Gender Differences in Perceived Domestic Task Equity

Abstract

Despite inequalities in domestic work, a majority of couples perceive this arrangement as fair. Our study addresses this paradox by examining whether and why married lawyers perceive domestic work arrangements as unfair to themselves or their spouse. Our results reveal that predictors of perceived equity to self and spouse differ substantially and that the antecedents of perceptions of unfairness vary by gender. That is, women working longer hours are more likely than men to perceive the distribution of tasks as unfair to their spouse. Furthermore, the association between spouse’s time-based conflict and perceived task equity is greater for men than women at lower levels of spouse’s time-based conflict, though the effects converge for men and women at higher levels of time-based conflict. Our findings highlight the value in taking a more nuanced approach to studying perceived inequity in the distribution of domestic tasks among men and women.

Keywords

household labor perceptions of domestic task equity married professionals gender and family family relations

Introduction

For decades, studies have examined the division of household labor between husbands and wives. Most of this research reports that wives perform more household labor than their husbands and that most couples perceive this as fair (Poortman & van der Lippe, 2009). These patterns persist even among professionals who work comparable hours to their spouses (Brines, 1994; van Hooff, 2011). Although estimates vary, employed married women perform approximately two thirds of the household chores and 80% of routine tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry (Carriero, 2011). Despite this inequality in domestic task division, studies report that more than half of husbands and wives perceive this arrangement to be fair (Baxter, 2000; Lennon & Rosenfeld, 1994).¹ The paradox of domestic equity among couples has led many scholars to ask “why do men and women accede to such an unequal arrangement?” (Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994, p. 507). We address this question by examining the antecedents of perceived domestic equity using individual-level data from heterosexual, married/cohabitating professionals.²

Despite scholarly progress in this area, research gaps still exist that we address in this article. First, few studies examine spouses’ work and family arrangements as predictors of domestic task equity (see Carriero, 2011; DeMaris & Longmore, 1996; Sanchez & Kane, 1996, for exceptions). We transcend these limitations by analyzing respondents’ perceptions of their spouses’ work and family arrangements and their impact on respondents’ perceived domestic equity. Second, previous research tends to concentrate on consequences of the disconnect between perceived equity and objective inequality, while neglecting other potential sources of perceived domestic equity (Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994). We consider antecedents of perceived domestic equity beyond the objective distribution of household tasks. Third, researchers tend to analytically examine domestic equity as an interval-level measure where unfairness to one spouse and unfairness to the other are at opposite ends of the same continuum. Perceived inequity is therefore statistically modeled with the assumption of equal intervals between degrees of unfairness to self and spouse, with fairness to both as a midpoint. However, as Wheaton and Young (2009) point out, this approach may be methodologically inaccurate. Rather, unfairness to self and unfairness to one’s spouse should be separated and examined with the understanding that they have distinct meanings. This corresponds to ideas of equity theory that perceptions of unfairness may result from being either over- or underbenefited (Adams, 1965), but that these are not equivalent conditions of unfairness. We model this theoretical perspective by examining the antecedents of perceived domestic equity to self or spouse separately compared with perceived fairness to both.

It is necessary to point out, however, that there have been several attempts to model perceived unfairness using alternate measures.³ Nevertheless, we argue that these approaches are still limited because they either (a) exclude important comparisons between subgroups (DeMaris & Longmore, 1996; Lennon & Rosenfield 1994) or (b) they focus mostly on the antecedents of perceived unfairness to self, without considering the importance of perceived unfairness to one’s spouse (Carriero, 2011; Grote, Naylor, & Clark, 2002; see DeMaris & Longmore, 1996, for an exception). We address these concerns by looking at both women’s and men’s perceived unfairness to self or spouse separately, compared with perceived fairness to both spouses.

Given that our study focuses on perceptions of fairness to oneself and one’s spouse, we rely on individual-level data from a sample of Canadian lawyers. Lawyers are an ideal occupation for addressing perceptions of fairness for several reasons. First, men and women are increasingly likely to pursue careers in elite professions, such as law, medicine, or finance, where they tend to share both breadwinning and family labor (Coltrane, 2004). Second, the literature tends to assume that professional women are more likely to be on equal footing with their husbands and share in more egalitarian marital relationships, particularly among those in a profession grounded in principles of justice and fairness (Hagan & Kay, 1995).

In studying perceptions of fairness, we are aware of the reported discrepancies between individuals’ perceptions of their spouses’ work and family performance and spouses’ own reports (Kamo, 2000). Yet it may be that respondents’ perceptions of their spouses’ household contribution are actually what matter most when assessing respondents’ reports of domestic equity. Regardless of the spouse’s actual actions, the perceptions of these actions shape understandings of domestic equity. This resonates with previous research on chronic stressors: Whether or not there is an objective basis for the stressor, the “perception of it operates as a stressor” (Wheaton, 1997, p. 60). From this viewpoint, one’s perception of their spouse’s household contributions is the preferred measure of domestic equity.

Theoretical Framework

There are multiple explanations for why men and women perceive the division of household labor differently (for reviews, see Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000 or Shelton, 1999). These include rational approaches, such as resource and time availability perspectives, as well as gender-based theories that emphasize gender ideology, attitudes, and roles enacted through daily activities like domestic work. In our analyses, we are concerned with perceptions of domestic equity, controlling for reported inequalities in actual household task performance, and in line with previous research, we expect that the allocation of tasks between self and spouse is the strongest determinant of perceived task inequity (Baxter, 2000; DeMaris & Longmore, 1996).

Relative Resources Perspectives

The resource perspective suggests that the spouse with fewer resources related to earnings or occupational status—either in absolute terms or relative to one’s spouse—will likely perform the majority of domestic tasks. Yet this unequal distribution of tasks will be perceived as fair by both spouses following Becker’s (1991) application of neoclassical economic theory to household labor, along with social exchange and power-based perspectives. The specialization of paid and unpaid labor within couples is expected to maximize family efficiency and may influence perceived equity. As the ratio of financial/personal resources within couples equalizes, perceptions of domestic equity likely shift, especially if domestic tasks are unequally distributed between similarly skilled spouses (Evertsson & Nermo, 2007).

Hypothesis 1: Respondents who contribute fewer resources to the household or have a professional spouse will be more likely to perceive the distribution of domestic tasks as fairly distributed, despite inequalities in time spent on domestic work.

