CAIRN-INT.INFO : International Edition
Volume
68
format_quote Cite share Share Switch to French

Full-text

1Despite a slow improvement, the division of household tasks between partners remains a central aspect of gender inequality, and certain stages in the life cycle tend to heighten this inequality. The unequal division of domestic chores, measured objectively in time-use surveys, reflects a reality whose (un)fairness may be perceived differently by individuals. One way to shed light on this question is to examine gender differences in effective domestic labour participation in relation to the feelings expressed by the persons concerned. In this article, Caroline Henchoz and Boris Wernli look at this less well-known aspect of gender relations, using an indicator that measures the degree of satisfaction with the division of household tasks within the couple. Using data from a longitudinal statistical survey of couples in Switzerland, the authors measure changes in levels of satisfaction over the family life cycle. They conclude that satisfaction with the division of household chores is partially unrelated to the actual amount of work involved, but ties in closely with the couple’s degree of cohesion and mutual support.

2Women take on more household tasks following union formation and the birth of children, whereas their spouses’ contributions remain relatively insensitive to these transitions (Henchoz and Wernli, 2010). Despite these growing inequalities across the life cycle, which are not specific to Switzerland, women continue to report a high level of satisfaction with the division of household tasks (Lennon and Rosenfield, 1994 ; Sanchez and Kane, 1996 ; Huppé and Cyr, 1997 ; Baxter, 2000 ; Grote et al., 2002 ; Singly de, 2007 ; Braun et al., 2008). Various hypotheses have been advanced in the literature to explain this satisfaction. Most are based on cross-sectional statistical analyses, which can be used to explain the situation at a given moment but offer no way to understand variations over time. Some studies have shown change in satisfaction about the division of household tasks over the family life cycle. Jill Suitor (1991) used a U-shaped curve to describe the sense of satisfaction reported by women over the life cycle and its temporary decrease when they have preschool-aged children. However, this research was based on cross-sectional analyses, i.e. it compared different populations at different moments in the life cycle.

3This study uses a longitudinal analysis of the data from the Swiss Household Panel [1] (SHP) to establish a dynamic perspective on relative satisfaction with the division of household tasks within the couple. Tracking the same individuals over time offers the opportunity to test the interpretations provided by cross-sectional studies. Can they be used to explain changes in satisfaction over the course of the family life cycle ? Do they describe the pattern of change in both men’s and women’s satisfaction over time ? In other words, is women’s satisfaction sensitive to the same causes and events as that of men ?

4We evaluated satisfaction with the division of household tasks according to the characteristics of the household, the respondent, and the respondent’s partner. The SHP data are very extensive, making it possible to analyse these three types of data at the same time, and this is an original aspect of the present study. Most studies only collect information from one person per household. This difference allowed us to answer a question that has thus far received little attention : to what extent is the sense of satisfaction an interactional construct ? In other words, to what degree is each person’s satisfaction linked to their partner’s involvement, and to the overall satisfaction expressed by their partner ?

5Capturing how the sense of satisfaction associated with the division of domestic work is constructed offers the opportunity to better understand how inequalities persist within couples. According to Baxter and Western (1998), the desire for change is strongly linked to the level of (dis)satisfaction. [2] An unequal division of household tasks that does not create dissatisfaction is very likely to continue. In this sense, understanding the bases upon which the sense of satisfaction is built may enable us to better capture the reasons why inegalitarian situations persist.

I – Measures of household tasks and satisfaction in the SHP

6This article bears on the “core” domestic tasks : cooking, dishwashing, cleaning and laundry [3] (Ponthieux and Schreiber, 2006). Both men and women consider these particularly time-consuming tasks to be the least gratifying and the most constraining, because they cannot be put off until later (Brousse, 1999 ; Coltrane, 2000). In Switzerland, as elsewhere, they are performed mainly by women (Brousse, 1999 ; Ponthieux and Schreiber, 2006 ; Schön-Bühlmann, 2006a ; Branger, 2008), whereas the largest portion of men’s domestic time is allocated to paperwork, gardening, and manual labour (Chadeau and Fouquet, 1981 ; Strub and Bauer, 2002 ; Widmer et al., 2003 ; Schön-Bühlmann, 2006a).

7In the SHP, data on housework were collected by telephone on the basis of the following question : “On average, how many hours do you spend on housework (washing, cooking, cleaning) in an ordinary week ?” [4] Although the data collected in this way are less precise than those collected by the reference-day method used in time-use surveys ; [5] their validity has been tested in previous studies. [6]

8This type of data is subject to biases, however, which must be noted : biases linked to memory and subjectivity (given that individuals are asked to estimate the time spent on housework over the course of a week), to the difficulty of distinguishing between time devoted to these tasks and time spent on other domestic activities (for example, should cooking with a child be considered as time spent on housework or on child rearing ?) and the associated feelings of satisfaction. Indeed, the dependent variable in the present study, satisfaction with the division of household tasks, concerns only doing laundry, cooking, and cleaning. The data on this measure were collected using the following question : “To what extent are you satisfied with the division of housework – washing, cooking, cleaning – within your household, if 0 means ‘not at all satisfied’ and 10 ‘completely satisfied’ ?”. Respondents were explicitly told that childcare was not to be included in this evaluation. This imposes a limitation on the present study, since the data cannot be used to study satisfaction with domestic work as a whole.

9Finally, it may also be assumed that there are biases linked to the social desirability effect. Men apparently overestimate the number of hours they spend on housework, and women underestimate it by the same amount : plus or minus around three hours per week in Switzerland (Strub and Bauer, 2000). Likewise, certain respondents may seek to present themselves in a favourable light, notably by overrating their level of satisfaction. The information available to us cannot be used to verify this last point, however.

II – Analytical framework and hypotheses

Events influencing satisfaction with the division of household tasks

10While patterns in the division of domestic work over the marital life cycle are now reasonably well-documented by longitudinal surveys (Sanchez and Thomson, 1997 ; Gupta, 1999 ; Artis and Pavalko, 2003 ; Cooke, 2004 ; Baxter et al., 2008 ; Henchoz and Wernli, 2010 ; Wernli and Henchoz, 2011), little is known about variations in the associated satisfaction. According to Suitor’s (1991) U-shaped curve hypothesis, which seems to be confirmed by other studies (Huppé and Cyr, 1997 ; Régnier-Loilier, 2009 ; Dew and Wilcox, 2011), women’s reported satisfaction with the division of housework declines when children are born, and rises again when they enter school. Men’s satisfaction is said to remain relatively stable over the course of family life. One of the objectives of this article is to test this hypothesis on a longitudinal dataset, examining the impact of this transition for the two sexes. The spectrum of events that might affect satisfaction was widened by testing the effect of increases and decreases in the amount of paid working time, and of withdrawal from the labour market. The hypotheses presented below, as well as the indicators used and the corresponding categories, are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Hypotheses on variation in satisfaction with the division of housework*

