardo et al 1987, Bergen 1991, Brines 1993, McAllister 1990, Presser 1994,
Shelton & John 1993a,b, South & Spitze 1994), although a few studies, often
with regional or non-US samples, find no association between number of children and womens housework time (Calasanti & Bailey 1991, Douthitt 1989,
Hiller & Philliber 1986).
Although time constraints typically account for the largest amount of variation in the division of household labor, a major problem with this explanation
is that it fails to account for differences in effects for women and men. For
example, although work schedule affects both womens and mens housework
time, the effect is different for women than for men, and this difference is unexplained by the time constraints model. The same holds true for the demands of
children. Although children affect both womens and mens housework time,
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
309
the effect is larger for women than for men. Even if womens fewer hours of
paid labor fully accounted for their greater housework time, this approach fails
to address why women would spend less time in paid labor. These problems
as well as inconsistencies in the evaluations of both the relative resource and
time constraints perspectives in particular, suggest that some other dynamic is
related to how housework is divided.
MARITAL STATUS
12:15
310
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
RACE AND ETHNICITY Race and ethnicity are often used as independent variables in research on household labor, although few studies focus on racial or ethnic differences in the division of household labor, and those that do yield mixed
results. Some studies, for example, conclude that African-American families
are more egalitarian in their division of household labor than are white families
because African-American men do a larger proportion of household labor than
white men do (Ross 1987) or spend more time on housework than white men
(Beckett & Smith 1981, Shelton & John 1993b). However, other researchers
argue that the division of labor in the African-American family is similar to that
of white families: gendered and unequal (Broman 1988, 1991, Cronkite 1977,
Hossain & Roopnarine 1993, Wilson et al 1990). In an examination of attitudes about the division of labor, Cronkite (1977) finds that African-American
women and men are more likely to think that women should be responsible for
housework than are white women and men. Brines (1993) reports that AfricanAmerican women spend less time on housework than white women (see also
Beckett & Smith 1981, Maret & Finlay 1984), but Shelton & John (1993a) find
no race effect for women. Wives employment status appears to be unrelated to
African-American mens housework time (Orbuch & Custer 1995). Paid work
may have different meanings for African-Americans than for whites, given the
long history of high labor force participation by African-American women and
the economic marginalization of African-American men.
Even less is known about the division of household labor in Hispanic households. Golding (1990) finds that the division of labor in Mexican-American
families is more traditional than in Anglo families but argues that education is
the determining factor. Ybarra (1982) argues that it is womens employment
that determines the division of household labor in Chicano families, with dualearner families exhibiting a more egalitarian division of labor than traditional
male provider families. Mirandes (1979) conclusions are similar to those from
most studies on African-American families in that he suggests that MexicanAmerican households may appear to be more egalitarian in the division of
household labor than other households, but that they are far from dividing labor
equally.
Comparative studies provide insight into the variation of household labor
across cultures. Several studies indicate that Japanese men spend less time on
household labor than do men of other countries, including the United States
(Juster & Stafford 1991, Kamo 1994). Sanchez (1994a) notes that South Korean husbands are more likely to regularly share in household labor than US,
Taiwanese, Javanese, Sudanese, Indonesian, or Philippine husbands. Lapidus
(1988) finds that Soviet women devote a larger percentage of their time to
household labor than do Soviet men (see also Juster & Stafford 1991).
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
311
12:15
312
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
weak association between womens employment and husbands household labor time. Benin & Edwards (1990) find that boys in dual-earner families with
mothers who are employed full-time spend less time on housework than do
boys in single-earner families, although the opposite is true for girls.
Perceptions of Housework
Those studies that address the issue of perceptions of fairness can be classified
as focusing on ideological or materialist explanations (Lennon & Rosenfield
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
313
12:15
314
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
315
12:15
316
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
models, especially with respect to their measures of housework time. PerryJenkins & Folk (1994) use proportional measures of female-typed tasks, while
Blair (1993) uses an absolute measure of female-typed tasks and Lye & Biblarz
(1993) use an absolute measure of total housework.