While this approach assumes that power in the household operates in gender-neutral ways, resources may differentially influence men’s and women’s perceptions of fairness (Berk, 1985; Bianchi, Sayer, Milkie, & Robinson, 2012). Women generally contribute fewer economic resources and may be more sensitive to the domestic rewards of their economic contributions compared with their husbands’. Alternatively, husbands may be less likely to perform housework, despite their wives’ additional financial contributions. This may result in an increase in wives’ perceptions of unfairness to self as their relative contribution increases (Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994).

Hypothesis 1a: Resource contribution to the household will increase perceptions of unfairness to self more for women compared to men.

Time Availability Perspectives

Time availability perspectives suggest that time spent in paid work may limit the amount of time spent on domestic chores (Bianchi et al., 2012). Here, time is treated as a finite resource that influences involvement in household tasks. According to equity theory, perceptions of inequity arise when the ratio of inputs and outputs between husbands’ and wives’ paid and unpaid work is unbalanced (Pritchard, 1969). When one spouse’s time in paid work increases relative to the other spouse, their domestic work will decrease at a comparable rate, with the assumption that paid work is valued by both spouses over domestic work. From this perspective, more time spent by one spouse in paid work will likely increase perceived unfairness to that spouse.

Hypothesis 2: Respondents’ hours spent in paid work will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to self, and spouses’ hours spent in paid work will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to spouse.

We argue, however, that these associations will vary for men and women. Couples do not use purely rational rules to allocate household tasks, and instead rely on gendered expectations for paid and unpaid work (Baxter, 2000; Carriero, 2011). A consequence of these gendered ideologies is that as women’s time in paid work increases, their expected obligations in the domestic sphere do not necessarily decrease at a comparable rate (Bianchi et al., 2012). The unequal ratio of economic input to domestic output may increase perceived inequity to oneself among women.

Here, we present a more gendered view of a social exchange perspective of domestic equity, which highlight that the distribution of domestic work should be related to each spouses’ economic contribution to the household (Lennon & Rosenfield 1994; Prichard, 1969). As women’s time in paid work increases, they should be relieved of some of their domestic duties. However, when the ratio of inputs to outputs does not meet expectations, employed women may become more acutely aware of their share of housework, and perceive the distribution as unjust to themselves versus fair to both.

For women, perceptions of inequity to self may also be fueled by the elevated conflict between work and family demands associated with paid work obligations. Although the same situation can occur among men, it often does not. Men tend to perform fewer domestic tasks, regardless of the time they spend in paid work. Similarly, men are more likely to opt out of domestic tasks as their time in paid work increases (Bianchi et al., 2012). Finally, men may experience less work–family conflict (including time-based conflict) as a result of increased time in paid work (Simon, 1995) and, consequently, are less likely to perceive the distribution of domestic tasks as unfair to themselves.

Our ideas here resonate with studies that find women are more sensitive to inequity in the relationship compared with men because women tend to invest more in the relationship, in terms of interpersonal resources, and emotional care and support (Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991; Grote et al., 2002). Moreover, research specific to domestic inequity purports similar arguments, suggesting that women encounter more time constraints and fewer economic opportunities because of their input to household labor and may become more aware of the inequitable allocation of chores compared with men (Thompson, 1991; see Lennon & Rosenfield, 1994, for similar arguments).

Hypothesis 2a: Respondents’ hours spent in paid work will increase the likelihood of perceived unfairness to self more for women than men. Moreover, spouses’ hours spent in paid work increase the likelihood of perceived unfairness to spouse more for women than men.

Role Conflict Theory

An extension of time availability perspectives considers the time-based conflict associated with incompatibilities of paid and unpaid work obligations. We draw on theories of stress crossover and work–family conflict to formulate our hypotheses. Time-based conflict “occurs when the time demands associated with one role restrict the amount of time that can be devoted to the other role, inhibiting one’s performance in the latter role” (Greenhaus et al., 2006, p. 64). Consistent with stress crossover perspectives, time-based conflict can shift domestic chore obligations from one spouse to another (Westman, 2001). Individuals may feel they are not meeting expectations at home because of their paid work, which may create feelings of guilt or empathy toward their spouse, who they see as “picking up the slack” at home. From this perspective, time-based conflict experienced by one spouse will increase perceived unfairness to the other spouse.

Hypothesis 3: Respondents’ time-based conflict will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to spouse and decrease the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to self. Similarly, spouses’ time-based conflict will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to self, and decrease the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to spouse.

We argue, however, that the association between time-based conflict and perceived domestic equity may be gendered because women and men may experience conflict between work and family domains differently. For example, Simon (1995) finds that women view work and family roles as independent and therefore experience work–family conflict as pervasive and nonspecific. In contrast, men perceive their work and family roles to be interdependent and experience work–family conflict as specific and delimited and therefore less consuming. Different experiences of work and family manifest via gender differences in reactions, where women experience more guilt and negative self-evaluations. These ideas suggest that women will likely feel more sympathy to their spouse when their work conflicts with their family obligations. We therefore predict that the association hypothesized between time-based conflict and domestic equity may vary by gender:

Hypothesis 3a: Respondents’ time-based conflict will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to spouse and decrease the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to self more for women compared to men. Similarly, spouses’ time-based conflict will increase the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to self, and decrease the likelihood of reporting perceived unfairness to spouse more for men compared to women.

Gender and Housework Ideology

Gender perspectives rely on gender socialization, gender ideology, and sex role attitudes to explain why husbands and wives perform different amounts and types of household tasks and, in turn, perceive this division differently in terms of equity (Bird, 1999). These approaches challenge the assumption that housework is allocated in a gender-neutral and efficient manner, as suggested by relative resource or time-based theories (Ferree, 1991). Berk (1985) applied West and Zimmerman’s (1987) notion of “doing gender” to “doing housework” and highlights how successful gender presentation is created and recreated through housework. Women internalize the traditional idea that housework is primarily women’s work and attempt to demonstrate that they are good wives through their performance of household tasks (Ferree, 1991).

From this perspective, couples who adhere to traditional gender roles tend to view the situation as equitable if wives perform the majority of household tasks, because these women expect to demonstrate their gender by maintaining a clean and happy home (Grote et al., 2002; Kroska, 2004). Women in this situation may not enjoy housework per se, but may value the associated emotional and identity-based rewards. Furthermore, husbands may also perceive this division of housework as just because of their financial provision for the family, which aligns with ideas of the traditional masculine role (Christianson & Palkovitz, 2001).

We incorporate these perspectives of domestic task equity by considering attitudes, expectations, and values associated with housework, including (a) having a clean home (i.e., housework salience), (b) housework competence, and (c) enjoyment in performing housework.

Housework Salience

Those who prefer a clean home may feel that their spouse is not “pulling their own weight” when it comes to performing domestic chores, which can result in perceived unfairness to oneself (Ferree, 1991; van Hooff, 2011). This idea aligns with equity theory, where the value of a task influences perceptions of equity. Like Prichard (1969) explains, “[T]he important point is that the person actually perceives [inputs] as something of value that he [sic] brings or puts into a relationship” (p. 177). Yet the value placed on a clean home and its effect on perceived equity may differ for men and women in two respects. First, women are more likely to prefer a clean home, which reflects their “correct” enactment of femininity (van Hooff, 2011) since “the cleanliness of one’s home is a reflection on women’s competence” but not men’s (Bianchi et al., 2000, p. 195). Second, the association between preference for cleanliness and perceived unfairness to oneself may be greater for women, compared with men. Because women typically place greater importance on having a clean home (Ferree, 1991), women may feel that their husbands are not contributing to household tasks and—by extension—may perceive the distribution of tasks as unfair to themselves (Carriero, 2011).

Perceived Housework Competence

Individuals who feel they are doing an adequate job in the eyes of their spouse may be more likely to view the distribution of domestic tasks as unfair to themselves, compared with those who feel they are not seen as competent by their spouse (Carriero, 2011; Grote et al., 2002). Drawing on equity theory, we suggest that greater competence increases the value of the task performed. As the value of the input increases, however, the return must too (Prichard, 1969). This is unlikely to be the case with domestic work, where there is little reward for a job well done (Bird, 1999). These ideas suggest that competence increases the value of domestic work, but may lead to perceived task inequity to self if the returns are not comparable.

The association between perceived competence in housework and domestic task equity may differ for men and women in two ways. First, men may be more affected by their wives’ appraisals if they work hard to meet their wives’ high standards but feel unsuccessful in doing so. Such feelings of incompetence may manifest into perceptions of inequity to self for these men, because of the increased value placed on housework, but matched with decreased reward from their wives for their efforts. Research supports this, highlighting that (a) women tend to have higher standards of housework performance (Carriero, 2011) and (b) husbands often feel they do not meet their wives’ expectations for housework performance (Ferree, 1991; van Hooff, 2011), which may increase men’s feelings of domestic inequity (Grote et al., 2002).

A second possibility suggests the opposite: Women’s perceptions of domestic equity may be affected more by their husbands’ appraisals of housework performance. Women internalize the idea that housework is primarily women’s work and attempt to be “good” wives through their superior domestic performance (Ferree, 1991). When these appraisals are positive, women perceive their housework efforts as more valuable. Conversely, when appraisals are negative, women perceive their efforts as less valuable. According to equity theory, variations in the evaluation of housework among women may influence perceived fairness (Adams, 1965; see also Bianchi et al., 2000).

Enjoyment of Housework

Based on equity theory, we argue that those who enjoy performing housework are more likely to perceive the division of labor as unfair to themselves (Adams, 1965; Prichard, 1969). In this sense, equity reflects the perception of domestic work as difficult, mundane, repetitive, and undervalued (Malos, 1980). Thus, the more satisfying and rewarding these tasks, the more valuable the input into them and the greater the output expected. When the ratio of input to output does not match—which is often the case with domestic chores—the more likely the situation will be seen as inequitable.

This association, however, may differ for men and women. For example, men tend to enjoy housework more than women, because they often perform the less tedious and demanding household tasks (Kroska, 2004). Traditional male tasks, such as yard work or car maintenance, are performed more sporadically and may be more intrinsically rewarding than traditional female tasks that are performed routinely and repetitively, such as meal preparation, cleaning house, or doing laundry (Bianchi et al., 2012). Moreover, husbands are likely to be praised by their wives for the tasks they perform making these household tasks seem more valued and more rewarding (Carriero, 2011).

While we are confident in our predictions of gender differences in the enjoyment of housework, we are uncertain whether men’s and women’s reports of enjoyment will affect their perceptions of domestic inequity differently because of contradictory research findings (Ferree, 1991; Grote et al., 2002; Kawamura & Brown, 2010). We explore potential gender differences in the effect of housework enjoyment on perceived domestic equity and hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 4: Higher standards of housework, perceived competence, and enjoyment of housework will increase the likelihood of perceived unfairness to self, and decrease the likelihood of perceived unfairness to spouse.

Hypothesis 4a: However, these associations will vary for men and women.

Data and Method

Sample

We use data from the 2000 “Juggling It All Survey,” which collected information on lawyers’ work and family experiences and attitudes. The survey was distributed to all practicing lawyers within the province of Alberta, Canada, at the time of the survey. Of the 5,921 lawyers contacted, 1,829 completed the survey, yielding a 31% response rate. We compared the sample data to population data provided by the Law Society of Alberta and found no significant differences between the gender by selected work settings in the population and the sample, χ²(5) = 8.49, n.s. Based on these results, we conclude that our sample is representative of lawyers in Alberta.

In the current analyses, we restrict our sample to married or cohabiting lawyers who are working full-time and whose spouses are employed. Because there are multiple missing cases across variables, we use missing data imputation techniques for our individual-level variables (Allison, 2002). Our final sample therefore comprises 528 (62%) men and 318 (38%) women.

Measures

Task Fairness

Respondents were asked, “How fair do you feel the division of household tasks is between you and your partner?” Responses included very unfair to me (1), somewhat unfair to me (2), pretty fair to both of us (3), somewhat unfair to my partner (4), and very unfair to my partner (5) (Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1988). We collapsed these categories into two dummy variables, unfair to me and unfair to the partner, compared with fair to both (0).

Gender

Gender is dummy coded for men (1) and women (0).

Household chores

Respondent/spouse housework hours is a ratio of the respondent’s number of housework hours to their spouse’s hours of housework per week. Note that both are self-reported by respondents.

Relative resources

Resources are measured by two variables. Respondent/spouse relative income was calculated as a ratio of the respondent’s financial contributions to the household relative to their spouse’s in the previous tax year. Professional spouse (1) is compared to spouses in all other occupations (0).

Time availability and conflict

Time availability is measured by five variables. Work hours at the office and work hours at home are the total hours the respondent works at the office or home per week (including evenings and weekends). Professional activities are measured by the item: “On average, how many times a month do you attend activities that are professionally related . . . before 8 a.m.?” and “lunches?” We sum these two values. Spouse’s work hours at the office and spouse’s work hours at home are the total hours the respondent’s spouse works at the office or home per week (including evenings and weekends).

Time-based conflict

We use two items to tap respondent’s perceptions of their own and their spouse’s time-based conflict, similar to those used in recent work–family research (Schieman & Young, 2010). Respondents were asked about the extent to which they agree with the following: “The amount of time my job takes up makes it difficult for me to fulfill my family obligations” and “My partner spends so much time working that she/he is unable to do many household chores.” Responses ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Housework ideology

This factor is measured by three variables with responses that range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Housework salience is measured using a single item: “It is important to me to have a nice, clean home” (Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986). Housework competence is measured by the mean score of two items from Twiggs, McQuillan, and Ferree (1999): “I feel I never do as much housework as my spouse would like” and “I feel I am never able to do the household chores the way my spouse wants them done.” Responses were reverse coded so that higher scores reflect greater competence (α = .84). Enjoyment of housework is measured as the extent to which respondents agree that “housework is basically enjoyable work” (Twiggs et al., 1999).

Control Measures

Age is coded in years. No children, one child, and two or more children measure the number of children living with the respondent at the time of the survey. Marital satisfaction is the mean score of seven items about the respondent’s happiness with their spouse in the following areas: understanding received, love and affection, time spent with partner, demands spouse places on respondent, sexual relations, financial responsibility, and parental practices, if applicable (Sweet et al., 1988). Responses range from very unhappy (1) to very happy (5) (α = .84). Note that marital satisfaction has been shown to be strongly associated with perceptions of task equity (Grote & Clarke, 2001; Kawamura & Brown, 2010). In our data, it is moderately associated with perceived task inequity to self (r = −.29, p < .001) and weakly associated with perceived unfairness to spouse (r = −.02, p < .01). Given these relatively low correlations, we do not assume that there are collinearity issues between marital satisfaction and our outcomes of perceived unfairness to self or spouse. However, we ran all analyses with and without marital satisfaction (see Appendix B). Paid help is measured by a single item that asks: “How often do you have paid help with house cleaning” with responses ranging from never (1) to almost daily (7).

Analytic Strategy

Since most previous studies analyze perceptions of domestic equity as an interval-level variable ranging from unfairness to self to unfairness to spouse, we attempt to correct this misspecification by using multinomial logistic regression techniques with maximum likelihood estimation to predict the two different categories of unfairness: Unfairness to self and spouse. We present results for perceptions of domestic inequity to self (Table 2) and spouse (Table 3) separately compared with perceived fairness to both spouses. For each, we estimate the effects of gender (Model 1), followed by the distribution of domestic tasks between spouses (Model 2). Models 3 to 5 test our three main hypotheses in sequence. These include our predictions of relative resources, time availability, conflict,⁴ and housework ideology (Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). In model 6, we include all variables to see if our predicated associations hold when considered simultaneously.

Next, we test a series of interactions to detect whether any of the associations vary by gender (Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a). For each of our focal variables, we created interactive terms with gender (respondent’s work hours × gender, spouse’s work hours × gender, etc.). Each interaction term was entered, analyzed, and then removed from the model before entering the subsequent term. At each stage, the overall fit of the model was compared with the main-effects model using the reported χ² across models by imputation. Of the 13 interactions tested for unfairness to self and spouse, only two were significant, including (a) respondents’ work hours at the office by gender and (b) spouse’s time-based conflict by gender. For ease of presentation, we only include these two significant interactions in our final tables.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive information for all the variables included in the analysis. We present means for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. We use t tests to determine gender differences in means and chi-square tests to test differences in proportions for all binary variables. Table 1 shows that the majority of both men (56%) and women (57%) feel that the division of household labor is fair to both themselves and their spouses. Women are more likely than men to perceive the distribution of tasks as unfair to themselves, while men are more likely than women to perceive unfairness to their spouses. These distributions are comparable to those reported for general population samples (e.g., Baxter, 2000; Carriero, 2011). When it comes to reported inequalities, however, women report spending twice as much time on household tasks compared with their husbands, while men report only slightly less than their wives.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable	Men (N = 528)		Women (N = 318)
Variable	Mean/Proportion	SD	Mean/Proportion	SD
Task fairness
Unfair to self	0.076	—	0.318***	—
Fair to both (reference)	0.564	—	0.566	—
Unfair to spouse	0.359	—	0.116***	—
Household chores
Rsp/Sp time on chores	0.973	1.538	2.053***	2.072
Relative resources
Rsp/Sp income	4.137	7.144	1.347***	1.422
Professional spouse	0.295	—	0.399***	—
Time availability
Work hrs at office	47.040	11.510	43.267***	12.381
Work hrs at home	3.976	6.593	4.003	5.698
Professional activities	4.990	4.570	3.407***	3.619
Sp work hrs at office	30.465	17.128	42.662***	13.773
Sp work hrs at home	6.937	9.381	4.417***	7.492
Time-based conflict
Time-based conflict	2.926	1.008	2.975	1.067
Sp time based-conflict	2.197	0.939	2.372*	1.133
Housework ideology
Housework salience	2.172	0.741	2.097	0.905
Enjoyment of housework	2.579	0.945	2.336***	1.067
Housework competence	3.063	0.949	3.709***	0.978
Controls
Age	44.212	8.317	39.072***	7.060
No children	0.159	—	0.487***	—
One child	0.320	—	0.157	—
Two or more children	0.521	—	0.355***	—
Marital satisfaction	2.070	0.784	2.097	0.754
Paid help	2.841	—	3.013	—

Note. Asterisks reflect significant mean/proportional differences between men and women. Descriptives based on original data. We present means for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. We use t tests to test gender differences across continuous variables and chi-square tests for all binary variables. Specific statistics available from the authors on request.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

In terms of financial resources and work expectations, men report earning four times more than their spouses on average, whereas women report earning about the same as their husbands, which is likely because these women are all professionals (i.e., lawyers). Women are more likely to have a spouse who is also a professional compared with their male counterparts. Men report working longer hours at the office and report greater participation in professional activities compared with women. Women report that their husbands work more hours at the office, and men report that their wives work more paid hours at home. Finally, women report that their husbands experience slightly more time-based conflict compared with the men’s reports of their wives’ time-based conflict. While this difference is statistically significant, we recognize that substantively the distinction is small.