Table 1
Hypotheses Explanatory variables Items Hypothesis 1 : The greater the number of hours of housework, the lower the level of satisfaction, since these tasks are considered time-consuming and tedious (Exchange theory) Number of hours of housework per week * “On average, how many hours do you spend on housework (washing, cooking, cleaning) in an ordinary week ?”  Hypothesis 1b : The number of hours of housework increases with the number of young children. The number of children indirectly decreases satisfaction (Exchange theory) Number of children aged 0-17 in the household Same item as for hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 : Possessing fewer socially valued resources such as personal income or a high level of education leads individuals to express satisfaction with the adopted division of work, since they have few alternatives outside the relationship (Resource theory) Annual net personal income * Missing income (10-15%) was imputed using the method recommended by Little and Su (L & S ; Lipps, 2010). Level of education * Level of education is represented on a continuous scale from 0 to 10 which represents the standardized levels of education in the Swiss system. Its linear effect on the dependent variable was previously verified. Hypothesis 3 : Satisfaction decreases if the partners do not enjoy identical free time (Free time theory) We hypothesize that recourse to paid domestic help may free up some time Paid working time * Expressed as a percentage of full-time work (in Switzerland, 41.5 hours/week). Recourse to domestic help  The variable is dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes). Satisfaction with available free time * “How satisfied are you with the number of hours of free time you have, if 0 means ‘not at all satisfied’ and 10 ‘completely satisfied’ ?” Hypothèse 4 : When people perform household tasks that they consider to fall under the responsibility of the opposite sex, their satisfaction decreases because they believe that doing such tasks is more unpleasant than doing tasks generally assigned to their own sex (Gender perspective Performing the tasks of the opposite sex "Could you tell me who in your household performs each of the tasks that I will list. In general, who does the following ? 1) making meals ; 2) cleaning and tidying ; 3) shopping ; 4) laundry and ironing ; 5) taking care of technical matters, like adjusting the heating system and doing repairs ; 6) paperwork (bills, etc.). A dichotomous indicator (0 = no, 1 = yes) indicates whether the respondent is the main person who performs each task Hypothesis 5 : Younger people will report more dissatisfaction than older people, because the meaning of house­work has changed, and they have greater expectations of equality in this area (Gender perspective) Groups by date of birth 1) 1979-1992 (aged 30 or under in 2009 ; 2) 1969-1978 (aged 31-40) ; 3) 1959-1968 (aged 41-50) ; 4) 1949-1958 (aged 51-60) ; 5) 1939-1948 (aged 61-70) ; 6) 1938 and before (aged 71+). The age groups are valid for 2009 Hypothesis 6 : Spouses who feel emotionally or practically supported by their partner will express more satisfaction (Economy of gratitude) Practical support provided by the partner “In your opinion, to what extent can your partner help you practically – that is, offer practical help or useful advice – when you need it, if 0 means ‘not at all’ and 10 ‘all the time’ ?” Emotional support provided by the partner  “To what extent does your partner make him/herself available when needed, by showing understanding, or by talking with you, for example, if 0 means ‘not at all’ and 10 ‘all the time’ ?” Number of hours per week of housework provided by the partner * Same question as for the respondent (Hypothesis 1)

Hypotheses on variation in satisfaction with the division of housework*

* The variable has a value for each member of the couple.

Hypotheses on the factors influencing satisfaction

11According to the U-shaped curve hypothesis, women’s satisfaction depends on their actual contribution (hypothesis 1). The arrival of children leads to an increase in domestic work, the bulk of which is taken on by women. Men’s reported satisfaction apparently changes little, since the presence of children has a limited impact on the time they devote to housework, which we have already demonstrated in Switzerland (Henchoz and Wernli, 2010). This first hypothesis is based on exchange theory, and postulates that individuals will seek to maximize their own benefits and reduce their costs, notably by avoiding arduous and unpleasant tasks (Suitor, 1991).

12But it may also be hypothesized (hypothesis 2) that the negative impact of the transition to parenthood is nuanced by the fact that motherhood causes the majority of Swiss women to choose part-time work. [7] In this context, women have fewer financial resources to draw upon if the relationship ends. They may thus tend to adapt to the situation, decreasing their expectations with regard to their companion’s domestic involvement and expressing satisfaction about the division of domestic work even if it is largely to their disadvantage. This hypothesis refers to resource theory (Blood and Wolfe, 1960) in postulating that a relative lack of socially valued resources (level of education, income) will influence expectations with regard to the division of domestic work, and consequently the associated satisfaction. It has received support from several studies (Lennon and Rosenfield, 1994 ; DeMaris and Longmore, 1996 ; Wilkie et al., 1998).

13An opposite hypothesis (hypothesis 3) which, like the preceding one, is based on the particularity of the Swiss context, may also be considered. The transition to parenthood, like the other transitions examined in this article, could have a limited influence on the satisfaction that men and women report if the combined paid and non-paid workload is divided equitably. In Switzerland, the combined total number of hours of paid and unpaid work is slightly higher for men than for women. Although parenthood reinforces a traditional division of work, this gap remains stable, [8] as the increase in time spent by women on domestic and family tasks is offset by the decrease in paid work time. This hypothesis is based on the theory of free time, postulating that an unequal division of domestic work only leads to dissatisfaction if one of the partners has less free time available than the other (Coltrane and Ishii-Kuntz, 1992).

14These first hypotheses do not take gender into account. But work on gendered socialization has shown that it gives rise to unequal objective skills, dispositions (attraction, repugnance, tolerance) and expectations with regard to male and female involvement in housework (Guionnet and Neveu, 2009). Two further hypotheses can be drawn from the gender perspective. On the one hand (hypothesis 4), women will be less reluctant to increase the number of hours they spend on housework – at least of the type that we are examining here – than men, since the domestic tasks under study here are traditionally considered as women’s chores (Zarca, 1990 ; Kaufmann, 1992 ; Singly de, 2007). On the other (hypothesis 5), if satisfaction depends on gender expectations (Greenstein, 1996 ; Helms-Erikson, 2001 ; Lavee et Katz, 2002), then inequalities should not be a source of dissatisfaction for women who view household tasks as the activities expected of a good mother or as an expression of maternal love (West and Zimmerman, 1987). As the meaning attributed to household tasks has evolved over the generations (Coltrane, 2000), we may expect younger individuals to express more dissatisfaction than older ones, as overall they have greater expectations of an egalitarian division of domestic work (Blair and Johnson, 1992 ; Sanchez and Kane, 1996 ; Ahrne and Roman, 2000).

15The hypothesis that attitudes to the division of housework depend not only on actual contributions but also on the system of expectations with regard to men’s and women’s roles, obligations and behaviours suggests a final potential explanation (hypothesis 6) : given that the household tasks examined here are still largely the responsibility of women, women’s satisfaction is not the result of men having feminist or egalitarian attitudes, but stems rather from the compassion, sympathy and support expressed by those around them (Pyke, 1994 ; Pyke and Coltrane, 1996 ; Sanchez and Thomson, 1997). On the example of Hochschild’s (2003) theory of the “economy of gratitude,” it may be hypothesized that women who feel supported by their companion (emotionally or because he sometimes performs typically feminine domestic tasks), or whose housework seems to be appreciated, will be more satisfied, independently of the number of hours that they spend on it (DeMaris and Longmore, 1996 ; Stevens et al., 2006).

16The independent variables used in the analyses, and whose categories are described above, are dichotomous or quantitative, and in the latter case partly take the form of subjective scales from 0 to 10. A number of dichotomous indicators refer to events that have taken place since the first wave of interviews and that could have produced changes in reported satisfaction. These events relate to both the respondent and the respondent’s partner. Besides the birth of a child in the last twelve months, which was used to test Suitor’s (1991) hypothesis of a U-shaped curve, we examined the impact of the cessation of paid work, of increases and decreases in paid working time [9] before retirement age, and finally the impact of retirement itself (in Switzerland, at age 64 for women and 65 for men).

III – Data and method

17The empirical part of this study is subdivided into two complementary sections. The descriptive section highlights a certain number of differences between women and men, and gives an overview of the distribution of the various indicators as well as of the frequency of the events whose impact we are studying. The multivariate longitudinal analysis allows us to take an explanatory approach, notably by showing how the sense of satisfaction is constructed and what elements and events can influence it.

18We used the data from waves 2 [10] to 12 of the Swiss Household Panel (SHP), collected between September 2000 and February 2010. For this longitudinal survey, annual interviews are conducted with all the individuals aged 14 and older in a set of households selected at random in 1999 (SHP_I) and 2004 (SHP_II). [11] The analysis is based on 7,018 individuals living with an opposite-sex partner, both of whom completed the annual questionnaire. There were a mean of 4.5 fully completed questionnaires per person, or 31,733 distinct observations. The means of 5.0 observations per respondent for the SHP_I (out of 11 waves) and 3.5 observations for the SHP_II (out of 7 waves) are fairly high given the possible changes in respondents’ family situations and the difficulty of obtaining the simultaneous participation of both partners in the same wave. Analyses aimed at establishing the effect of attrition [12] on the indicators collected by the SHP are performed each year. They reveal that the dependent variable used here is not affected.

19Besides offering a longitudinal perspective, the SHP survey has the advantage of interviewing all members of each household, which makes it possible to match the data from both partners and investigate the interactional dimension of satisfaction.

Household inequality generates little dissatisfaction

20The descriptive analysis (Table 2) shows that women spend much more time than men cooking, doing laundry and cleaning (a mean of 19.6 hours/week, versus 6.2 for men). Moreover, they are far more likely to do these tasks on their own : 84% [13] of women reported doing laundry and ironing on their own, and the proportions are 74% for meals, 71% for cleaning and tidying, and 58% for shopping (versus 4%, 8%, 5% and 10%, respectively, for men), which confirms the “feminine” character of the household tasks examined here. The heavy specialization of these tasks is also reflected in the difference between women’s and men’s paid working time, with women doing far fewer hours of paid work than men (on average, 38% full-time equivalent versus 75% for men, full-time work corresponding to 41.25 hours per week on average in Switzerland).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics on the indicators used – SHP waves 2 to 12, pooled data

Table 2
Women Men Significance of the M-W difference Respondent mean SD mean SD Satisfaction with the division of housework (scale of 0 to 10) 7.8 2.0 8.7 1.5 *** General satisfaction with life (scale of 0 to 10) 8.2 1.4 8.1 1.3 *** Satisfaction with free time (scale of 0 to 10) 7.4 2.4 7.1 2.5 *** Time spent on housework (hours per week) 19.6 12.0 6.2 5.8 *** Number of children aged 0-17 years in the household 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.1 n.s. Level of education (scale of 0 to 10) (see Table 1) 4.9 2.6 6.2 2.7 *** Net personal income (Swiss francs) 31,808 72,154 85,605 72,955 *** Paid working time (percentage full-time equivalent) 37.8 36.8 74.6 40.8 *** Practical support from partner (scale of 0 to 10) 8.3 2.1 8.5 1.8 *** Emotional support from partner (scale of 0 to 10) 8.4 1.9 9.0 1.5 ***  Housework % yes % yes   Prepares meals alone 74 8 *** Cleans and tidies alone 71 5 *** Does shopping alone 58 10 *** Does laundry and ironing alone 84 4 *** Deals with technical matters alone 10 73 *** Deals with paperwork alone 40 42 *** External domestic help 14 14 n.s.

Descriptive statistics on the indicators used – SHP waves 2 to 12, pooled data

Significance thresholds : *** p < 0.001 ; ** p < 0.01 ; * p < 0.05 ; n.s. not significant.
Interpretation : Women’s mean level of satisfaction with the division of household tasks was 7.8 on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 meant “not at all satisfied” and 10 “completely satisfied”.
Table 2 (cont’d)

Descriptive statistics on the indicators used – SHP waves 2 to 12, pooled data

Table 2 (cont’d)
Women Men Significance of the M-W difference Year of birth 1979 or after 4 2 *** 1969-1978 16 13 *** 1959-1968 30 28 *** 1949-1958 24 23 n.s. 1939-1948 16 18 *** 1938 or before (Reference) 10 15 *** Partner mean SD mean SD Satisfaction with the division of housework (scale of 0 to 10) 8.7 1.5 7.8 2.0 *** General satisfaction with life (scale of 0 to 10) 8.2 1.3 8.2 1.3 *** Satisfaction with free time (scale of 0 to 10) 7.1 2.5 7.4 2.4 *** Time spent on housework (hours per week) 6.1 5.7 19.6 11.9 *** Level of education (scale of 0 to 10) 6.0 2.8 4.9 2.7 *** Net personal income (Swiss francs) 81,113 72,384 31,094 38,622 *** Paid working time (percentage full-time equivalent) 76.6 39.4 37.6 36.6 *** Practical support from respondent (scale of 0 to 10) (evaluation by partner)  8.6 1.7 8.4 1.9 *** Emotional support from respondent (scale of 0 to 10) (evaluation by partner)  9.0 1.3 8.5 1.7 *** Events between two survey waves % %   Birth in the last 12 months 3 3 n.s. Cessation of paid work before retirement 1 0 *** Retirement 1 1 *** Increase in paid working time 14 5 *** Decrease in paid working time 13 6 *** Partner’s cessation of paid work before retirement 0 5 *** Partner’s retirement 2 2 * Increase in partner’s paid work time 3 12 *** Decrease in partner’s paid work time 4 10 *** Number of valid cases for all variables 15,881 15,852

Descriptive statistics on the indicators used – SHP waves 2 to 12, pooled data

Source : SHP 2000-2010.

21These inequalities moderately affect women’s reported satisfaction with the division of household tasks. Yet although their satisfaction is lower than that of men (7.8 versus 8.7 on a scale of 10), the difference is far from proportional to the difference in partners’ level of participation.

22In general terms, the levels of the other variables representing satisfaction and support from the respondent’s partner are fairly high, although there are slight differences between women and men. Women judge that they have less support from their partners than men (8.3 versus 8.5 in practical terms ; 8.4 versus 9.0 in emotional terms), but express greater satisfaction with their available free time (7.4 versus 7.1), which may be explained by the fact that they have more of it (cf. note 8).

23Besides its fairly high mean levels (7.8 for women and 8.7 for men), satisfaction with the division of household tasks (Figure 1) was clustered fairly close to the mean (standard deviations of 2.0 and 1.5 respectively) with the mass of the distribution concentrated on the right (asymmetry coefficients of –1.1 and –1.4 respectively) and a long tail to the left. The propensity to report a given level of satisfaction is concentrated in the high values (with 40% of cases concentrated in the last two response categories for women and 60% for men). As women’s level of satisfaction is lower than that of men, the gender difference tends to increase for high values.

Figure 1

Satisfaction with the division of household tasks by sex (%)

Figure 1

Satisfaction with the division of household tasks by sex (%)

Source : PSM, 2000-2010.

Longitudinal analysis

24Several analytical methods were used to make the best possible use of the longitudinal character of the data and the specific distribution of satisfaction with the division of household tasks ranked on a scale of 0 to 10. [14] We observed in the previous section that the distribution was fairly homogeneous and asymmetrical, strongly concentrated on the right. Given the non-independence of the observations, linear mixed models (LMM) are the most appropriate choice. See the Appendix for a detailed description of this method and the selected options.

W-shaped pattern over time in satisfaction with the division of household tasks

25Table 3 presents the results of the multivariate analyses separately for the two sexes. Suitor’s (1991) hypothesis of a U-shaped curve, which predicts a decrease in satisfaction with the division of household tasks in the presence of preschool-aged children, is confirmed for men, and to a lesser extent for women, though with a slight time shift : the birth of a child does not have a short-term negative impact on either men’s or women’s reported satisfaction (0.04 with p = 0.476 and 0.08 with p = 0.204, respectively). However, the decrease in both women’s (? 0.05) and, to an even greater extent, men’s (? 0.07) sense of satisfaction is indeed linked to the number of children aged 0-17 present in the household. So hypothesis 1 based on exchange theory is already partially rejected by these first two observations. If it were confirmed, we should observe in both cases a decrease in the sense of satisfaction since, in Switzerland as elsewhere, the presence of young children increases the time spent on domestic work (Schön-Bühlmann, 2009 ; Henchoz and Wernli, 2010). Yet time spent on housework has very little impact on the sense of satisfaction reported by men (– 0.01) and even less on that of women (– 0.003) who nonetheless perform the majority of domestic tasks.

Table 3

Satisfaction with the division of housework (estimation of fixed effects and significance), longitudinal linear mixed model – SHP waves 2 to 12

Table 3
  Women Men Estimation Significance Estimation Significance Constant 3.243 0.000 4.929 0.000 Respondent General life satisfaction (scale of 0-10) 0.152 0.000 0.129 0.000 Satisfaction with free time (scale of 0-10) 0.104 0.000 0.061 0.000 Time spent on domestic tasks (hours per week) – 0.003 0.013 – 0.010 0.000 Number of children aged 0-17 in the household – 0.048 0.025 – 0.067 0.000 Level of education (scale of 0 to 10) – 0.005 0.610 – 0.022 0.001 Net personal income (in 10,000s of Swiss francs) 0.001 0.714 0.004 0.036 Paid working time (percentage full time equivalent) – 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.247 Practical support from partner (scale of 0 to 10) 0.083 0.000 0.065 0.000 Emotional support from partner (scale of 0 to 10) 0.220 0.000 0.158 0.000 Housework Prepares meals alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.155 0.000 – 0.002 0.974 Cleans and tidies alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.257 0.000 – 0.018 0.760 Does shopping alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.088 0.005 – 0.066 0.124 Does laundry and ironing alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.125 0.001 0.008 0.897 Takes care of technical matters alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.101 0.022 0.013 0.611 Deals with paperwork alone (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.054 0.098 – 0.062 0.017 Outside help with housework (1=yes, 0=no) 0.085 0.049 – 0.015 0.680 Wave 2 to 12 – 0.020 0.000 – 0.019 0.000 Year of birth 1979 or after, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.431 0.002 – 0.116 0.310 1969-1978, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.354 0.002 – 0.161 0.055 1959-1968, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.422 0.000 – 0.146 0.060 1949-1958, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.419 0.000 – 0.075 0.314 1939-1948, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.143 0.167 – 0.009 0.893 1938 or before, (1=yes, 0=no), (Reference) - - - -

Satisfaction with the division of housework (estimation of fixed effects and significance), longitudinal linear mixed model – SHP waves 2 to 12

Estimation : Non-standardized fixed effects, in units of satisfaction with the division of household tasks, on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “not at all satisfied” and 10 “completely satisfied”.
Interpretation : Following an increase in women’s rate of paid work since the previous wave, their level of satisfaction with the division of household tasks decreased by 0.1 unit, all other things being equal.
Table 3 (cont’d)

Satisfaction with the division of housework (estimation of fixed effects and significance), longitudinal linear mixed model – SHP waves 2 to 12

Table 3 (cont’d)
    Women Men Estimation Significance Estimation Significance Partner Satisfaction with division of housework (scale of 0 to 10) 0.087 0.000 0.065 0.000 General life satisfaction (scale of 0 to 10) 0.018 0.120 0.022 0.017 Satisfaction with free time (scale of 0-10) 0.001 0.906 0.013 0.020 Time spent on domestic tasks (hours per week) 0.012 0.000 – 0.001 0.177 Level of education (scale of 0 to 10) – 0.013 0.171 – 0.034 0.000 Net personal income (in 10,000s of Swiss francs) 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.231 Paid working time (percentage full time equivalent) 0.001 0.046 – 0.001 0.152 Practical support (scale of 0 to 10) (evaluation by the partner) – 0.001 0.946 – 0.001 0.907 Emotional support (scale of 0 to 10) (evaluation by the partner) 0.023 0.047 0.023 0.004 Events between two survey waves Birth in the 12 months preceding the survey (1=yes, 0=no) 0.079 0.204 0.039 0.476 Cessation of paid work before retirement, (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.061 0.500 0.205 0.640 Retirement (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.261 0.054 – 0.284 0.001 Increase in paid working time (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.098 0.002 – 0.054 0.229 Decrease in paid working time (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.063 0.059 0.102 0.017 Partner’s cessation of paid work before retirement (1=yes, 0=no) 0.156 0.660 0.020 0.733 Partner’s retirement (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.069 0.434 0.082 0.376 Increase in partner’s paid working time (1=yes, 0=no) – 0.039 0.442 – 0.028 0.309 Decrease in partner’s paid working time (1=yes, 0=no) 0.040 0.410 – 0.058 0.042 Number of different individuals 3,511   3,507   Number of observations 15,881   15,852   –2 restricted log-likelihood 57,040   51,601   AIC 57,046   51,607   BIC 57,069   51,630   AR1 diagonal 1.609 0.000 1.218 0.000 AR1 rho 0.157 0.000 0.099 0.000 Constant : random effect variance 1.334 0.000 0.574 0.000

Satisfaction with the division of housework (estimation of fixed effects and significance), longitudinal linear mixed model – SHP waves 2 to 12

Source : SHP 2000-2010.

26The change in the sense of satisfaction with respect to the division of household chores must therefore be explained by factors other than time spent on them. This is confirmed by the fact that certain events which do not, at first sight, involve additional domestic work also have a negative impact.

27Indeed, the transitions since the previous wave show the contrasting and sometimes substantial effects of other events on the sense of satisfaction. First of all, retirement has a negative effect on the satisfaction of both men (? 0.28) and women (? 0.24, p = 0.054), which suggests that Suitor’s U-shaped curve is only partially valid, and that it may be more appropriate to speak of a W-shaped curve of satisfaction over time, with a decrease when there are children aged 0-17 in the household and again on retirement.

28This wave pattern of change over time must be understood as an overall tendency, however, since other events also have an impact. For women, all changes in paid working time have a negative effect on satisfaction with the division of household tasks. Before retirement, both increases (? 0.10) and decreases (? 0.06, p = 0.059) in working time lead to a decrease in expressed satisfaction, probably because the family organization of household tasks is restructured as a consequence, generally to the disadvantage of women (Henchoz and Wernli, 2010 ; Wernli and Henchoz, 2011). In contrast, apart from the negative effect of retirement, the impact of a decrease in working time (0.10) is positive for men. Note that the expressed sense of satisfaction is not very sensitive to events in the partner’s life, with one exception that is difficult to explain from the available information : decreases in women’s paid working time have a small negative effect on their partners’ satisfaction with the division of housework (? 0.06, p = 0.042).

29Although satisfaction over the family life cycle is W-shaped for both sexes, longitudinal analyses (Table 3) highlight the greater heterogeneity of women’s individual situations, with a lower constant (3.2 versus 4.9 for men) and higher random effect variance (1.3 versus 0.6). The greater number of parameters with a significant effect on the dependent variable in women also supports this point. This greater heterogeneity is partly explained by cohort effects. All other things being equal, women in the younger cohorts expressed substantially lower satisfaction with the division of household tasks than the oldest cohort (born in 1938 or before, reference category), which tends to confirm hypothesis 5 (gender perspective) : expectations of equality have grown, leading younger cohorts to experience greater dissatisfaction with the inegalitarian division of housework. Note also that for a given birth cohort and controlling for the other parameters, the two partners’ satisfaction decreases slightly over the years (?0.02 for the two sexes). This may be explained by the process of sedimentation of household habits described by Kaufman (1992). Over time, roles become rigid : the two partners progressively abandon mutual aid and devote their time exclusively to “their own” tasks. As we will see, mutual aid is an essential dimension of the sense of satisfaction.

30Personal resources (education, income) also have a very limited impact on the level of satisfaction, which speaks against hypothesis 2, based on resource theory. Levels of education and income have no effect on women’s reported satisfaction and a very limited effect on that of men (? 0.02 for education, and 0.004 for income).

31The indicators associated with hypothesis 3 and free time theory have contrasting effects. Paid working time has very little effect on women’s reported satisfaction, and no effect on that of men. Satisfaction with available free time, on the other hand, has a positive impact on women’s household satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, on men’s (0.10 and 0.06 respectively). Having external help also increases women’s satisfaction (0.09), but has a non-significant effect in men.

32For women, performing household tasks that are considered feminine without the partner’s help (Table 3) is more of a factor of dissatisfaction than is the case for tasks generally considered masculine. For example, preparing meals alone (? 0.16), cleaning and tidying alone (? 0.26), and doing laundry and ironing alone (? 0.13) have a greater negative effect on women’s satisfaction than dealing with technical matters alone (? 0.10). These results contradict hypothesis 4, which postulated that satisfaction decreases when individuals take on tasks considered to be the responsibility of the other sex. Although these results are not significant, this is confirmed by the fact that the satisfaction of men who performed “feminine” household tasks is less affected than that of women.

33These results do support hypothesis 6, however, based on the economy of gratitude. Feeling helped and supported by one’s partner proves to be one of the most explanatory variables for women’s satisfaction, and to a lesser extent for men’s satisfaction as well. Thus, it is less the number of hours of housework performed by the partner that increases satisfaction than support, both practical support (0.08 for women and 0.07 for men) and, most of all, emotional support (0.22 and 0.16 respectively).

34Note that general life satisfaction, introduced as a control variable, has a large and similar impact on both women and men (0.15 and 0.13). This result is congruent with other studies that have found a strong correlation between satisfaction with the conjugal relationship and with the division of household tasks. According to Suitor (1991), the level of satisfaction associated with the division of household tasks plays a central role in general conjugal satisfaction. In light of the complementary analyses that we performed for this study, [15] we would say instead that the relationship is one of reciprocal causality. In other words, individuals’ evaluations of the different spheres of their lives show a tight mutual interdependence. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that satisfaction with regard to household tasks also depends on the partner’s satisfaction. Both women and men (0.09 and 0.07 respectively) are sensitive to their partner’s reported satisfaction with the division of household tasks. Similarly, women’s reported life satisfaction (0.022), satisfaction with available free time (0.013) and emotional support (0.023) were positively correlated with those of men. The satisfaction that individuals express with regard to the sharing of tasks within a household depends partly on what their partner reported about this dimension of their common life, but also on other dimensions with no connection to domestic organization.

IV – Discussion and conclusion

35The longitudinal analysis of data from the SHP sheds light on how satisfaction with the division of household tasks within the couple is constructed and how it changes over time. Suitor’s (1991) U-shaped curve hypothesis on the decrease in women’s satisfaction in the presence of preschool-aged children proved to be partly correct. Having a child does not have a negative short-term impact on men’s and women’s reported satisfaction, but satisfaction decreases as the number of children aged 0-17 in the household increases, more so for men than for women. The curve of satisfaction with the division of household tasks over the family life cycle is more W-shaped than U-shaped, with a decrease in satisfaction while children are minors and a more pronounced decrease at the moment of retirement. Note, however, that the W-shape of the curve can be blurred by certain events in the life of a given individual. Upward or downward changes in paid working time before retirement can contribute to a decrease in women’s satisfaction, or an increase in that of men (in the case of a decrease in their own paid working time).

36In this analysis, we were also able to demonstrate the multidimensional and co-dependent nature of the sense of satisfaction. Individuals link together different dimensions of their lives to evaluate satisfaction with the division of household tasks within the couple. Counter-intuitively, objective factors like the time that the individual or their partner spend on housework, or the income or level of education of one or the other, have much less of an impact than some more subjective factors such as general life satisfaction and satisfaction with free time.

37The sense of satisfaction is a gendered and generational, individual and interactional construct. It is gendered because men and women do not attach the same importance to the same factors. Women’s reported satisfaction depends on more factors than men’s, and they show a wider range of levels of satisfaction as well. Thus, as we previously demonstrated with respect to changes in the division of housework over the family life cycle (Henchoz and Wernli, 2010 ; Wernli and Henchoz, 2011), a given theoretical framework may have different degrees of explanatory power with regard to the points of view and situations of women and of men. For example, time spent on household tasks has a lesser impact on women’s reported satisfaction than on men’s, which suggests a limitation in the explanatory scope of hypotheses based on exchange theory.

38The sense of satisfaction is also a generational construct, since it varies by cohort. Expectations of equality have increased in the younger cohorts, and this has a negative effect on the level of satisfaction expressed by these cohorts of women (see also Henchoz, 2011), since household organization rarely corresponds to their expectations. Another explanatory element, which we were unable to examine here, relates to the criteria that individuals apply when evaluating their own situation. The oldest women, or those with the most traditional expectations, tend to compare their situation with that of other women, whereas the youngest women are more likely to compare themselves with their partners, which may contribute to decreasing their satisfaction, given that their partner’s situation is more enviable in this respect (Greenstein, 1996).

39Besides showing that the sense of satisfaction varies with the individual’s situation and characteristics, our results also indicate that it is an interactional construct, which depends on the partner’s attitude, contribution, and expressed feelings. Individuals’ satisfaction with their free time and their lives in general do have a positive impact, but having a partner who is satisfied with his or her life and free time and with the division of household tasks is also a central explanatory factor. Hypotheses based on the economy of gratitude are thus broadly confirmed as an explanation for women’s level of satisfaction, and, to a lesser extent, that of men as well. Women prove to be particularly sensitive to their spouses’ practical and emotional involvement in household tasks, and do not appreciate being alone in performing the types of housework which most often fall upon them (meals, cleaning, tidying). It is not the fact of having a partner who performs half of the housework that counts, but rather having one who participates, who can be counted on, and who helps out when needed. This observation indirectly supports hypotheses based on gender roles and perspectives. Respondents still consider the tasks examined here as women’s tasks, with men perceived more as providers of support than as partners in this domain.