A number of studies find that womens time spent on housework and an
unequal division of household labor are positively associated with womens
depression (Glass & Fujimoto 1994, Golding 1990, Kurdek 1993, Ross et al
1983, Shamir 1986), although some argue that the effect is indirect through
houseworks impact on household strain (Golding 1990). Bird & Fremont
(1991) find that household labor is negatively associated with both womens
and mens health and conclude that the greater time women spend on housework is a significant contributor to their higher rates of morbidity (see also
Shehan 1984). Several studies that examine full-time housewives find that
women who are dissatisfied with housework (e.g. find it boring, isolating)
are more likely to be depressed than women who are not dissatisfied (Kibria
et al 1990, Krause 1983). However, Bird & Ross (1993) find that housework
is viewed as offering more autonomy than paid work, but that it is associated
with a lower sense of control over ones life than is paid work [although Shehan
(1984) finds that housewives are no more likely than employed women to be
depressed].
Rosenfield (1992) finds that husbands who share household labor report feeling more demoralized, sad, anxious and helpless/hopeless than men
with a more traditional division of labor (see also Glass & Fujimoto 1994), although a number of other studies find no association between mens housework
roles and psychological well-being (Golding 1990, Orbuch & Custer 1995,
Ross et al 1983, Shamir 1986). Kurdek (1993) argues that household labor
is negatively associated with depression for women in same-sex relationships
but positively associated with married womens depression because of houseworks symbolic character. Women in same-sex relationships may feel that
their participation in housework is by choice, while married women may feel
obligated to do housework, a difference that may account for differences in
its association with psychological well-being. Using similar logic, Szinovacz
(1992) suggests that mens adjustment to retirement may be associated with
housework if their participation in housework is viewed as evidence that they
are good husbands, or if it provides a source of activity for those men who
are unable to participate in other activities (i.e. due to disability, etc). She
also finds that housework is positively associated with womens adjustment to
retirement, arguing that with the onset of retirement, womens double burden is removed, allowing women to enjoy housework (see also Kibria et al
1990).
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
317
CONCLUSIONS
The burgeoning body of research on the division of household labor is cumulative in some respects, but not as much as it should be. We know that relative
resources, time constraints, and ideology affect the division of household labor,
but not always as expected. Most notably, gender remains a more important
determinant of housework time than any other factor. The argument that gender
as well as household utilities are produced by housework not only challenges
the logic behind the relative resources and time constraints perspectives, it has
the potential to move the research on housework in a direction that may allow us to understand it better. Especially since most women (and men) do
not view the division of household labor as unfair, we should begin to address
more systematically what varied purposes housework may serve. If we take
the insights offered by social constructionists and reevaluate our approach to
studying household labor, and avoid using it to formulate just another variable
to add to existing models, we may yet achieve better understanding of why the
division of household labor is slow to change.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Rimma Ashkinadze, Carrie Conaway, Nena Davis,
Sarah Holzman, Julie Jackson, Diane Jones, and Molly Moloney for research
assistance. Ben Agger and Paula England gave useful comments. Partial
support for this research was provided by Oberlin College.
Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,
may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.
1-800-347-8007; 415-259-5017; email: arpr@class.org
Literature Cited
Acock A, Demo DH. 1994. Family Diversity and
Well Being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ahlander NR, Bahr KS. 1995. Beyond drudgery,
power, and equity: toward an expanded discourse on the moral dimension of housework
in families. J. Marriage Fam. 57:5468
Almeida DM, Maggs JL, Galambos NL. 1993.
Wives employment hours and spousal participation in family work. J. Fam. Psychol.
7:23344
Atkinson J, Huston TL. 1984. Sex role orientation and division of labor early in marriage.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46:33045
Aytac I. 1990. Sharing household tasks in the
United States and Sweden: a reassessment of
Kohns theory. Sociol. Spectr. 10:35771
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
318
AR13-12
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
319
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
320
AR13-12
12:15
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12
321
12:15
322
Annual Reviews
SHELCHPT.DUN
AR13-12