Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-t82dr Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2021-12-07T22:15:08.883Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Justifications and Comparisons in the Division of Household Labor: The Relevance of Gender Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Carmen Martínez*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia (Spain)
Consuelo Paterna
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia (Spain)
Carmen Yago
Affiliation:
Universidad de Murcia (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carmen Martínez. Universidad de Murcia. Facultad de Psicología. Campus de Espinardo. 30100 Murcia. (Spain). Phone: +34-968364083. Fax: +34-968364111. E-mail: martinez.carmen@um.es

Abstract

This study tests the direct relevance of justifications and social comparisons (predictors of perceptions of fairness) on different types of household labour distribution, and the importance of masculinity ideology and neosexism on these variables. The participants were heterosexual dual-earner couples. Our results showed that both men and women use more justifications when their housework distribution is not equal, but only women use social comparisons associated with the ways of distributing domestic work. In addition, we observe that, in both men and women, justifications are related to a traditional masculine ideology, but a different model appears in relation to comparisons which are associated with neosexism in men and with traditional masculine ideology in women. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Este estudio muestra la relevancia directa de las justificaciones y comparaciones sociales (predictores de la percepción de justicia) sobre diferentes tipos de distribución de trabajo doméstico, así como la importancia de la ideología masculina y el neosexismo sobre las citadas variables. Los participantes fueron parejas heterosexuales de doble ingreso. Los resultados demuestran que hombres y mujeres usan más justificaciones cuando su distribución doméstica es desigual, y que solo las mujeres usan comparaciones sociales asociadas a las formas de distribución. Además se aprecia que las justificaciones se relacionan con una ideología tradicional masculina mientras que las comparaciones se asocian con el neosexismo, en el caso de los hombres y con la ideología masculina tradicional en el caso de las mujeres. Las implicaciones y sugerencias del estudio se comentan en relación a la distribución doméstica.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beltrán, R. (2000). Las mujeres y el trabajo a tiempo parcial en España. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 17, 129161.Google Scholar
Buunk, B. P., & Van Yperen, N. M. (1991). Referential comparisons, relational comparisons and exchange orientation: Their relation to marital satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 710718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework, and gender equity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modelling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 12081233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, M. (2001). Parental influences on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review, 66, 184203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S. N., Greenstein, T. N., & Marks, J. G. (2007). Effects of type on division of household labor. Do cohabiting men really perform more housework? Journal of Family Issues, 38, 12461272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Maris, A.& Longmore, M. A. (1996). Ideology, power, and equity: Testing competing explanations for the perception of fairness in household labor. Social Forces, 74, 1043–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, K. C. (2000). Men's share of child care: a rural and urban comparison. Australian Journal of Marriage and Family, 6, 245266.Google Scholar
Den-Dulk, L. (2005). Worplace work-family arrangements: A study and explanatory framework of differences between Organizational provisions in different welfare states. In Poelmans, S. (ed.) Work and Family: An International Research Perspective (pp. 211238). New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B.& Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participation in child care and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 11541166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evertsson, M.& Nermo, M (2004). Dependence within families and the division of labor: Comparing Sweden and the Unites States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 12721286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferre, M. (1991). The gender division of labor in two earner marriages: dimensions of variability and change. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 158–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forry, N., Leslie, L.& Letiecq, B. (2007). Marital quality in interracial relationships. The role of sex role ideology and perceived fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 15381552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenthaler, H. H.& Mikula, G. (1998). From Unfulfilled Wants to the Experience of Injustice: Women's Sense of Injustice Regarding the Lopsided Division of Household Labor. Social Justice Research, 11, 289312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gager, C. (1998). The role of valued outcomes, justifications and comparison referents in perceptions of fairness among dual-earner couples. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 622648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gager, C. T.& Hohmann-Marriot, B. (2006). Distributive justice in the household: A comparison of alternative theoretical models. Marriage & Family Review, 40(2/3), 542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, H., Mèda, D.& Senik, C. (2005). Conciliation entre vie professionnelle et vie familiale, les leçons des enquêtes auprès des ménages, Travail et Emploi, 102, 5767Google Scholar
Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands' participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives' and husbands' gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 322335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, N., Naylor, K. E.& Clark, M. (2002). Perceiving the division of family work to be fair: Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter? Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 510–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamplova, D. (2002). Marriage and cohabitation: Qualitative differences in partnership arrangements. Sociologicky Casopis, 38, 771788.Google Scholar
Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M.& Meiners, K. M. (1995). Exploring wives' sense of fairness about family work. An initial test of the distributive justice framework. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 693721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. (1989). The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