40These results highlight the interest of considering satisfaction not only as a judgment by the two partners on a dimension of their common life at a given moment, but also as an evolving attitude toward their relationship and their respective roles (Bradbury et al., 2000). When analysing this kind of data, it is thus of particular interest to include not only the characteristics of the task to be evaluated, but also those of the partner, as well as information on the quality of the relationship. In other words, when asking the following question : “To what extent are you satisfied with the division of housework – washing, cooking, cleaning – within your household, if 0 means ‘not at all satisfied’ and 10 ‘completely satisfied’ ?” our results suggest that researchers should focus their attention not only on the first part of the question – that is, on the type of household tasks being evaluated – but also on the second part, i.e. the context of housework division, the household, and the people involved in this division. This point highlights a limitation of the present analysis. In this study, as in the majority of other studies, only the two partners are taken into account. But children also participate in housework, to a varying degree depending on their age and sex (Gerfin et al., 2009 ; Schön-Bühlmann, 2009). To what extent do attitudes to the division of housework within the household expressed by the partners relate to the children as well ? It would be of interest to explore this question in future research.

Acknowledgements

We would to thank the reviewers and the editorial team of Population for their useful comments and recommendations.
Appendix

41Linear mixed models [16] (LMM) are the most appropriate method for dealing with the non-independence of the observations. Here we describe this method and the choices we made.

42As the same individual may appear several times in the file (see Section III), the existence of unmeasured individual factors that are stable over time may produce structured and correlated residuals. In LMM, repeated observations of the same individual constitute a lower level of the analysis, in the form of a composite multilevel model for the study of change, the upper level being the individual (Singer and Willett, 2003). The continuous dependent variable – satisfaction with the division of housework – is treated as the linear sum of a set of fixed effects and random effects (equation 1).

43The chosen model is an autoregressive structural model [17] of residual covariance, a common choice for repeated measures. This means that for a given individual, residuals are correlated from one observation to the next, but in a variable manner, as a function of their proximity (stronger correlation for closer observations, decreasing progressively with increasing distance).

44Besides the question of correlation between observations, dealt with using the specific model mentioned above, the various assumptions of the linear models were also tested. The linearity of the relation was graphically verified on a dispersion diagram, which shows a linear relationship between the predictors and the observed values. The variance of the residuals also remained relatively constant at all levels of the dependent variable and the main predictors, which fits with the assumption of homoscedasticity. Finally, the residuals had a normal distribution.

45Alternative analysis techniques which do not assume linear relations were also tested. After defining thresholds dividing the dependent variables into two or more groups, they can be compared in a binomial, multinomial or ordered logistic (or probit) model. These three techniques were tested by grouping together values of the dependent variable. [18] The ordered logistic model was quickly ruled out due to the very clear rejection of the hypothesis of equality of slopes [19] between the different categories, leaving the multinomial and binomial logistic (or probit) models as alternatives. The two produced results comparable to, although less clear than, those of our linear mixed model, confirming that this choice was the best one.

46Note that the variables presented in the table were chosen not in an attempt to find the best model on the basis of technical criteria, but to offer the best possible perspective for analysis and comparison. In order to compare equivalent models for women and men, and to control for the impact of the various parameters described in the theoretical section, parameters that were not statistically significant were maintained for their interpretative importance.

Equation

48where i = index of the wave ; j = index of the individual

49where ?0j ~ N (0, ?00) ; ?ij ~ N (0, ?2)

50The fixed effects, or the structural part of the LMM, isolated by the first set of square brackets in the equation, were the same for all individuals. The random effect (second set of square brackets) were distributed stochastically among individuals, with a standard normal distribution (mean of 0) and unknown variance, but with a modellable structure. These random effects were subdivided into two parts : besides the error term included in any regression equation (?ij), which varies from one observation to the next, a second error term (?0j) was included, which remained constant for all the observations for a given individual, so that the structure of the residuals and their correlation in time could be captured. This random effect made it possible to vary the intercept (?00) of the equation for each individual.

Notes

  • [*]
    University of Fribourg, Department of Social Sciences.
  • [**]
    FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne.
  • [1]
    The Swiss Household Panel (www.swisspanel.ch) is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). It is a multithematic longitudinal survey carried out by the Swiss Foundation for Research in the Social Sciences (FORS). For more information : www.fors.unil.ch.
  • [2]
    The literature in English often associates the term “sense of justice” or “fairness” with the division of household tasks within the couple, and uses the term “satisfaction” only for the conjugal/marital relationship. Other studies have used the terms “justice” and “satisfaction” interchangeably. Where the distinction is not specified, and insofar as it does not affect the authors’ arguments, we prefer the latter term when referring to the subjective evaluation of a given situation.
  • [3]
    Also called “housework” in this article.
  • [4]
    These items (washing, cooking, cleaning) are not mentioned separately in the questionnaire.
  • [5]
    Time-use studies, which are standardized under Eurostat guidelines, are based on a diary that participants fill out over the course of 24 hours. They are asked to record activities performed over various time intervals. Time-use studies are not conducted in Switzerland for budgetary reasons (Schiess and Schön-Bühlmann, 2004).
  • [6]
    Comparison of SHP data on the impact of family transitions on hours of housework (Henchoz and Wernli, 2010) with data from the Federal Statistical Office based on the Swiss Labour Force Survey (Schön-Bühlmann, 2006b) confirmed their reliability.
  • [7]
    In 2011, in Switzerland, 60% of mothers had a part-time job and 23% were not in paid work. Only 17% of women with one or more children under age 25 years were employed full time (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/20/05/blank/key/Vereinbarkeit/01.html, consulted on 7 February 2013).
  • [8]
    In 2010 in Switzerland, women aged 15-65 years living with a partner without children spent 23.6 hours per week on paid work and 23.0 hours on domestic and family work (versus 35.2 and 13.6 hours for men). In couples with one or more children below age 6, women only performed 11.8 hours of paid work per week versus 55.6 hours of domestic and family work (versus 40.1 and 29.4 hours for men). The total for men remains around 2 hours higher than for women in both cases. (http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/20/05/blank/key/Vereinbarkeit/01.html, consulted on 7 February 2013).
  • [9]
    By comparison with the preceding wave.
  • [10]
    Wave 1 was not included due to the absence of an indicator that is important for modelling purposes (general life satisfaction).
  • [11]
    In 1999, the first random sample (SHP_I) interviewed by telephone was made up of 5,074 households and 12,931 individuals representative of the Swiss resident population. Since 2004, a second random sample of households within the Swiss resident population (SHP_II) has been added, including a further 2,538 households and 6,569 individuals. More than 7,500 individual interviews were performed in 2010-2011.
  • [12]
    The procedure is detailed beginning on p. 27 of the User Guide for the SHP, available at the following address : http://www.swisspanel.ch/IMG/pdf/SHP_USER_GUIDE_W14.pdf.
  • [13]
    These percentages do not sum to 100% because certain tasks are equally divided between the two partners or performed by another member of the household or a third party (domestic help, private company, etc.).
  • [14]
    As the basic postulates of the linear model are met, we treated the dependent variable as continuous. We also took account of the longitudinal character of the data, wherein different observations from a single individual are not independent of one another.
  • [15]
    To control for problems of endogeneity we also performed analyses using values of independent variables measured in the preceding wave (lag) (Manski, 1993).
  • [16]
    Linear mixed effects, from the program SPSS, similar to the SAS Proc Mixed procedure.
  • [17]
    First-order autoregressive covariance structure (AR1), which takes into account the correlation between the residuals for the same individual, with a link which decreases as the interval between observations increases. Our findings of significant AR1 diagonal coefficients (covariance) and AR1 rho coefficients (correlation with the preceding observation) demonstrate that this was the right choice.
  • [18]
    Figure 1 suggests grouping together the following categories : 0 to 6, 7 and 8, 9 and 10.
  • [19]
    The ordered logistic model assumes an identical relationship between each pair of created categories, so only one series of coefficients is required.

Abstract

English

A longitudinal analysis of data from the Swiss Household Panel shows that satisfaction with the division of household tasks decreases when children aged 0-17 are present in the household, subsequently increases, and then drops again after retirement. This W-shaped pattern over time varies across individuals, however, as the sense of satisfaction is a construct that is gendered and generational, individual and interactional. Although the effect is small, men’s satisfaction is more influenced by the number of hours spent on housework than that of women, so despite large inequalities, women often report being satisfied with household organization. Women’s satisfaction depends on a larger number of factors, notably increasing expectations of equality over the generations. It is correlated above all with their partner’s practical and emotional involvement. Overall, men’s and women’s satisfaction with the division of household tasks depends primarily on their perception of a number of aspects of common life which go beyond the domestic sphere, such as their partner’s feelings. Thus, to fully capture the sense of satisfaction, an analysis must include not only the type of household tasks concerned, as is often the case, but also the context within which they are divided and the individuals involved.

Keywords

  • satisfaction
  • panel
  • Switzerland
  • longitudinal analysis
  • household
  • couple
  • housework
  • domestic activities
Français

La satisfaction des couples en Suisse face à la répartition des tâches ménagères : une approche longitudinale

Selon l’analyse longitudinale des données du Panel suisse des ménages, le sentiment de satisfaction relative à la répartition des tâches ménagères diminue lorsque les enfants sont mineurs, augmente ensuite pour redescendre au moment du passage à la retraite. Cette évolution en forme de W doit toutefois être nuancée selon les personnes, car le sentiment de satisfaction est une construction genrée et générationnelle, individuelle et interactionnelle. Bien que dans de faibles proportions, la satisfaction des hommes est plus influencée par le nombre d’heures consacrées au travail ménager que celle des femmes. Ainsi, malgré de fortes inégalités, ces dernières se déclarent souvent satisfaites de l’organisation ménagère. La satisfaction féminine dépend de plus de facteurs, notamment des attentes en matière d’égalité qui augmentent avec les générations. Elle est surtout corrélée à l’implication pratique et émotionnelle du partenaire. De manière générale, la satisfaction des hommes et des femmes relative à la répartition des tâches ménagères dépend essentiellement de leur perception de plusieurs aspects de la vie commune qui vont au-delà de la sphère domestique, comme par exemple ce que ressent le conjoint. En ce sens, une pleine appréhension du sentiment de satisfaction nécessite d’intégrer le type de tâches ménagères évaluées, comme c’est souvent le cas, mais aussi le cadre dans lequel elles sont réparties et les personnes concernées.

Español

Selon La satisfacción de las parejas suizas ante el reparto de las tareas domésticas : un enfoque longitudinal

Según el análisis longitudinal de los datos del Panel de Hogares Suizos, el sentimiento de satisfacción relativo al reparto de las tareas domésticas disminuye cuando los niños son menores de edad, aumenta después, para volver a disminuir en el momento de la jubilación. Esta evolución en forma de W debe sin embargo ser matizada, pues el sentimiento de satisfacción es a la vez una construcción de género y generacional, individual e interactiva. Aunque sea en pequeñas proporciones, el nivel de satisfacción de los hombres está más influído por el número de horas dedicadas a las tareas domésticas que el de las mujeres. Así pues, y a pesar de las grandes desigualdades, estas últimas se declaran a menudo satisfechas de la organización del hogar. La satisfacción femenina depende de más factores, en particular de las expectativas en materia de igualdad que aumentan con cada generación, y está asociada especialmente a la implicación práctica y emocional del otro miembro de la pareja. En general, la satisfacción de los hombres y de las mujeres sobre el reparto de las tareas del hogar depende principalmente de la percepción de ciertos aspectos de la vida en común que van más allá del ámbito doméstico, como por ejemplo lo que siente el cónyuge. En este sentido, una plena comprensión del sentimiento de satisfacción necesita tener en cuenta el tipo de tareas domésticas evaluadas, como ya ocurre a menudo, así como el contexto en el que éstas se reparten así como las personas involucradas.
Translated by Paul Reeve.

Outline

  1. I - Measures of household tasks and satisfaction in the SHP
  2. II - Analytical framework and hypotheses
    1. Events influencing satisfaction with the division of household tasks
    2. Hypotheses on the factors influencing satisfaction
  4. III - Data and method
    1. Household inequality generates little dissatisfaction
    2. Longitudinal analysis
    3. W-shaped pattern over time in satisfaction with the division of household tasks
  6. IV - Discussion and conclusion

References

References

  • Ahrne Göran, Roman Christine, 2000, “Travail domestique et rapports de pouvoir entre les sexes”, Cahiers du genre, 27, pp. 133-159.
  • OnlineArtis Julie, Pavalko Eliza, 2003, “Explaining the decline in women’s household labor : Individual change and cohort differences”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), pp. 746-761.
  • OnlineBaxter Janeen, 2000, “The joys and justice of housework”, Sociology, 34(4), pp. 609-631.
  • OnlineBaxter Janeen, Western Mark, 1998, “Satisfaction with housework : Explaining the paradox”, Sociology, 32(1), pp. 101-120.
  • OnlineBaxter Janeen, Hewitt Belinda, Haynes Michele, 2008, “Life course transitions and housework : Marriage, parenthood, and time on housework”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), pp. 259-272.
  • OnlineBlair Sampson Lee, Johnson Michael, 1992, “Wives’ perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor : The interaction of housework and ideology”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(3) pp. 570-580.
  • Blood Robert, Wolfe Donald, 1960, Husbands and Wives, Glencoe, Free Press, 293 p.
  • OnlineBradbury Thomas N., Fincham Frank D., Beach Steven R. H., 2000, “Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction : A decade in review”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), pp. 964-980.
  • Branger Katja, 2008, Vers l’égalité entre femmes et hommes, Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 37 p.
  • OnlineBraun Michael, Lewin-Epstein Noha, Stier Haya, Baumgärtner Miriam K., 2008, “Perceived equity in the gendered division of household labor”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(5), pp. 1145-1156.
  • Brousse Cécile, 1999, “La répartition du travail domestique entre conjoints reste très largement spécialisée et inégale”, INSEE, France, Portrait social, pp. 135-151.
  • OnlineChadeau Ann, Fouquet Annie, 1981, “Peut-on mesurer le travail domestique ?”, Économie et statistique, 136, pp. 29-42.
  • OnlineColtrane Scott, 2000, “Research on household labor : Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), pp. 1208-1233.
  • OnlineColtrane Scott, Ishii-Kuntz Masako, 1992, “Men’s housework : A life course perspective”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(1), pp. 43-57.
  • OnlineCooke Lynn P., 2004, “The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), pp. 1246-1259.
  • OnlineDemaris Alfred, Longmore Monica, 1996, “Ideology, power, and equity : Testing competing explanations for the perception of fairness in household labor”, Social Forces, 74(3), pp. 1043-1071.
  • OnlineDew Jeffrey, Bradford W., 2011, “If Momma ain’t happy : Explaining declines in marital satisfaction among new mothers”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(1), pp. 1-12.
  • Gerfin Michael, Stutz Heidi, Oesch Thomas, Strub Silvia, 2009, Le coût des enfants en Suisse, Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 8 p.
  • OnlineGreenstein Theodore, 1996, “Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor : Effects on marital quality”, Social Forces, 74(3), pp. 1029-1042.
  • OnlineGrote Nancy K., Naylor Kristen, Clark Margareth S., 2002, “Perceiving the division of family work to be unfair : Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter ?”, Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), pp. 510-522.
  • Guionnet Christine, Neveu Eric, 2009, Féminins/Masculins : sociologie du genre, Paris, Armand Colin, 430 p.
  • OnlineGupta Sanjiv, 1999, “The effects of transitions in marital status on men’s performance of housework”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), pp. 700-711.
  • OnlineHelms-Erikson Heather, 2001, “Marital quality ten years after the transition to parenthood : Implications of the timing of parenthood and the division of housework”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), pp. 1099-1110.
  • Henchoz Caroline, 2011, “Le bien-être économique à travers genre et générations : analyse par l’usage conjugal de l’argent” in Praz Anne-Françoise, Burgnard Sylvie, Genre et bien-être, Questionner les inégalités, Zürich, Seismo, Questions de genre, pp. 65-83.
  • Henchoz Caroline, Wernli Boris, 2010, “Cycle de vie et travaux ménagers en Suisse. L’investissement ménager des hommes et des femmes lors des étapes de la construction familiale”, Revue suisse de sociologie, 36(2), pp. 235-257.
  • Hochschild Arlie R., 2003, “The economy of gratitude”, in Hochschild Arlie R., The Commercialization of Intimate Life, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 104-118.
  • Huppé Micheline, Cyr Mireille, 1997, “Répartition des tâches familiales et satisfaction conjugale de couples à double revenu selon les cycles familiaux”, Canadian Journal of Counselling / Revue canadienne de counseling, 31(2), pp. 145-162.
  • Kaufmann Jean-Claude, 1992, La trame conjugale. Analyse du couple par son linge, Paris, Agora, Pocket, 216 p.
  • OnlineLavee Yoav, Katz Ruth, 2002, “Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality : The effect of gender ideology”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), pp. 27-39.
  • OnlineLennon Mary, Rosenfield Sarah, 1994, “Relative fairness and the division of housework : The importance of options”, American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), pp. 506-531.
  • Lipps Oliver, 2010, Income Imputation in the Swiss Household Panel 1999-2007, Lausanne, FORS, Working Paper, 2010-1.
  • OnlineManski Charles F., 1993, “Identification of endogenous social effects : The reflection problem”, The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), pp. 531-542.
  • Ponthieux Sophie, Schreiber Amandine, 2006, “Dans les couples de salariés, la répartition du travail domestique reste inégale”, INSEE, Données sociales. La société française, pp. 43-51.
  • OnlinePyke Karen, 1994, “Women’s employment as a gift or burden ? : Marital power across marriage, divorce, and remarriage”, Gender & Society, 8(1), pp. 73-91.
  • OnlinePyke Karen, Coltrane Scott, 1996, “Entitlement, obligation, and gratitude in family work”, Journal of Family Issues, 17(1), pp. 60-82.
  • OnlineRégnier-Loilier Arnaud, 2009, “Does the birth of a child change the division of household tasks between partners ?”, Population and Societies, 461, 4 p.
  • OnlineSanchez Laura, Kane Emily, 1996, “Women and men’s construction of perceptions of housework fairness”, Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), pp. 358-387.
  • OnlineSanchez Laura, Thomson Elizabeth, 1997, “Becoming mothers and fathers. Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor”, Gender & Society, 11(6), pp. 747-772.
  • Schiess Ueli, Schön-Bühlmann Jacqueline, 2004, Compte satellite de production des ménages. Projet pilote pour la Suisse, Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 76 p.
  • Schön-Bühlmann Jacqueline, 2006a, Le ménage pour lieu de travail : le temps consacré au travail domestique et familial et son estimation monétaire, Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 56 p.
  • Schön-Bühlmann Jacqueline, 2006b, Le ménage pour lieu de travail : le temps consacré au travail domestique et familial et son estimation monétaire. Bases statistiques et tableaux pour une évaluation du préjudice ménager sur la base de l’ESPA 2004 et de l’ESS 2004, Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 56 p.
  • Schön-Bühlmann Jacqueline, 2009, Temps consacré au travail domestique et familial : évolutions de 1997 à 2007. Comparaison des résultats de 1997, 2000, 2004 et 2007 du module sur le “Travail non rémunéré” de l’Enquête suisse sur la population active (ESPA), Neuchâtel, Office fédéral de la statistique, 27 p.
  • OnlineSinger Judith D., Willett John B., 2003, Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis : Modeling Change and Event Occurrence, New York, Oxford University Press, 644 p.
  • Singly de François (ed.), 2007, L’injustice ménagère, Paris, Armand Colin, 235 p.
  • OnlineStevens Daphne, Minnotte Krista L., Mannon Susan, Kiger Gary, 2006, “Family work performance and satisfaction : Gender ideology, relative resources, and emotion work”, Marriage and Family Review, 40(4), pp. 47-74.
  • Strub Silvia, Bauer Tobias, 2002, “Wie ist die Arbeit zwischen den Geschlechtern verteilt ?”, Bern, Büro für arbeits und sozialpolitische Studien, 56 p.
  • OnlineSuitor Jill, 1991, “Marital quality and satisfaction with the division of household labor across the family life cycle”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(1), pp. 221-230.
  • OnlineWernli Boris, Henchoz Caroline, 2011, “End of the conjugal relationship, gender and domestic tasks in Switzerland”, Population, English Edition, 66(3-4), pp. 637-662.
  • OnlineWest Candace, Zimmerman Don H., 1987, “Doing gender”, Gender & Society, 1(2), pp. 125-151.
  • Widmer Eric, Kellerhals Jean, Levy René, Ernst Michele, Hammer Raphaël, 2003, Couples contemporains : cohésion, régulation et conflits, Zürich, Seismo, 272 p.
  • OnlineWilkie Jane R., Ferree Myra M., Ratcliff Kathryn S., 1998, “Gender and fairness : Marital satisfaction in two-earner couples”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(3), pp. 577-594.
  • OnlineZarca Bernard, 1990, “La division du travail domestique. Poids du passé et tensions au sein du couple”, Économie et statistique, 228, pp. 29-40.

Authors

Caroline Henchoz [*]
Université de Fribourg, Domaine Sciences des sociétés, des cultures et des religions, Département des sciences sociales, bd de Pérolles 90, CH-1700 Fribourg, Switzerland, Tel : +41 26 300 8210
email : caroline.henchoz@unifr.ch
  • [*]
    University of Fribourg, Department of Social Sciences.
Boris Wernli [**]
  • [**]
    FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne.
Translated by
Paul Reeve
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
French
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
French
Latest publication on cairn or another partner portal
Full-textfile_download Download
Uploaded on Cairn-int.info on 05/05/2014
Cite
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour I.N.E.D © I.N.E.D. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. Il est interdit, sauf accord préalable et écrit de l’éditeur, de reproduire (notamment par photocopie) partiellement ou totalement le présent article, de le stocker dans une banque de données ou de le communiquer au public sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit.
keyboard_arrow_up
Chargement
Loading... Please wait