Consistent with findings from other studies, our results suggest that men enjoy housework more than women, and women report higher levels of housework competence based on perceptions of their spouses’ appraisals. Both genders equally value having a clean home, which is somewhat unexpected since previous research reports women’s greater preference (van Hooff, 2011). According to the descriptive results for the control variables, the men in our sample are older than the women. Compared with men, women are less likely to have children, and men are more likely to report having two or more children.

Tables 2 and 3 present the logit coefficients predicting domestic task inequity to self and spouse versus perceived equity to both, respectively. The sequence of variables entered in each model is comparable across tables. Model 1 tests the effects of gender, and the results echo the descriptive findings. Compared with women, men are more likely to perceive the distribution of tasks as fair to both or unfair to their spouse. Model 2 tests the effects of actual task distribution between spouses. Results highlight that as this ratio increases, respondents are more likely to see the distribution of tasks as unfair to themselves (Table 2, Model 2). We find the opposite for perceived unfairness to one’s spouse (Table 3, Model 2). Note that the effect of gender on perceived unfairness to one’s spouse is completely explained away by the ratio of domestic chores between spouses (Table 3, Model 2). That is, men are more likely to view the distribution of tasks as unfair to their wives because their wives are doing a greater proportion of the housework. This, however, is not the case for perceived unfairness to self: Women are more likely to see the distribution of domestic tasks as unfair to themselves, regardless of how much time they spend on these tasks relative to their spouse.

Table 2.

Perceptions of Unfairness to Self Versus Fair to Both (N = 846).

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Gender and domestic chores
Gender (male)	−1.843***	−1.487***	−1.570***	−1.684***	−1.380***	−1.574***	−.957
Rsp/Sp housework hrs	—	.292***	.289***	.256***	.267***	.222**	.236**
Relative resources
Rsp/Sp household inc	—	—	.031	—	—	.041	.042
Sp professional	—	—	.003	—	—	−.045	−.048
Time availability
Work hrs at office	—	—	—	.011	—	.008	.015
Work hrs at home	—	—	—	.001	—	.009	.009
Professional activities	—	—	—	.013	—	.011	.008
Sp work hrs at office	—	—	—	−.005	—	−.001	−.001
Sp work hrs at home	—	—	—	−.015	—	−.014	−.015
Time-based conflict
Rsp time-based conflict	—	—	—	.113	—	.194	.195
Sp time-based conflict	—	—	—	.495***	—	.518***	.489***
Housework ideology
Housework salience	—	—	—	—	−.063	−.064	−.071
Enjoyment of housework	—	—	—	—	−.044	.006	.003
Housework competence	—	—	—	—	.303*	.412*	.422**
Gender interactions
Male × Office hours	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.015
Male × Sp time-based conflict	—	—	—	—	—	—	.044
Controls
Age	.027	.021	.020	.029	.018	.027	.026
One kid	703*	.587	.580	.606	.643	.701*	.708
Two or more kids	.495	.438	.414	.518	.422	.502*	.528
Marital satisfaction	−1.183***	−1.098***	−1.110***	−.959***	−1.209***	−1.111***	−1.106***
Paid help	−.070	−.096	−.090	−.142*	−.110*	−.154*	−.149*
Constant	2.789***	2.209*	2.225*	−.297	1.864***	−1.437***	−1.670***

Note. Multinomial logit coefficients reported from imputed datasets. Chi-square statistics for model fit for each imputation are presented in Appendix A.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Table 3.

Perceptions of Unfairness to Spouse Versus Fair to Both (N = 846).

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Gender and domestic chores
Male	.953***	.304	.271	.448	.26	.402	1.463
Rsp/Sp housework hrs	—	−1.546***	−1.508***	−1.503***	−1.236***	−1.149***	−1.105***
Relative resources
Rsp/Sp household inc	—	—	.019	—	—	.038	.039
Sp professional	—	—	−.268	—	—	−.062	−.011
Time availability
Work hrs at office	—	—	—	.001	—	.004	.048*
Work hrs at home	—	—	—	.011	—	.010	.007
Professional activities	—	—	—	.061**	—	.055*	.063**
Sp work hrs at office	—	—	—	.021**	—	.026***	.027***
Sp work hrs at home	—	—	—	.020	—	.021	.022
Time-based conflict
Rsp time-based conflict	—	—	—	.463***	—	.283*	.280*
Sp time-based conflict	—	—	—	−.247*	—	−.412**	−1.080***
Housework ideology
Housework salience	—	—	—	—	.171	.213	.203
Enjoyment of housework	—	—	—	—	−.302**	−.331**	−.339**
Housework competence	—	—	—	—	−.797***	−.745***	−.782***
Gender interactions
Male × Hrs at office	—	—	—	—	—	—	−.055*
Male × Sp time-based conflict	—	—	—	—	—	—	.792*
Controls
Age	.016	.014	.012	.026*	.018	.028*	.025
One kid	.369	.404	.365	.481	.367	.464	.484
Two or more kids	.245	.158	.112	.269	.147	.292	.318
Marital satisfaction	−.343**	−.391**	−.404***	−.283*	.050	.003	.019
Paid help	−.075	−.054	−.041	−.113*	−.080	−.122*	−.136*
Constant	−.738	1.399	1.531*	−1.627	2.095*	−.101	−.726

Note. Multinomial logit coefficients reported from imputed datasets. Chi-square statistics for model fit for each imputation are presented in Appendix A.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Models 3 through 5 of Tables 2 and 3 test our main effects hypotheses in sequence: relative resources, time availability, time-based conflict, and housework ideology perspectives. Model 3 provides little support for Hypothesis 1, which predicts that relative resources influence perceived equity. We find that neither the respondent’s income nor their spouse’s professional status have a significant effect on perceptions of domestic inequity (Table 2 and 3, Model 3). While contrary to our expectations, these results support some previous findings (e.g., Benin & Agostinelli, 1988).

Model 4 in Tables 2 and 3 tests our second hypothesis of time availability and conflict perspectives where time is a resource that justifies an unequal distribution of domestic tasks among couples. We also include measures of time-based conflict to test the extent to which interference between paid and unpaid expectations influence perceived fairness. Results show modest support for our predictions. The respondent’s and spouse’s work obligations have no effect on perceptions of unfairness to self (Table 2, Model 4); however, spouse’s time-based conflict increases perceived unfairness to oneself versus fair to both. Model 4 of Table 3 shows that respondent’s participation in extra professional activities increases perceptions of unfairness to spouse. Consistent with our predictions, spouse’s work hours at the office and at home increase the likelihood that respondents perceive unfairness to their spouse. Alternatively, spouses’ time-based conflict actually decreases perceived unfairness to spouse, suggesting that when spouses’ work inhibits their ability to complete domestic chores, respondents are less sympathetic to their spouses, and less likely to see the distribution of tasks as unfairly distributed to their spouse.