Hill, M.& Thomas, V. (2000). Strategies for racial identity development: Narratives of black and white women in interracial partner relationships. Family Relations, 49, 193200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S. (2002). Teaching and doing gender in African American families, Sex Roles, 47, 293506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, J. S, Essex, M. J.& Horton, F. (1993). ‘Fathers and parental leave: attitudes and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 616–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamo, Y. (2000). “He said, she said”: Assessing discrepancies in husbanbs'and wives' reports on the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 29, 459476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, M. (1987). Rethinking “masculinity”: New directions in research'. In Kimmel, M. (ed.) Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 924). Newbury Pak, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kluwer, E.& Mikula, G. (2002). Gender-related inequalities in the division of family work in close relationships: A social psychological perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 185216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluver, E., Heesink, J.& van der Vliert, E. (2002). The division of labor across the transition to parenthood: A justice perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 930943.Google Scholar
Konrad, A.& Hartmann, L. (2002). Gender differences in attitudes toward affirmative action programs in Australia: Effects of beliefs, interests, and attitudes toward women, Sex Roles, 45, 415432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, M.C.& Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 506531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H.& Braun, M. (2006). The division of household labor in Germany and Israel. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 11471164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, S.& Pollak, R. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 139158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, B. (1987). Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In Shaver, P. & Hendrick, C. (eds.). Sex and gender: Review of personality and social psychology (124148). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement and the distribution of family labour. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 141159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moya, M.& Expósito, F. (2001). Nuevas formas, viejos intereses: neosexismo en varones españoles. Psicothema, 13, 643649.Google Scholar
Mikula, G. (1998). Division of Household Labor and Perceived Justice: A Growing Field of Research. Social Justice Research, 11, 215241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikula, G., Hreudenthaler, H, Brennacher-kröll, S.& Schiller-Brandl, R. (1997). Arrangments and rules of distribution burdens and duties: the case of household chores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 189208.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordenmark, M.& Nyman, C. (2003). Fair or unfair? Perceived fairness of household division of labour and gender equality among women and men. The European Journal of Women's Studies, 10, 181209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleck, J. H. (1993). Are “family supportive” employer policies relevant to men? In Hood, J.C. (eds.) Men work, and family. (pp. 217237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update, In Levant, R. and Pollack, W. (eds) A new psychology of men. (pp. 1132) New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Press, J.& Townsley, E. (1998). Wives' and husband' housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender & Society, 12, 188218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 59, 348364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L. (1994). Gender, labor allocations, and the psychology of entitlement wihin the home. Social Forces, 73, 533553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, B. A& John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spanish' Conseil of Youth (207). Consejo de la Juventud de España. Mujer, juventud y mercado de trabajo en España. (www.cje.org/)Google Scholar
Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stier, H.& Lewin-Epstein, N (2005). Policy effects on the division of housework. Paper presented at the spring meeting of ISA Research Committee, 28, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, C.& Lewis, S. (2006). Work at home and the work-family interface. In Jones, F. et al. , (Ed.) Work-life Balance. A Psychological Perspective. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Swim, J. K.& Cohen, L. L., (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism, A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work. Women's sense of fairness. Journal of family Issues, 12, 181–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). ‘The structure of males role norms’, American Behavioral Scientist, 29 531–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A.& Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, Plus c'est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A.& St-Pierre, L. (1999). Neosexism among women: The role of personally experienced social mobility attempts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1487–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, R. (Ed.) (2001). Psychology of women and gender. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
Watt, H.& Eccle, J. (Eds.) (2008). Gender and Occupational Outcomes: Longitudinal Assessment of Individual, Social, and Cultural Influence. Washington: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Women's Institute (Instituto de la Mujer) (2006) Las mujeres jóvenes y el trabajo. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer, http://www.inmujer.migualdad.es/mujer/publicaciones/docs/Mujeres%20jovenes%20y%20trabajo.pdfGoogle Scholar
Women's Institute (Instituto de la Mujer) (2007) Usos del tiempo, estereotipos, valores y actitudes. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer. http://www.inmujer.migualdad.es.es/mujer/publicaciones/docs/Usos%20del%20Tiempo%20Est%20101.pdfGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Justifications and Comparisons in the Division of Household Labor: The Relevance of Gender Ideology
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Justifications and Comparisons in the Division of Household Labor: The Relevance of Gender Ideology
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Justifications and Comparisons in the Division of Household Labor: The Relevance of Gender Ideology
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *