M f." "*. gamflyu! ‘ f ”_ ,'- E"; mum Sm: mu m ' ' ' ‘ in “ .-.)‘., I A'. ‘I", A ., c. \. ‘ *— M £2 \ OVERDUE F IRES: 25¢ per coy per'iten RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: -———--———___._...________ Place in book return to move charge frou circulation records CONTRIBUTION TO HOUSEHOLD TASKS BY UTAH HUSBANDS AND WIVES By Jane Lott McCullough A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology 1980 ABSTRACT CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOUSEHOLD TASKS BY UTAH HUSBANDS AND WIVES By Jane Lott McCullough The purpose of this research was to examine the time spent doing household tasks by two-parent, two-child Utah families, and to explore the relationship of the division of tasks between husband and wife and their ages, level of education, church affiliation and activity, and sex role ideology. Data were collected from 210 two—parent, two-child families from May 1977 through August 1978. The time use of all family members six years of age and over was recorded by the homemaker for two days. The time reported in this research is the average of the time use for the two days recorded. Analysis of variance and Pearson's Product Moment Correlation were used to analyze the data in order to answer the following research questions: 1. Is the amount of time spent in household tasks by Utah families similar to the amount reported by researchers who have studied other populations? 2. To what extent are household tasks shared by the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the age of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the level of education of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the hours of paid employment of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the church affiliation of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the sex role ideology of the husband and the wife? Conclusions based on the research findings were: 1. Household tasks required a significant amount of time for the Utah families studied and most of that time was contributed by the wives. Husbands contributed very little time to household tasks and their contributions were mainly to maintenance tasks tradi- tionally considered to be the husband's responsibility. Time spent in paid work reduced the time spent in housework for both men and women. Time contributed to household tasks was very stable for men and women. It did not change significantly with changes in age, ed- ucation, church affiliation and activity, or sex role ideology. When housework time and time spent in paid employment are come bined, women employed full-time had less discretionary time than their male counterparts. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While a dissertation is written by just one person, it is the result of contributions from many individuals. My advisor, Beatrice Paolucci, contributed time, advice and encouragement. No matter what obstacle was slowing progress, she assured me it could be overcome and helped to see that it was. I am grateful for her many contributions. I would like to thank Barrie Thorne for her suggestions and encour- agement. As Alison had helped with my M. S. thesis, it was a happy co- incidence to have Barrie's help with my doctoral dissertation. Thanks goes also to Vera Borosage and Jane Oyer for their suggest- ions. My parents have, throughout my life contributed to my education. They taught me to respect knowledge, not to settle for an easy, obvious answer and to take pleasure in work well done. I appreciate the many sacrifices they willingly made for my benefit. The encouragement and "incessant guidance" from my husband helped more than words can express. His pleasure in my achievements means a great deal to me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . Research Objective. . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . Time Spent Doing Household Tasks . Distribution of Household Tasks Between Husbands and Wives . . . . . Factors Related to the Division of Household Tasks. Summary III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . Sample. Instruments Data Collection Operational Definitions Analysis . . . . . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . Limitations IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE . . . . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . Employment. . . . . . . . . . Household Income . . . . . Church Affiliation and Activity V. FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . Question 1. . . . . . Question 2. . . . . Question 3. . . . . . . . . . . iii Page viii Ui-DU) 11 20 39 4O 41 42 48 51 52 53 55 55 57 57 58 6O 62 64 66 66 69 71 Question 4. Question 5. Question 6. . . Question 7. VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . Discussion. Conclusions Implications Further Research APPENDICES Appendix A. Questionnaire Booklet . B. Time Diary. C. Bem Sex Role Inventory. D. Church Affiliation and Activity E. Activity Dictionary . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . iv Page 71 80 89 97 102 102 106 107 109 112 121 122 124 125 130 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Age of Respondents . . . . . . . . Education of Respondents . Occupations of Women . . . . . . Occupations of Men . . . . . . . . . Hours Worked for Pay Last Week . . . Household Income . . . . . . . Church Membership. . . . . . . Denomination . . . . . . . . . . . Level of Activity. . . . . . . . . . Time Spent Doing Household Tasks Per Day . Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives. Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands . Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by All Family Members. . . . . . . . . . . . Time Per Day Spent Doing Individual Household Tasks . Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According Their Level of Education . . . . . . . t0 Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Level of Education and His Household Work Time. . . . . . . . Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According Wives' Level of Education . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Wives' Level of Education and Husbands' Household Work Time . . . . . to Page 58 59 61 61 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 68 68 70 72 73 74 75 Table 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Page Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Level of Education . . . . . . . . 76 Analysis of Variance of Wives' Level of Education and Her Household Work Time. . . . . . . . . . 78 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Husbands' Level of Education . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Level of Education and Wives' Household Work Time . . . . . . . . 79 Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and Household Work Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and His Household Work Time. . . . . . . . 82 Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and Wives' Household Work Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and Wives' Household Work Time . . . . . . . 84 Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Household Work Time . 85 Analysis of Variance of Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Her Household Work Time. . . . . . . . 86 Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Husbands' Household Work Time . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Analysis of Variance of Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Husbands' Household Work Time . . . . . . 88 Husbands' Church Affiliation and Household Work Time . . 89 Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Church Affiliation and His Household Work Time. . . . . . . . . 90 Wives' Church Affiliation and Household Work Time. . . 91 Analysis of Variance of Wives' Church Affiliation and Her Household Work Time. . . . . . . . . . 92 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Their Level of Church Activity . . . . . . . 93 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Level of Church Activity . . . . . . . 94 vi Table Page 37. Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Level of Church Activity and Their Household Work Time . . . . . . . 95 38. Analysis of Variance of Wives' Level of Church Activity and Their Household Work Time . . . . . . . 96 39. Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Their Sex Role Ideology. . . . . . . . . 98 40. Analysis of Variance of Husbands' Sex Role Ideology and Their Household Work Time . . . . . . . . 99 41. Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Sex Role Ideology. . . . . . . . . 100 42. Analysis of Variance of Wives' Sex Role Ideology and Their Household Work Time. . . . . . . . . . 101 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Classification of Subjects Using Bem Sex Role Inventory . 47 ’Scores viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There are certain tasks that must be done by someone in order for a family to function. These tasks are usually referred to as housework or household tasks. They include such things as care of family members, dishwashing, shopping, and house cleaning. Families have varying opin- ions as to how often and to what extent the tasks must be done. House- work, regardless of how accomplished, is an on-going necessity for most families. Many resources are necessary to accomplish the varied tasks and a major one is time. It generally has been assumed that housework, particularly those tasks carried on inside the house, belong to the housewife, that house— work is a natural part of being a wife. Doing household tasks is at least a part-time occupation for most women in the United States (Robin- son, 1977a; Nickols, 1976). As Jessie Bernard (1972) points out, most women marry with the intention of becoming wives and mothers; few with the intention of becoming housewives. All too much, alas, they soon learn. For marriages do not operate in a vacuum; they have to be lodged somewhere or other. Meals do not automatically and by themselves appear on the table three times a day; clean sheets and towels do not grow in the linen chest; dishes do not wash themselves nor does dust independently disappear (Bernard, p. 194). Husbands and children could also be used as a resource to accomplish household tasks. Family members other than the wife, however, are usually regarded as helpers, or as individuals who help the housewife do her work. 1 Although most families are involved with housework in one form or another, it was long regarded as being beneath the interest of serious scholars. Sociologists and economists, two groups of academicians who typically study work, have by and large ignored housework. As Oakley (1974) points out, housework is often defined as non-work because the housewife is not paid for doing it and work is what one is paid to do. Home economists, since the beginning of the home economics move- ment, studied housework. They were usually concerned with methods and techniques of making household tasks easier and with upgrading the image of housework and housewives (Ehrenreich & English, 1976). Some of the earliest U. S. time budget studies were conducted by home economists as a means of measuring time inputs to household tasks. They hoped to identify conditions and practices that would make household tasks re— quire less time and less human energy. Currently housework is being studied and written about by persons in many disciplines (Berch, 1978), particularly economists, sociologists, historians, and home economists. Part of the interest can be traced to women's increased participation in the labor market and the implications of that for what occurs in the household. The questions about the tradi- tional division of labor between husbands and wives raised by the woman's movement have also increased interest in housework—~how much is being done, who is doing it and why (Nye, 1976). Economists tend to be inter- ested mainly in the value of housework and sociologists are interested in questions about the division of labor and the relation of paid work and family raised by the women's movement. Home economists are interested in many aspects including time spent doing housework, allocation of tasks with— in the family, the effects of technology on housework, human resource development and learning in the family, and factors related to all of these. Rationale Major studies on household work have been conducted recently by Vanek (1973), Oakley (1974), Nickols (1976), Berk (1976) and Sanik (1979). The approach and methodology used and conclusions reached have varied. As far as could be determined, a study on household tasks and their al— location, using a time budget approach has not previously been conducted with Utah families as the subjects. There are reasons to suspect that factors different from those in other regions may affect the division of household tasks in some Utah families, particularly in families that are active members of the Mormon Church. The Church has a strong position regarding what adult men and women should do. Men are to be the supporters of the family while women are to be wives and mothers, responsible for caring for family members and for their home. Philosophies which dif- fer from this position have often been attacked by Church leaders (Har— vey, 1975). The impact of this philosophy on adult household task per- formance has not been researched, at least not in any published research. Some psychologists have long held that personality traits signifi- cantly influence the responsibilities that individuals assume in adult life (Pleck, 1977). They also relate certain personality traits to the sex of the person. Being male or female, according to some psychologists, while not determining who will be responsible for household tasks, does have an influence. Most measures of personality characteristics and their relationship to behavior are based on laboratory experiments (Bem, 1976). No research relating personality traits to behavior in natural settings could be found. Such a personality measure, the Bem Sex Role 4 Inventory, will be related to division of household tasks in the fam— ilies studied. The purpose of this study is to examine the time spent doing house— hold tasks by two-parent, two-child Utah families and to explore the re— lationship of the division of tasks between husband and wife and their ages, level of education, church affiliation and activity, and sex role ideology. Conceptual Framework Family resource management is concerned with the allocation of re- sources to achieve goals or, as Ella Cushman stated, "Home management is using what you have to get what you want." The "what you have" are re— sources and "what you want" are goals. The unit being studied can be an individual, a family, or a household. Each person has both human and material resources. Intelligence, talents, skills, and abilities are common human resources. Material re- sources include such things as money and goods. Agreement is lacking among family resource management specialists as to where time fits in a resource classification, i.e. as a human or non-human resource; but most seem to agree that it is a resource. Resources available for use vary from person to person. The only resource equally distributed to all per- sons is time, with everyone having just twenty—four hours a day. A family or household's resources could be looked at as the sum of the resources of all the individual members. This view, however, might over state the case as some resources would not be available for the use of the group. Resources have alternative uses. There are usually competing needs and wants for the resources available. Families, it is assumed, try to in. 5 allocate their resources in order to achieve their goals. Goals are often thought of as a desired future condition. They can vary from im- portant and long term goals to those that are mundane and short term. A common goal of most families is to complete the tasks that are necessary for the household to function; food must be prepared, laundry must be done, and children and adults must be cared for. Although many resources are necessary to reach these goals, a major one is time. Usually the time used is that of family members. Which family member will contribute time to household tasks and how much time is a concern of many persons. The study of the allocation of resources is an important part of the field of family resource management. Knowledge about factors which affect how families as a whole or specific family members allocate their resources is important. It is particularly important currently, when increased demands on the time of family members are being made both in- side and outside the household. Research Objective The objective of this research is to answer the following research questions: 1. Is the amount of time spent in household tasks by Utah families similar to the amount reported by researchers who have studied other populations? 2. To what extent are household tasks shared by the husband and the wife? 3. Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the age of the husband and the wife? 6 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the level of education of the husband and the wife? Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the hours of paid employment of the husband and the wife? Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the church affiliation and activity of the husband and the wife? Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the sex role ideology of the husband and the wife? CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Time Spent Doing Household Tasks History Housework, it has often been said, is what no one notices, unless it isn't done (Ehrenreich & English, 1976). Household tasks are the tasks such as food preparation, housecleaning, and laundry, that must be done by someone to some degree in order for a household to function. Ac- cording to Nye (1976, p. 89), "Housekeeping involves a set of responsi- bilities as old as the family itself, which stem from the capacility of humans to prepare and cook food, mend and care for clothing and house— hold equipment, and respond to concepts of cleanliness and order." Tracing the history of housework in the United States, Ehrenreich and English (1976), point out that housework as we know it today is quite a recent invention. They contend that the pre-industrial home was a manu- facturing center and the females in the home utilized a wide variety of skills to produce what was necessary for the family. Their activities included producing food, fabric, clothes, candles, and other necessities. Few items were purchased. The time that was necessary for production left little time for maintenance and cleaning. The typical rural household did not contain many objects to clean and maintain and, "By all accounts, pre- industrial revolution women were sloppy housekeepers by today's standards" (Ehrenreich & English, 1978, p. 129). 