Model 5 in Tables 2 and 3 tests Hypothesis 4, which predicts that housework ideologies and appraisals influence perceptions of domestic task equity. More specifically, higher standards, competence, and enjoyment of housework are expected to increase perceived inequity to self and reduce perceived inequity to spouse. Our results partially support this hypothesis. Table 2, Model 5, shows that spousal appraisals of the respondent’s housework performance increase the likelihood that respondents perceive domestic tasks as unfairly distributed to self. Moreover, in Table 3, Model 5, we find that respondents’ enjoyment of housework and spouses’ appraisal of their housework performance decrease perceived unfairness to one’s spouse, consistent with equity theory principles.

Model 6 in Tables 2 and 3 tests whether our focal associations hold when all of our variables are considered together, and the results indicate that they do. Model 7 presents the results for our gender-specific hypotheses (Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a). Among the 13 gender interaction terms tested, only the effects of respondent’s work hours at the office and spouse’s time-based conflict varied significantly for men and women. Moreover, both these interactions pertain to predictions of perceived unfairness to one’s spouse compared with perceived fairness to both spouses (Table 3, Model 7). The first interaction term (b = −.055) suggests that the association between hours worked at the office and perceived task inequity to spouse is greater for women compared with men. Figure 1 illustrates these patterns. The top black line displays women’s increased likelihood of perceived unfairness to their spouse corresponding to her work hours. The bottom grey line displays this same association for men in relation to their own work hours. This finding suggests that women’s time spent in paid work may result in feeling that their husbands pick up more of the household chores, leading these women to perceive more domestic inequity to their spouse.

Figure 1.

The association between respondent’s work hours at the office and perceived unfairness of domestic tasks to spouse for men and women (N = 846).

The second interaction term (b = .792) suggests that men and women perceive domestic task inequity to their spouse differently across levels of spouse’s time-based conflict. The complexity of this finding becomes clear when we plot the predicted probabilities separately for men and women in Figure 2. At lower levels of spouse’s time-based conflict, men are actually more likely to perceive domestic task inequity to their spouse (the top grey line), compared with women at similar levels of spouse’s time-based conflict (the bottom black line). What is particularly interesting, however, is that as spouse’s time-based conflict increases, we see its effects on perceived inequity to spouse converge between men and women.

Figure 2.

The association between spouse’s time-based conflict and perceived unfairness of domestic tasks to spouse for men and women (N = 846).

Turning to Table 3 (predicting perceived inequity to spouse versus fairness to both partners), we find one major difference between the models including versus excluding marital satisfaction: Respondent’s time-based conflict is no longer a significant predictor, which suggests that the association between time-based conflict and perceived unfairness to spouse may be mediated by marital satisfaction (correlation between respondent’s time-based conflict and marital satisfaction; r = −.30, p < .001). Despite these differences, we retain marital satisfaction in our analyses as a control measure, but include results from relevant models excluding marital satisfaction in Appendix B for the reader’s review (Models 4 and 5 of Tables 2 and 3).

While secondary to our analyses, results for our control variables highlight that the number of children a respondent has and the paid help they receive have only modest effects on perceptions of domestic task equity. Marital satisfaction is also negatively related to perceived unfairness, consistent with previous research. We re-ran all models without marital satisfaction to rule out potential confounding effects of the antecedents of perceived domestic equity. However, there are few differences across our focal associations (see Appendix B for differences in specific models).

Discussion

This article analyzes the potential antecedents of perceived domestic task equity among married lawyers, using measures of respondents’ perceptions of their own and their spouses’ work and family arrangements. Our results reveal two particularly noteworthy findings. First, the predictors of perceived domestic equity to self and spouse differ substantially, which highlights the importance of studying each source of inequity separately. We also find that gender differences in perceived unfairness to self persist regardless of resources, time availability and conflict, or attitudes toward housework. Moreover, relative resources among couples do not influence perceived domestic equity in our sample, whereas time availability, time-based conflict, and attitudes about housework have unique effects on perceived unfairness to self and spouse. Second, the antecedents for perceptions of fairness vary by gender: Women who work longer hours at the office are more likely than men to perceive the distribution of tasks as unfair to their spouse. Moreover, the association between spouse’s time-based conflict and perceived task equity is greater for men at lower levels of spouse’s time-based conflict. Yet as spouse’s time-based conflict increases, its effects on the perceived inequity to their spouse converges for men and women, highlighting the necessity of applying several theories to explain perceptions of domestic equity. We discuss the implications and contributions of our results in the next section.

Differential Explanations of Perceived Fairness to Self or Spouse

Our results suggest that gender differences in perceptions of domestic inequity are explained by different antecedents. We find that gender differences in perceived inequity to spouse are fully explained by the actual distribution of housework. In other words, although men report significantly less inequity to self and more to their spouse, gender differences in the latter are entirely explained by the fact that wives are performing more housework. Thus, were it not for the inequality in the actual division of household tasks, husbands would not perceive this distribution to be unfair to their spouse.

These same patterns, however, do not apply to perceptions of unfairness to self, where gender remains significant across all analyses. Regardless of the actual distribution of domestic chores, resources, time availability, time-based conflict, or attitudes toward housework, women perceive housework allocation as unfair to themselves. Perhaps, women with professional careers are bringing exceptionally high resources to the relationship and feel taken advantage of in the home, regardless of contextual factors or circumstances (Grote et al., 2002; van Hooff, 2011). Future research should consider additional psychosocial characteristics or resources that may help explain the remaining variance in the association between gender and perceived inequity to self.

Relative Resource Perspectives

Our findings provide little support for the hypothesis that the spouse with fewer resources—either in absolute terms or in relation to his or her spouse—will perform more domestic tasks and that this will be perceived as fair by both spouses. In fact, the respondent’s income relative to their spouse’s income and/or their spouses’ professional occupation has no effect on perceived inequity to self or spouse. While some research reports similar findings, this may also reflect our unique sample (Benin & Agostinelli, 1988). Our respondents are educationally and financially elite, have invested heavily in their entry into this high-status occupation and likely have highly educated spouses with professional jobs (Hagan & Kay, 1995).

Time Availability Perspectives

We find differences in objective time-based antecedents of perceived inequity to self and spouse. The time availability model suggests that husbands and wives perform housework inversely related to their paid work time (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Our findings are mixed, however. While respondent’s and their spouse’s time in paid work is unrelated to perceived domestic inequity to self, we find modest effects on perceived inequity to one’s spouse: Respondent’s time in professional work activities increases feelings of unfairness to their spouse. This may be because professional activities among lawyers are considered social endeavors (i.e., engaging with clients over drinks, lunches or dinners; Wallace, 2004). Lawyers may partake in these activities to attract clients or to acquire additional social capital (Hagan & Kay, 1995). Because these engagements are often social and enjoyable, respondents may feel guilty or empathetic toward their spouses, who they see as “picking up the slack” at home because of their own time in these activities. We did not test these associations, but suspect they account for our unexpected results.

Our results also show that the more time respondents’ spouses spend at the office, the more likely the respondent is to perceive domestic inequity toward their spouse. This finding suggests paid work is considered a valuable input to the relationship, and therefore, the more time spent by one spouse in paid work will increase perceived unfairness to that spouse. Moreover, this may reflect feelings of empathy from one spouse to another where spouses’ additional time at the office instigates elevated work–family interference and potential conflict. In reaction, respondents may feel that their spouse is unequally burdened with the lion’s share of the housework as suggested by research on stress contagion and crossover theories (Westman, 2001).

Housework Ideologies

Our findings support the argument that higher standards for a clean home, perceived competence of one’s spouse, and enjoyment of housework increase perceived unfairness to self, and decrease perceived unfairness to spouse. Spouse’s appraisals of respondent’s housework performance increase the likelihood that respondents perceive domestic tasks as unfairly distributed to themselves. Moreover, respondents’ enjoyment of housework and spouses’ appraisals of their housework performance decrease perceived unfairness to one’s spouse. Our arguments here are similar to the one we put forth about housework standards, where the value of a task influences perceptions of equity. That is, appraisals of competence increase the value of domestic work, which may elevate the respondent’s expectations of their spouse’s domestic input. Moreover, the more satisfying and rewarding these tasks are, the more valuable the input into them, and according to equity theory, the greater the value placed on the input, and the more one expects their partner to invest in the activity. If the ratio of the respondent’s evaluation of the task does not match their spouse’s input, it is less likely that the situation is seen as equitable.

Gender Differences in Predictors of Perceived Domestic Equity to Spouse

Of the multiple interactions tested, we find only two gender-specific associations: The effects of paid work and spouse’s time-based conflict on perceived domestic inequity to spouse appear to differ for men and women. The first finding suggests that the association between the respondent’s work hours at the office increases perceptions of unfairness to spouse more for women than for men. This suggests that employed women may still hold a strong “family devotion schema” and feel that their work prevents them from fulfilling the traditional feminine role as primary domestic provider (Blair-Loy, 2003). As research suggests, incompatibilities between paid and unpaid work may lead to feelings of guilt, negative self evaluations, and distress (Simon, 1995). It is therefore possible that conflicting expectations lead women to feel that the division of household tasks is disproportionately allocated to their husbands who pick up their wives’ expected tasks at home.

The second gender finding suggests that spouse’s time-based conflict is negatively associated with perceptions of unfairness to spouse. However, the association between spouse’s time-based conflict and perceived task equity is greater for men at lower levels of spouse’s time-based conflict. But as spouse’s time-based conflict increases, its effects on the perceived inequity to spouse converges for men and women. Although contrary to our expectations, this finding suggests that as wives’ work interferes more with their domestic tasks, husbands may feel that they shoulder more of the household chores, which—in turn—reduces these men’s perceptions of domestic inequity to their spouse. This does not appear to be the case when wives are experiencing only limited time-based conflict between work and family obligations, where husbands are still more likely to perceive domestic inequity toward their wives.

Combined, these two gender interaction effects suggest an interesting theoretical story: Women perceive greater inequity to their husbands when they work more hours, perhaps because these women feel their husbands are taking on more of the chores. At the same time, husbands are reacting to this displaced burden and feel less sympathetic toward their wives the more their wives’ paid work inhibits their ability to meet domestic obligations. Future research should consider unpacking these associations, by incorporating measures of “guilt,” “resentment,” and other emotion-based mechanisms that may explain gender differences in the association of paid work hours, spouse’s time-based conflict, and perceived domestic equity.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of our study, several limitations deserve mention. First, because we rely on cross-sectional data, we cannot adjust for changes in resources, time availability, attitudes toward housework, or perceptions of domestic equity over time. This also limits our ability to make definitive statements about causal ordering. Longitudinal data would help determine if our explanatory variables precede perceptions of domestic equity (especially for the association between marital satisfaction and perceived domestic equity; see Grote et al., 2002). Second, although our sample is unique in many respects it reflects the growing trend that women and men are more likely to pursue careers in elite professions such as law (Coltrane, 2004). Although there are advantages to studying a single profession, our findings may also reflect the extreme hours and dedication these individuals have to their work, as well as character qualities associated with high-earning professionals (Hagan & Kay, 1995; Wallace, 2004). These factors may lead to different associations for our sample, compared with studies of the general population.

Conclusion

Despite reported inequalities in domestic work, more than half of husbands and wives perceive this arrangement as fair. Our study addresses this paradox and our results reveal two main findings. First, the predictors of perceived domestic equity to self and spouse differ substantially, which demonstrates the importance of treating each as separate and unique constructs. Second, the antecedents for perceptions of fairness vary by gender: Women who work longer hours at the office are more likely than men to perceive the distribution of tasks as unfair to their spouse. Moreover, the association between spouse’s time-based conflict and perceived task equity is greater for men at lower levels of spouse’s time-based conflict. Yet as spouse’s time-based conflict increases, its effects on the perceived inequity to spouse converges for men and women. These findings contribute to previous research on domestic equity by presenting a more nuanced analysis of what determines perceived unfairness to self or spouse and highlights that the predicted antecedents of each may differ for men and women.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Perceptions of Unfairness to Either Spouse Versus Fair to Both (N = 846) Without Marital Satisfaction

Variable	Perceived unfairness to self		Perceived unfairness to spouse
Variable	Model 4	Model 5	Model 4	Model 5
Gender and domestic chores
Gender(male)	−1.572***	−1.434***	.465	.251
Rsp/Sp housework hrs	.300***	.351***	−1.502***	−1.254***
Relative resources
Rsp/Sp household inc	—	—	—	—
Sp professional	—	—	—	—
Time availability
Work hrs at office	.012	—	.001	—
Work hrs at home	−.002	—	.010	—
Professional activities	.001	—	.057**	—
Sp work hrs at office	−.007	—	.021**	—
Sp work hrs at home	−.013	—	.020	—
Time-based conflict
Rsp time-based conflict	.278*	—	.525***	—
Sp time-based conflict	.588***	—	−.210	—
Housework ideology
Housework salience	—	−.127	—	.155
Enjoyment of housework	—	−.019	—	−.299**
Housework competence	—	−.071	—	−.784***
Gender interactions
Male × Office hours	—	—	—	—
Male × Sp time-based conflict	—	—	—	—
Controls
Age	.040*	.032*	.029*	.019
One kid	.696*	.711*	.486	.378
Two or more kids	.633*	.640*	.288	.136
Paid help	−.155**	−.107	−.115*	−.083
Constant	−5.141***	−2.078*	−3.091***	2.278**

Note. Multinomial logit coefficients reported from imputed data sets. Bolded numbers present significant changes in coefficients when marital satisfaction is excluded from the models.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Author’s Note

The opinions contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of Law School Admission Council, the funding agency.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A grant award from the Law School Admission Council supports this study (GR 01-01; Jean E. Wallace, PI).

Notes

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 335-343.

Allison

P. D.

(2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amatea

E. S.

Cross

Clark

J. E.

Bobby

C. L.

(1986). Assessing the work and family role expectations of career-oriented men and women: The life role salience scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 831-838.

Baxter

(2000). The joys and justice of housework. Sociology, 34, 609-631.

Becker

G. S.

(1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Benin

M. H.

Agostinelli

(1988). Husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with the division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 349-361.

Berk

S. F.

(1985). The gender factory: The appointment of work in American households. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Bianchi

S. M.

Sayer

L. C.

Milkie

M. A.

Robinson

J. P.

(2012). Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces, 91, 55-63.

Bianchi

S. M.

Milkie

M. A.

Sayer

L. C.

Robinson

J. P.

(2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191-228.

10.

Bird

C. E.

(1999). Gender, household labor, and psychological distress: The impact of the amount and division of housework. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 32-45.

11.

Blair-Loy

(2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

12.

Brines

(1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652-688.

13.

Buunk

B. P.

Van Yperen

N. W.

(1991). Referential comparisons, relational comparisons, and exchange orientation: Their relation to marital satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 709-717.

14.

Carriero

(2011). Perceived fairness and satisfaction with the division of housework among dual-earner couples in Italy. Marriage & Family Review, 47, 436-458.

15.

Christiansen

S. L.

Palkovitz

(2001). Why the “good provider” role still matters: Providing as a form of paternal involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 84-106.

16.

Coltrane

(2004). Elite careers and family commitment: It’s (still) about gender. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 214-220.

17.

DeMaris

Longmore

M. A.

(1996). Ideology, power, and equity: Testing competing explanations for the perception of fairness in household labor. Social Forces, 74, 1043-1071.

18.

Evertsson

Nermo

(2007). Changing resources and the division of housework: A longitudinal study of Swedish couples. European Sociological Review, 23, 455-470.

19.

Ferree

M. M.

(1991). The gender division of labor in two-earner marriages: Dimensions of variability and change. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 158-180.

20.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

N. J.

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

21.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Allen

T. D.

Spector

P. E.

(2006). Health consequences of work -family conflict: The dark side of the work -family interface. In Perrewé

P. L.

Ganster

D.C.

(Eds.). Employee Health, Coping and Methodologies: Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being. Vol. 5 (pp. 61-98). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

22.

Grote

N. K.

Clark

M. S.

(2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequences of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281-293.

23.

Grote

N. K.

Naylor

K. E.

Clark

M. S.

(2002). Perceiving the division of family work to be unfair: Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 510-522.

24.

Hagan

Kay

(1995). Gender in practice: A study of lawyers’ lives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Kamo

(2000). “He said, she said”: Assessing discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ reports on the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 29, 459-476.

26.

Kawamura

Brown

S. L.

(2010). Mattering and wives’ perceived fairness of the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 39, 976-986.

27.

Kroska

(2004). Divisions of domestic work: Revising and expanding the theoretical explanations. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 890-922.

28.

Lennon

M. C.

Rosenfield

(1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506-531.

29.

Malos

(1980). The politics of housework. London, England: Allison & Busby.

30.

Prichard

R. D.

(1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 176-211.

31.

Poortman

Van Der Lippe

(2009). Attitudes toward housework and child care and the gendered division of labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 526-541.

32.

Sanchez

Kane

E. W.

(1996). Women’s and men’s constructions of perceptions of housework fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 358-387.

33.

Shelton

B. A.

(1999). Gender and unpaid work. In Saltzman

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 375-390). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

34.

Schieman

Young

(2010). The demands of creative work: Implications for the stress in the work-family interface. Social Science Research, 39, 246-259.

35.

Simon

R. W.

(1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 182-194.

36.

Sweet

Bumpass

Call

(1988). The design and content of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH Working Paper No. 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Centre for Demography and Ecology.

37.

Thompson

(1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196.

38.

Twiggs

J. E.

McQuillan

Ferree

M. M.

(1999). Meaning and measurement: Reconceptualizing measures of the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 712-724.

39.

van Hooff

J. H.

(2011). Rationalising inequality: Heterosexual couples’ explanations and justifications for the division of housework along traditionally gendered lines. Journal of Gender Studies, 20, 19-30.

40.

Wallace

J. E.

(2004). Motherhood and career commitment to the legal profession. In DiTomaso

Post

(Eds.), Research in the sociology of work. Vol. 14: Workforce diversity (pp. 219-246). Amsterdam, Netherlands: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

41.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.

42.

Westman

(2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 717-751.

43.

Wheaton

(1997). The nature of chronic stress. In Gottlieb

B. H.

(Ed.), Coping with chronic stress (pp. 43-74). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

44.

Wheaton

Young

(2009). Has the impact of domestic labor and perceived domestic equity on the mental health of married men and women changed over time? An assessment of the NSFH panel form 1987-2002. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.