8 The industrial revolution of the 19th century brought many changes resulting in much home production being transferred from homes to fac- tories. The poor, including women, sold their labor to the factories while the married middle class women remained at home. What women would do with their time as it became possible to produce less and purchase more became a concern. According to Ehrenreich and English (1976, p. 13) some people worried that, "With less and less to make in the home, it seemed as if there would soon be nothing to do in the home." The fact that housework did not wither away and eventually disappear can, according to Ehrenreich and English (1978), at least in part, be blamed on or credited to the domestic science movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. It addressed the void that was feared would oc- cur within homes, as more and more production was transferred to factories. The solution posed by the movement was to use discoveries and knowledge from any and every discipline possible to upgrade everyday tasks. The goal was to eliminate or redefine drudgery and elevate housekeeping to a challenging activity. Ehrenreich and English (1976) contend that the do- mestic science movement actually caused women more work by teaching them to strive for higher and higher standards in their housekeeping. Research It was thought, and continues to be contended by many (Boulding, 1972) that modern labor saving appliances and other household technology would or will eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, the time required for housekeeping (Walker & Woods, 1976). Cowan (1976) surveyed women's mag- azines from the late 1800's to the 1930's, hoping to determine the effects of new household technology on middle-class American women. She concluded that the beginning of the depression brought drastic changes in households or. .‘ 'A 5— S. no . J «v- h‘ .-b ‘4.— a: ..s.\ 9 with the addition of electricity, running water, central heating, bath- rooms, and numerous appliances to most middle class homes. And what ef- fect did technology have on time spent doing housework? Evidently it had very little. Cowan concluded that time spent on some household tasks de- creased, but new jobs were added and time expenditures for other jobs in- creased, so there was little overall change in time. Vanek (1973) using a different approach, compared the early time budget studies sponsored by the Bureau of Home Economics with data col- lected in 1965 by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center. Once again, because of the many changes that had occurred in households between the 1920's and the 1960's it was assumed that time spent in house— keeping would have decreased. Time spent doing housework by full-time homemakers had, however, increased from 52 to 55 hours a week. While time spent in some individual tasks had decreased in others it had increased. Vanek's (1973) conclusions were much the same as Cowan's (1976), that qualitative change and additional tasks had more than replaced any time saved by increased technology within homes. The increased time spent on some tasks had cancelled out the decreased time devoted to others and had caused total time to increase slightly. In a time use study conducted in Syracuse, New York in 1967-68 (Wal- ker & Woods, 1976) the average time of all family members devoted to house- hold work was 10.5 hours per day. Wives contributed the major proportion. of time to household work, 72 percent when they were not employed and 62 percent when they were employed. Husbands and children contributed most of the additional time. Nickols (1976) analyzed time use data of 1,156 husbands and wives from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics conducted by the Survey Research 10 Center at the University of Michigan. A cross-sectional analysis of 1973 data revealed that wives devoted 32.4 hours per week to housework and hus- bands 2.4 hours. This would total 34.8 hours being devoted to housework, which in this particular study did not include time inputs to care of children, home repairs and yard work, and shopping. Sixty-five percent of husbands and about two percent of wives reported that they spent no time in housework. Robinson (1977a) in a progress report on a 1975 Survey Research Cen- ter time use study reported a total of 20.5 hours per week by male and female respondents to family care which included child care and routine household cleaning and upkeep. This was nearly five hours less than the 25.4 hours reported in a similar study conducted ten years earlier. Wo- men reported less time spent in family care in 1975 than in 1965 and men, both married and single, reported more. There was an overall drop of twenty percent in family care, mainly in the categories of routine house- hold cleaning, rather than child care. The most recent time budget study of family time use was a 1977 up- date of the 1967-68 Cornell study (Walker & Woods, 1976). Sanik (1979) analyzed the data to determine whether, in the intervening decade, any significant changes had occurred in time devoted to housework. For urban family members, time spent in household work had increased from 10.5 hours per day in 1967 to 10.8 hours in 1977. The change was not statistically significant. The time reported for all family members, urban and rural was 11.3 hours per day in 1977. Time devoted to housework by women had decreased from 7.8 hours per day to 7.5, not a significant change. Males had increased their time by a half hour per day, from 1.7 hours in 1967 to 2.2 hours in 1977, a statistically significant difference. 11 One conclusion that can safely be drawn from the studies reviewed is that housework has not disappeared. While some researchers report in— creases and others decreases, the time spent doing householdtasks is still a significant part of life for most persons. Distribution of Household Tasks Between Husbands and Wives Traditional Division During the past century in the United States there has been an as- sumed or "traditional" division of labor between husbands and wives. Husbands were to go out and earn an income and wives were to stay home and take care of children and other household tasks (Coser & Rokoff, 1971; Pleck, 1977; Tavris & Offir, 1977). "In traditional thinking, the hus- band brought home the bacon and the wife cooked it" (Nye, 1976, p. 151). In recent years, there has been much questioning and philosophizing and some research on the division of labor between men and women. The questioning seems to center around the origin and universality of this arrangement. The rationale behind much of the writing is that if the or— igins could be determined then perhaps it would be possible to demonstrate that what is usually taken for granted as "normal" or "natural" is in reality not a biological mandate and that there is more flexibility than has often been assumed. If numerous examples of different arrangements can be found, both cross-culturally and historically, perhaps the tasks men and women are assigned in a given culture can be re-assigned or re— arranged without devastating the culture. The reasons given for the current traditional division are often tied to physiology. Women bear and nurse children and it is believed by some 12 that women, on the average, do not have as much physical strength, as men on the average. These two facts are often used as a rationale for women staying at home to care for children. Since they were at "home", the argument goes, women naturally did the tasks around the fire, campsite, household, or whatever. Someone had to go out into the world and bring back food to feed the group. Women needed to be more proximate, therefore men went off to be the hunters and gatherers. Although the physiological facts behind the above arguments are at least currently correct, the theory that the current traditional divi- sion of labor naturally followed from them has been disputed by many schol- ars (Brown, 1970; Tavris & Offir, 1977). Brown (1970) for example, after surveying studies done on tribal and peasant societies, concluded that the division of labor was not based on physiological reasons, but was based on child care responsibilities that were assigned to women. The child care responsibilities necessitated that the other work women did be repetitive, interruptible, not dangerous, and that did not require exten- sive excursions, hence homework. A second rationale often used to justify or explain the division of labor between men and women is a psychological explanation. "In every society, in every country, people have assumed that males and females are different not merely in basic anatomy but in elusive qualities of spirit, soul, and ability. They are not supposed to do the same things, think the same way, or share the same dreams and desires" (Tavris & Offir, 1977, p. 2). Consequently a division of necessary tasks, not a sharing of tasks was inevitable. Probably the most famous, most quoted and most attacked theory of the division of labor between men and women is Parsons' instrumental/ 13 expressive dichotomy. In the modern family, Parsons argued, men are the instrumental leaders and specialize in problem-solving, decision-making, and relating the family to the outside world. Women are the expressive leaders maintaining solidarity and morale, and controlling inter-personal conflict. Thus an assumption of different, dichotomous roles, linked to gender was used as a justification for men being involved in the labor market and women being assigned household tasks (Parsons & Bales, 1955). Possibility of Change The time required to do household tasks and their division between husbands and wives is currently receiving much attention, both from scholars and the popular press. The impetus for this attention seems to be the well documented increase in the number of women in the labor market as well as the feminist movement. The increase in the number and per- centage of women who are now "working" causes concern and much speculation as to who is or will do the housework: husbands, children, wives, or is it just not getting done? The feminist movement's interest in housework centers on questions of equity concerning the traditional arrangement between husbands and wives. It questions the assumption that all women want to or should be totally responsible for the household chores and that all men want to or should be totally responsible for the financial support of the family. It points out that Americans put more value on, or accord more prestige to work that is paid and that because women are tied to housework, their chances to ex— cel in a job or career are greatly diminished (Stafford, Backman & Dibona, 1977). The conclusions drawn by researchers who have studied the division of household tasks between husbands and wives have varied (Glazer-Malbin, 14 1976). Some of the differences seem to be related to the researcher's methodology. Studies based on questionnaires. Lopata (1972) interviewed 205 housewives in the Chicago area as the basis for her book, Occupation Housewife. As part of her research she asked specifically about how much help the husbands contributed to various household activities. There were ten response categories for each task, which ranged from "their responsibility, not mine" to "I do it, no help." Although in open-ended comments, the suburban housewives Lopata interviewed stressed that their husbands helped with or shared home— maintenance functions, their responses to closed-ended items in a ques- tionnaire did not totally support this view. The largest percentage of wives checked the "I do, no help" category for cook the meals; wash, dry, put away dishes; beds, straighten, clean house; laundry, care of clothes; shop for food, other; and care of children, feed, bed. Greatest help from husbands came in care of money, bills, finances; garden; and heavy cleaning. As Lopata (1971) stressed, "The whole area of 'help' or 'help with' needs greater research." A statement that, "husbands help more now," can be interpreted in many ways. It could mean, "my husband helps more than he used to," or, "men in general do more housework than men in general used to," or, "the men I am now around talk about helping with household tasks more than they formerly did." There are other interpretations for the statement, all equally ambiguous. As part of a research project on family roles, Nye (1976) collected data on housekeeping. The subjects were 210 couples in Yakima County, Washington who all had a child in the third grade. Separate, but nearly 15 identical questionnaires, were filled out by the husband and the wife. The study was carried out in the summer of 1970. Two questions were asked about housekeeping. One asked, "Who do you think should do the housekeeping?" and the other "Who does the house- keeping?” The possible responses varied from "husband entirely" to "wife entirely." Seventy percent of the men said they should share the house- hold tasks, while 56 percent said they actually do share the tasks. The wives perceived less participation by the men than did the men themselves. Fifty-four percent said men should share housekeeping duties, while 39 percent said husbands actually do share the housework. Obviously what the husbands did was not perceived the same by their wives as by them- selves and vice versa. Nye reports that neither men nor women were very pleased with their performance as housekeepers, only about one-third rating themselves above the "fair" category. Nye sees this as possible evidence for a decline in the importance of housekeeping functions. A variety of data gathering techniques were utilized by Berk (1976) in a study conducted in Evanston, Illinois. Two, three hour observations and interviewing of 20 homemakers were carried out. A questionnaire was administered to an additional 309 women via telephone. Of the 309 tele- phone interviewees, 138 filled out a 24 hour diary. During the obser- vations and interviews Berk asked her subjects to retrospectively account for daily routines, to discuss the "meanings" of the work being observed, to generally discuss housework standards, the division of household tasks and decision-making, and extra household roles. Berk asked her respondents who "generally" did each household acti- vity. Generally was defined as equal to or more than 50 percent of the time the task was done. Women generally did most household tasks including 16 meal preparation, cleaning the kitchen, laundry, straightening, outside errands, and "other." The major contribution for husbands was for out- side errands and they undertook 54 percent of those activities. Women also did more than half of the work in some areas often regarded as the husband's work including emptying the garbage, going to the gas station, handling financial matters, and paying bills. Berk refers to the allocation of tasks in the families she studied as the non-division of household labor and sees it as being linked to "a complex web of objective household constraints, societal sex roles and broader sexist institutions" (1976, p. 348). In an effort to determine whether there would be a difference in the division of labor among cohabiting and married couples, Stafford, Backman and Dibona (1977) analyzed questionnaires completed by 25 men and 29 wo- men who were currently cohabiting and 30 men and 29 women currently mar- ried. The researchers asked for responsibility for household tasks and the actual performance of the tasks. The possible responses for the ques- tions concerning responsibility included "mine, partner's,' and "not ap- plicable." An extensive list of household tasks was asked about, includ— ing some which could be considered neutral. The responses in both samples reflected a traditional division of household labor. This was true for both responsibility and performance of household tasks. The women in both groups did most of the household tasks. The tasks shared most often were dishwashing and finances and those shared least often were snow shoveling and the maintenance tasks of child care. One hundred couples who had just had their first child were the sub- jects for the study of household task performance roles of husbands and wives by Lovingood (Lovingood & Firebaugh, 1978). The husbands and wives 17 were asked 25 identical questions about who makes and who implements certain household task decisions. A Blood and Wolfe type scale was used with 1 designating "husband always" and 5 "wife always." Response means between 1.0 and 2.5 were considered to be part of the husband's role, 2.5 to 3.5 an indication of shared roles, and 3.5 to 5.0 as tasks that were part of the wife's role. As in the Nye (1976) study, wives saw themselves as having more res— ponsibilities than their husbands acknowledged and husbands saw themselves as having more responsibility than did their wives. The division of re— sponsibilities was along traditional lines with the husband performing the role of decision implementer in buying the car and life insurance, in making housing arrangements, and household repair. Wives were respon- sible to implement decisions regarding decorating and furnishing the house, preparing the family dinner, doing the grocery shopping, contacting the doctor, performing child care, doing the family laundry, preparing break- fast for husbands on work days, and doing the evening dishes. The only shared task was keeping track of the money and the bills. From the re- sults it was concluded (Lovingood & Firebaugh, 1978, p. 25) "Wives have somewhat more total responsibility than husbands, especially in imple- menting decisions." Time budget studies. In her analysis of the 1965-66 time use study conducted by Robinson and Converse of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, Vanek (1973) looked at the allocation on household tasks between men and women. The study was based on a national sample, but since individuals, not husbands and wives, were studied, there were some limitations in using the data. 18 Female respondents were requested to estimate about how many hours their husbands had helped them with the housework during the past week. It was estimated that husbands contributed about seven hours per week to household work. The task that received the largest block of time was shopping, which accounted for about two and one—half hours per week. The time budget data from the men in the survey lent some support to the es- timates from the women. In commenting on the division of housework be- tween women and men Vanek (1973, p. 198) states, ”I have described work in the household as if it were solely the sphere of women and not men. The data reviewed appear to indicate that in contemporary society house- work is primarily women's responsibility." Nickols (1976), as mentioned earlier, analyzed longitudinal data on 1,156 families. To be included in the study both husband and wife had to be present in the home during the six years of the study, both had to be less than 65 years old, and neither spouse could suffer from disability that precluded working. Although a restricted definition of housework was used in the study (child care, home repairs and yard work, and shop- ping were not included), the results agreed with those of other research- ers; most of the time spent in housework was contributed by the wives. Nickols did report some changes that had occurred between 1968 and 1973, the years covered by the study. There was a slight increase both in the number of husbands who did some housework and in the hours worked per week. The number who did any housework rose from 330 in the first three years of the study to 399 by the last year. While husbands reported a slight increase in time devoted to housework, by 1973 they were contri— buting 2.4 hours per week, wives reported a four hour decline over the six years to 32.4 hours per week (Nickols & Metzen, 1978). 19 Robinson (1977b) in a progress report on time use data gathered by the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center in 1975, compared that data with their 1965 data. He reported that married employed men had in- creased their contributions to family care from 9.0 to 9.7 hours per week in the ten year period. Employed married women had decreased family care time from 28.8 hours to 24.9, while married full-time housewives had an even larger decrease, going from 50 hours in 1965 to 44.3 hours in 1975. The decrease was mainly in routine household cleaning and upkeep and not from child care. In comparing the 1967-68 Cornell data with the 1977 Cornell data, Sanik (1979) found more change in time spent doing household tasks by men than by women. In 1967-68 women had spent 7.8 hours per day and this had decreased to 7.5 hours a day by 1977, not a significant difference. Hus- bands, on the other hand, had increased their contribution from 1.7 hours per day to 2.2 hours, which was a statistically significant change. Sanik analyzed time contributed to eight categories of household tasks to determine whether there had been changes in the components of housework. For the homemaker there had been a significant decline in time spent in dishwashing and in clothing care and construction. There was an increase in time used shopping. The other five categories, which had not changed significantly, included food preparation, home-yard-car care, phys- ical care of family members, nonphysical care of family members, and man— agement. For the husbands, the only category in which a significant change had occurred was nonphysical care of family members. Their time spent in this category had increased from 10 to 27 minutes per day in the ten year period. 20 Factors Related to The Division of Household Tasks Although the research reviewed indicates that most household tasks are done by women, the division of household tasks between husbands and wives is not exactly the same in all households in the United States. Every mean time reported represents a range, with some men and women de- voting little time to household tasks and some devoting many hours (Nichols, 1976). There are also households where tasks are considered to be not only the responsibility of both the husband and the wife, but where both contributed equal or nearly equal amounts of time. A number of factors and their relationship to the allocation of household tasks have been investigated, often with conflicting results. .Agg It has been thought that age might be related to the division of tasks. One reason for thinking that division of labor might be related to age is that younger men and women grew up and married during a time when there was much discussion about life patterns, male and female stereotypes, equal opportunity for women and alternative life styles. It is believed that men and women marrying during this period of time might have married with different attitudes toward labor market and household responsibilities than those of earlier generations. A different per- spective suggests that people become more "set in their ways" as they age and that although the time demands of paid work and household work might change, habit would prevent this from altering time devoted to household tasks. In an article on family responsibilities and social stratification Olson (1960) commented that there was a marked negative correlation 21 between the age of the subjects and the tendency toward joint sharing of responsibilities. The author (Olson, 1960, p. 63) posed the question, "Do young couples today share more home responsibilities than they have in the past?" As this study was done before the feminist movement of the 1960's the finding would probably be more related to flexibility assumed to be found in younger persons than to concerns about equality. Robinson (1977a) found little variation based on age in how Ameri- cans used time in any aspect of life. Although he did not comment on any changes in division of labor related to age he did note that both men and women spent more time on housework as they grew older. According to Kreps and Clark (1975, p. 50), "attitudes as to which sex engages in the home production of goods are also changing. Among young couples, particularly the husband is expected to perform some house— hold tasks." This supposedly results from a shift that has occurred in attitudes toward the roles of family members. The prevailing conventional wisdom is that young people are being reared with different attitudes toward the distribution of household tasks. Their attitudes, perhaps are different, but three studies that examined children's contributions to household work did not support the idea that there is less stereotyping in household tasks. Lynch (1975a & 1975b) analyzed the time data of children aged six to 17 gathered in the 1967-68 Cornell project. After examining the contributions to household tasks of 387 girls and 419 boys she concluded that girls performed a greater number of tasks and also spent more time in household work. Boys contributed mostly to the tasks performed outside the house and girls to those performed within the house. 22 O'Neill (1978) analyzed the 1977 Cornell data on children and house— hold tasks and compared it to the 1967-68 data. The 1967-68 sample was the same group analyzed by Lynch. The 115 boys and 104 girls between ages six and 17 were the sample for the 1977 study. O'Neill found that time contributions of both boys and girls had increased in the ten year period and that the contributions of boys had increased more than those of the girls. With just one exception, girls in all age groups studied spent more time in household tasks and engaged in more tasks than did the boys. Boys aged 15 to 17 spent six more minutes per day in house— hold work than the girls. The stereotyped division of who did which par- ticular tasks still remained, boys worked outside the house and girls inside. Osborne (1979) analyzed the time use data of the children in the Utah project. She studied the contributions to household tasks of 200 child- ren, 113 boys and 87 girls, who participated in the research project. She found no significant difference in time contributed to household tasks by girls and boys. She did find, as had Lynch (1975a) and O'Neill (1978) that girls did the traditional female tasks, boys the traditional male tasks and that this division became more pronounced as their ages increased. Level of Education The relationship between level of education and household work has typically been examined in two ways. One way is to look at the relation- ship between the level of education of the husband or the wife and time spent in household work, either looking at household work in total or at specific tasks such as food preparation or child care. A second approach has been to examine what relationship, if any, exists between the wife's level of education and the time husbands devote to household work. 23 Educational levels of wives. Strzeminska (1976) analyzed the re- lationship between time devoted to household tasks and the woman's educational level in a twelve nation time budget study (Szalai, 1972). While she was examining the time use of only employed women, the findings are still relavent. She concluded that time devoted to household tasks decreased as educational level of wives increased. This trend was true in all the countries studied. Leibowitz (1975) analyzed the relationship between level of education of women and their time devoted to child care. She used the Walker (Wal- ker & WOods, 1976) and Manning (1968) data for her study. She concluded that more educated mothers spent more time on child care and that hus- bands of more educated women also spent more time with their children. Sanik (1979) reported that the relationship between level of edu- cation and time spent in household tasks differed according to the task. The higher the educational level of the homemaker the more time she gen- erally devoted to food preparation, physical and nonphysical care of family members, shopping and management. The reverse was true for house- cleaning, with more education she spent less time in this activity. Educational level of husbands. The educational level of men and its relationship to time devoted to household tasks was examined by Strze- mifiska (1972). She found that time spent doing household tasks increased as level of education increased, the opposite of the trend found in women. Specifically, the time Spent preparing meals, cleaning up, and caring for children increased with education. This increase was in the percentage of men who participated in each category and also in the average amount of time contributed. Strzemihska (1972, p. 387) hypothesized that "families of the intelligentsia have overcome their prejudice against 'women's 24 work,' which is still a very deeply ingrained attitude among the families of workers." Nye (1976) studied both who is considered responsible for various family roles and who actually performs them. In regard to housekeeping he found that men with more education, which was defined as a high school diploma or more, were more likely to accept at least some responsibility for the housekeeper role. Those with less than a high school diploma re— garded housekeeping as being entirely the responsibility of the wife. Nye reported, however, that the relationship between education and ac- ceptance of responsibility was not linear. Husbands with more education were also more likely to report actually performing the housekeeper role. After studying working women in nine countries, Cook (1975) con- cluded that most working women are nearly totally responsible for house- hold tasks, but also that more educated husbands were more likely to be open-minded about sharing the tasks. Other researchers such as Robinson (1977a), Berk (1976), Nickols (1976), and Campbell (1976) have reported that more education does tend to increase men's contributions to house- hold work, if not to the total, at least to some specific task or tasks. Effect of wives' education on husbands. Some researchers have studied the relationship between the wives' educational level and the amount of time devoted to household work by husbands. Vanek (1972), when examining the data both for employed and nonemployed women, did not find a linear relationship. She noted that differences in amount of help received by wives from husbands with different amounts of education were very small. Nye (1976) in his study of family roles, looked at the effect of the wife's education on who she thought should be responsible for the housekeeper role. Women with college degrees were more likely to support 25 the idea of shared responsibility for housekeeping tasks than were women with less education. They also reported more often that their husbands actually did perform household work. Employment Wives' employment and housework time. A safe generalization could be made about the effects of paid employment on the time a woman devotes to household tasks: it is reduced. This is an obvious outcome, since there are just twenty-four hours each day to allocate. If a woman al- locates some hours to paid employment, they must come from somewhere and part of them seem to come from reduced time spent doing household tasks. Walker and Woods (1976) reporting on the 1967-68 Cornell study demon— strated that paid employment has a large effect on time spent doing house- work. Wives in the study who were full-time homemakers spent 8.1 hours per day on housework, while those who were employed 30 or more hours a week spent 4.8 hours per day. Walker and Woods (1976, p. 255) summarized their findings by stating, "For all of the regular household work ex— cept marketing, employed wives spent less time than those nonemployed in all or nearly all family size and age of youngest child categories." In families with a full-time homemaker 72 percent of the total housework time of all family members was contributed by the homemaker. This contribution was reduced to 62 percent when the homemaker was employed in the labor market. Vanek (1972) analyzing data from a Survey Research Center national sample reached conclusions similar to those of Walker and Woods (1976). She divided the respondents into three categories according to their re— ported hours of paid employment per week, non-employed; employed part- time, worked less than 35 hours per week; and employed full-time, worked 26 more than 35 hours per week. The non-employed spent 55.4 hours per week doing household tasks, the part-time employed spent 34.7, and the full-time employed had reduced their time to 26 hours per week, or less than half the time of the full-time homemakers. The same relationship between paid work and hours spent in house- work was reported by Nickols (1976). In her study of time devoted to productive work, the variable which had by far the greatest impact upon the time the wives spent doing housework was time spent in paid employ- ment. Each additional hour spent in the labor force was related to a de- crease of .4 of an hour less spent in housework. A wife who worked 40 hours per week in paid employment spent 15 hours per week less doing housework than a full-time homemaker. In a progress report on the Survey Research Center's 1975 time use survey, Robinson (1977b) reported that all women, employed and housewives, married and single, had reduced their housework time in comparison to the 1965 survey data. The differences between employed women and full-time housewives had not disappeared. Employed married women reported 24.9 hours per week devoted to housework, while married full-time homemakers reported 44.3 hours per week. During the ten year period, the employed women had reduced their time by 3.9 hours per week and the full-time homemakers by 5.7 hours. Sanik (1979) also reported that employment was a significant vari- able in explaining time devoted to housework by homemakers. Homemakers employed 40 hours a week outside the home averaged 2.7 hours per day less in all household work than full-time homemakers. Employment reduced the time the homemakers spent in all of the individual household task catego— ries, except shopping and management. 27 International data as reported by Szalai (1972) and Cook (1975) sup- port the idea that in many parts of the world, the relationship between paid employment and the time women devote to housework is the same as that reported in studies done in the United States. They also point out that while employed homemakers do reduce their housework hours, the come bination of housework time plus time in the labor force results in an extremely long work day. Kreps and Leaper (1976, p. 74) point out that women have seldom protested the stress of carrying out these dual careers and that, "they have seemed eager to demonstrate that they can manage both home and market work without making heavy demands on the rest of the fam- ily." Husbands' employment and housework time. The relationship between the time husbands contribute to household work and their hours of paid employment has not been studied as extensively as the same relationship for wives. This could be due to the widely held view that women, not men are responsible for household tasks. Walker and Woods (1976) reported that of all the variables studied in relation to the time husbands spent doing household tasks, employment time was the one most closely related. The average contribution to housework by husbands employed less than 40 hours per week was 2.1 hours per day while it was 1.2 for those employed 50 or more hours. This relationship applied not only to total housework time but to time contributed to the individual categories of all food preparation, all house care, after-meal cleanup, and special food preparation. Nickols (1976) in a cross-sectional analysis of 1973 data from the Survey Research Center found a negative relationship between husbands' labor force hours and their time allocations to housework. Time spent 28 in housework was reduced by only three minutes per year for each ad- ditional hour spent in the labor market (Nickols & Metzen, 1978). As part of a study on how blue-collar workers on 4-day work weeks use their time, Maklan (1977) studied differences in the time allocated to family activities by four and five day workers. He used both a questionnaire and a time diary for his study and from the time diary he constructed a hypothetical week. The 4-day workers, as a group, did not take on more routine housework, but did spend additional time doing major household chores such as gardening, errands, and repair work. Mak— lan (1977, p. 26) notes that, "Of probably greater significance, 4-day workers allocated more than five times as many minutes to activities of child care. The opportunity to so engage oneself appears to be a prin- cipal advantage of working a 4—day week." In Sanik's (1979) analysis of the Cornell data, husbands' hours of paid employment was the only variable that was significant in explaining husbands' time spent in household work. There was an average decrease of two minutes per day for every one hour increase per week in time spent in paid employment. This negative relationship applied not only to all household work, but to the individual categories of food preparation, home-yard-car care, physical care of family members, nonphysical care of family members, and shopping. Wives' employment and husbands' housework time. A popular as- sumption is that when wives are in the labor market, husbands contribute more time to household tasks. Many opinions on the subject have been voiced, some backed by research and some not. Some authors such as Pifer (1976), Brown (1977), and Mott (1978) seem to feel that, "Other things 29 being equal, the wife as wage earner implied the husband as homemaker" (Brown, 1977, p. 22). Bahr (1975), summarizing a number of research studies, concluded that when the wife was employed the husband increased his household labor. The studies Bahr reviewed were based on a Blood and Wolfe method- ology as opposed to time budget studies. Bahr commented that although husbands of employed women perform significantly more household tasks than husbands of full-time homemakers, the employed women still retain the primary responsibility for household work. Most studies have found that the wife's employment has very little effect on the husband's contribution to household tasks. This conclu- sion has been reached in international studies and in many U. S. studies, both those that used questionnaires as the data gathering instrument and those that relied on time budget data. Cook (1975), who studied the problems of working women in nine countries, concluded that one of their problems was carrying the double burden of paid work plus housework. In response to the rhetorical ques- tion, "Aren't husbands helping more?" she gives a firm negative response. When husbands help they assist with self—selected tasks and for small amounts of time. Cook found that even in countries, such as the United States and Australia where sharing and equal opportunity are discussed, the ideas have not yet had much impact on what actually happens. As Bernard (1972) points out, it's easier to talk about sharing housework equally than to actually carry out the plan for doing so. Holstrom (1972) conducted extensive interviews of 20 families in which both the husband and the wife had professional occupations. One as- pect of the interview dealt with division of household tasks. In slightly 30 over a third of the couples, the husband helped regularly with a number of household tasks. The tasks they reported as most likely to be done by the husband included emptying the garbage and trash, repair work, and heavy yard work. Cooking dinner and grocery shopping were most likely to be done by the wife, while cooking breakfast and washing dishes were most likely to be shared. Sixteen of the couples had children and in 12 of these the husband helped with child rearing on a regular basis. Two—thirds of the women interviewed reported that they were pleased with the division of household tasks in their family. Nye (1976) found some differences in how husbands and wives viewed tflne housekeeper role depending on whether or not the wife was employed in 1:11e labor market. When the wife was in the labor market, one-third of the wives and less than one-fifth of the husbands allocated full responsibility for household work to the wives. When it came to who actually did the housekeeping, more men and wo- men reported that the wife actually performed the tasks than had stated She should have full responsibility for the housekeeper role. According It:‘:)’ 1both.the husbands and wives the employed and nonemployed wives were 3:.‘5315531ponsib1e for most housekeeping. Husbands reported that they were more :jLJE‘E‘U’ut also that he contributed less with younger children. The division of Lleabor was more equitable in homes when the wife had a highly "rewarding" job (Berk, 1976, p. 338) "but not at a level where the practical con- Sequences could be great." Robinson (1977a) commented that the distribution of housework was particularly inequitable when the wife had a job outside the home. Hus- I2’453Jt71ds with wives in the labor force spent 10 percent more time doing 1b‘L‘:>“leehold tasks than those whose wives were at home full time. The 10 JED"E=lrcent increase, however, only amounted to five additional minutes per ‘:l“53l]y. The husbands in Robinson's study did not increase the time spent in Child care. The relationship between homemaker's hours of employment and hus- band's contribution to household work in Sanik's (1979) analysis were sig- “1£1ficant at the .10 level, which indicated a likely positive relationship. }?or each increase of one hour per week in time the homemaker spent in paid 32 work there was an increase by the husband of .2 minutes per day in food pre- paration and .1 minute per day in dishwashing. Sex Role Ideology In this day of much discussion about the lives that men and women lead, particularly the roles that are thought to belong to one or the oth- er and how they came to be considered appropriate, the term sex roles has become a common phrase. There seems to be a folk definition that male sex roles are the activities that are considered to be appropriate for men in our culture and that female sex roles are those activities appropriate .for women. Seldom, when the phrase is used, particularly in popular writ- jtng, such as magazines and newspapers, is it defined; it seems to be as- sumed that everyone knows what it means. There is currently examination of and discussion about terms such as H H i I "=3¢ex roles, gender,‘ and "gender roles.’ When reviewing literature it becomes apparent that the terms are not used consistently, that the implied ‘:’?t? stated definitions vary. One area of concern regarding the term sex 3:7‘:>Z1es is that, except for very few acts which are related directly to male ‘:’71=‘ female physiology, being male or female is not a role. If one's bio- 10 gical sex decreed a role then males and females in all parts of the world wQ‘uld do much the same thing. Gender is another term in current scholarly use. It has been de- istitled as, "learned behavior differentiated along the lines of biological Sex" (Lopata & Thorne, 1978, p. 719). Gender has been called an unfocused “:<>1e (Angrist, 1969) or a basic role (Banton, 1965) that, "infuses the ‘Iuore specific roles one plays” (Lopata & Thorne, 1978, p. 719). Gender 118 regarded as a deep and relatively unchanging part of a person. The 33 term gender roles is used by some authors, but the problems with its use are somewhat the same as those with sex roles. Until the time when there are agreed upon terms with precise defini— tions there will probably continue to be confusion. In the meantime re— search on men and women, their similarities and differences, will go on. The terms in this review will be the terms that were used by the authors quoted. In research, the term "sex roles" has been used in two different ways. Psychologists and sociologists give different meanings to the term. IPsychologists have typically used it in reference to different personality t:raits which are believed to be consistent with biological sex. Pleck (:1977) points out that most American psychologists traditionally supported tzlie position that men and women differ substantially on a wide variety of Personality traits, attitudes and interests, and that to a large degree these differences are biologically based. The traditional view also held tflat beyond the differences based on biology, males and females need to deVelop further differences in order to have a "secure" sex identity. j];.=53C39chologists often carried this theory one step farther and assumed that Innh‘3513.and women take on different social responsibilities because they have 6‘ i :Eferent personality traits. In many tests that have been developed by psychologists to measure “ IIDLzasculinity" and "femininity," the assumption made is that, "most bio- logical males will be high in psychological masculinity and most biolog— :i~<2z11 females will be high in psychological femininity" (Deux, 1976, 7:313. 134-135). The assumptions involve circular reasoning: the test de- “7elopers determine what most men or women do or think or believe men or ‘women should do or think and then these attitudes become the measure of 34 what is masculine and feminine. As Deux (1976, p. 135) points out, "These assumptions are clearly rooted in the development of question- naires designed to measure masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is what men typically do and femininity is what women typically do." Sociologists have tended to define sex roles according to adult so- cial responsibilities or actual or expected behavior (Pleck, 1977). Con- sequently they are interested in the duties or tasks a given society as- signs to men and women. The Nye (1976) study and the Berk (1976) study are examples of this approach. Nye and colleagues investigated the pro- ‘Vider, housekeeper, recreational and therapeutic roles to determine who V083 considered to be responsible for them and who actually performed them. 13erk was interested in household tasks and who usually contributed the time and labor to accomplish them. It is probably the sociological defi- I)¢ittion that most people have in mind when they say that traditional sex rOJeS are changing, i.e. they mean that the "male role" as the provider and the ”female role" as homemaker are changing. In 1968 Lipman-Blumen (1972) conducted a study of female role ideo- logy, which referred primarily to a woman's system of beliefs regarding 1:1]blne appropriate behavior of women with respect to men. She did the study because she felt that, "ideologies can predict the values and behavior of women with remarkable accuracy" (Lipman-Blumen, 1972, p. 34). She was in- 7‘::ntemporary ideology were less enthusiastic about cleaning house and il—éalundry. Cooking, entertaining, interior decorating, sewing, and shop- IF>Zilng -- tasks that allow some self-expression and creativity -- were eC1ually acceptable to the women in both groups. Sandra Bem (1976) has developed a new approach to measuring the con- ‘leeapts of masculinity and femininity as referred to in psychological sex ‘Ic‘tale measures. Bem believes that the traits thought to characterize both IIIéisculinity and femininity are necessary to function in a complex society. jEsem constructed her instrument based on the assumption that it is pos— sible, at least in principle, for one individual to have personality traits ‘ihat have traditionally been considered masculine and feminine. A person ‘fiho has a blending of the two is considered to be androgynous. "An 36 androgynous personality would thus represent the very best of what mas- culinity and femininity have to represent" (Bem, 1976, p. 51). Using the Bem Sex Role Inventory, Bem and her co-workers carried out a number of research projects to assess how persons who scored differently on the test would react to tasks presented to them in laboratory experi- ments. The major question that they wanted to answer was whether or not holding traditional sex role ideologies actually leads some people to re- strict their behavior e.g., do men who score high in masculinity and wo- ‘men who score high in femininity avoid some activities just because the activities are regarded as being more appropriate for the other sex? Trhey also asked whether or not androgynous males and females would com- ifortably carry out activities traditionally thought to belong to males or females. In summarizing her findings Bem (1976) noted that most but not all ‘3’15’ the predicted relationships between the sex role inventory and actual behavior were found. Androgynous males were willing to perform any be- l“lliElfvior, regardless of whether the culture would label it as male or fe- 'II)43LJ£L Feminine males did well only in the "expressive" domain and mas- ‘::”lJLline males only in the "instrumental." Androgynous women also willingly 153’l]Lics. Childhood religions, however, did not have a statistically sig- ‘rldjlficant influence on sex role ideology. Nye (1976) analyzed religious preference and religious activity re- :1~éated to the responsibility for and enactment of the housekeeper role. 151‘s found religious preference not to be related to either the responsi— IE>ility for housekeeping or to the actual performance of the tasks. De— Egree of religious participation was related to some aspects of responsi- ‘bility. Men and women who never attend church were more likely to feel that the wife has the complete responsibility for housekeeping. For men there was a linear relationship between the proportion who thought the 39 responsibility should be shared and the frequency of church attendance. The only relationship found for women was that those who never attended church were more likely than the other women to see the responsibility for housekeeping as belonging completely to themselves. Summary Contrary to the opinions of some and the hopes of many, housework has not dwindled and disappeared. In recent studies, the average time recorded as spent doing household tasks is about the same as it was in the early time budget studies. Different reasons have been proposed for this finding and probably all of them are at least partly true. Another popular assumption, that husbands are spending more time do- ing household tasks, has been refuted by most researchers. The tasks they contribute to are usually the traditional male tasks such as yard care and garbage. There were some exceptions found to this generaliza— tion but they were few in number. Research relating some factors, such as age, education, and religion to division of household tasks has also produced mixed results. Being younger and having more education generally were related to an increased contribution from the husband. Increased education and paid employment were often related to a decrease in housework time by the wife. The paid employment of the wife, however, did not lead to an increased contri- bution from the husband. Hopefully, the present research will add additional findings and insights into the division of household tasks between husbands and wives, particularly in Utah households. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The data for this study were gathered as part of the Northeast Re— gional Research Project NE 113, An Interstate Comparison of Urban/Rural Families' Time Use. The regional research project was organized during 1976 by Dr. Kathryn Walker of Cornell University. The purposes of the regional project were to establish a data bank of time use of rural and urban families, to update Walker's 1967-68 time use study (Walker & Woods, 1976) and to broaden the data base by including additional States. Calif- ornia, Connecticut, Louisiana, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin participated in the NE 113 project. The data were gathered at various times beginning in January 1977 and extending through 1979 depending on when the state joined the project. The same methods of data collection and instrumentation were used in all states. Each state, however, had the option of adding its own ques- tionnaires and also could expand beyond the defined sample. Data were coded in the same way so they could be easily exchanged among the states for comparison purposes. Because the 1967-68 study (Walker & Woods, 1976) had shown that time use, particularly for homemakers, was related to number of children and age of children, it was decided to control for these factors in the re- gional project. The families were stratified into five levels, according to the age of the younger child. The stratification levels used were 40 41 under one, one, two to five, six to eleven, and twelve to seventeen years of age. No attempt was made to control for the age of the older child. Sample The sample as specified by the regional project was to consist of 210 two-parent, two-child families, half from an urban/suburban area and half from a rural area. The definition of rural was that there be no community within the area with a population greater than 2,500. The Utah urban/suburban sample was drawn from Salt Lake County which is the center of the Wasatch Front, the area of the state where population and industry are concentrated. It is the county in the state with the lar- gest population and Salt Lake City, the state's largest city, is located within its boundaries. In 1976 Salt Lake County's population was 525,187 and the population of Salt Lake City was 168,667 (Population Estimates and Projections, January 1979). Salt Lake County is divided into five school districts. Lists of two-parent, two-child families were obtained from the central school dis- trict and also from a suburban school district. The suburban district is located in the southern part of the county and is the fastest growing school district in the state. Identifying a rural sample for Utah presented a number of problems. Some of Utah's rural school districts store their school census data with the State Board of Education in Salt Lake City and the director of data processing agreed to provide lists of two—parent, two-child families in the counties chosen. It soon became apparent, however, that it would not be possible to comply with the regional project's definition of rural. Counties in which there were no communities with a population greater than 2,500 did not contain enough two-parent, two—child families to supply the 42 105 families needed. This is probably related to the fact that Utah's birth rate is more than double the national average (Nelson, Salt Lake Tri- 223g, 1978). The rural sample was drawn from Iron and Washington Counties, which are located in the southwest corner of the state. These counties are some distance from the Wasatch Front, which was desirable; however, each county did contain a city with a population over 2,500. The total pop- ulation in each county in 1976 was less than 20,000. Iron County had a population of 15,045 and Washington County of 18,850. A small college is located in each county which also made it less rural in nature than was desired. After lists of two-parent, two-child families living in the desig- nated urban and rural areas had been obtained from school census data, a systematic random sample was drawn. The names of families drawn were checked in current telephone directories to determine whether or not they still lived in the area. This created sample bias as it eliminated families without telephones, with unlisted telephone numbers, or those who had moved to the area since publication of the directory. At the end of the first interviewing phase, all names on the rural lists had been used. Families for interviewing phases two and three were obtained through referrals, personal contacts, and advertisements placed in the newspaper. This further biased the rural sample. Instruments Four instruments were used to gather data for this study. They in- cluded a questionnaire to gather demographic and household information, a time diary, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, and a questionnaire regarding church affiliation and activity (Appendix A, B, C & D). 43 Questionnaire booklet. The questionnaire booklet was developed and pretested at Cornell University (Sanik, 1979) and was used to gather demo- graphic data, information about work patterns, equipment owned and used, and goods and services provided from outside the household. The ques— tionnaire was designed so that it could be coded by computer scanning equipment or by hand. It was similar to the questionnaire used in the 1967-68 study (Walker & Woods, 1976). Time diary. As Szalai (1972, p. 3) pointed out, the goal of time use research is to record, ”a typical day in the life of a very common human being." There are three commonly used ways of gathering time use data. The first is observation, where a non-group member is present and records for the person or persons in the group what they were doing. The advantages of this method are that it frees the person being observed to do what he or she would normally do without the constraint of "remember- ing" to record what was done. The major disadvantages of this approach are cost and changes in time use that occur because of the presence of an observer. The second approach often used is estimation. The person is simply asked to estimate how much time was devoted to a specific activity in a specific period of time. This is an inexpensive method of gathering data but most researchers agree that estimation usually significantly exceeds time actually spent on activities (Robinson, 1977a). The time diary is the most commonly used method of gathering time data. Respondents are asked to record what they did during a specific period. The instrument can either have pre-categorized activities or the respondents can supply the activities. As with other methods, there are advantages and disadvantages. The major disadvantage is that the re- 44 searcher has no absolute standard against which the accuracy of the data can be compared (Szalai, 1972). As there can be great variability in how a person used time from one day to the next, there is no way of being sure that an unusual record was correctly or incorrectly completed. As Robinson (1977a) pointed out, a major advantage of the diary approach is that people are asked to report activities for a single day and to do it when that period is still fresh in their minds. Another advantage he cited is that the respondents are usually not aware of any purpose of the study other than to produce a record of their time and have minimal expectations of what particular activities will interest or please the researcher. As Berk (1976) points out, the time diary allows the researcher to track the respondent without being present. John Robinson (1977a & 1977b) has studied the reliability and valid— ity of time diary data and concluded that it is a good method to reflect the aggregate behavior of groups of people. Robinson tried to establish the reliability and validity for this method. The evidence he offers for reliability includes the fact that: Similar results come from different studies. He reports that a high level of congruence in results was obtained from the national sample of the twelve nation study and the smaller Jackson, Michigan sample. The correlation between the Jackson sample and the cross-national sample across the 96 categories of time use was .95 as measured by Yule's y (Robinson, 1977a). These results were also similar to those found by Chapin (1974) and by Walker and Woods (1976). Robinson also reports that a systematic, but not a one-to-one relationship was found between diary entries of par— ticipation in an activity and estimates of yearly participation in that activity. Furthermore, there is a high congruence between the two diary approaches, "yesterday" and "tomorrow." Robinson (1977a) reported a .85 45 correlation for the cross-national sample and .88 for a 1974 sample from Jackson, Michigan. Robinson cites three ways that have been used to assess validity of the time diary method. The first approach was having subjects wear beep— ers which alerted them at random moments during the day when they were to record exactly what they were doing. The second approach was to have people record as much detail as possible for a "random hour" during the day on which they had kept the time diary (Robinson, 1977b). A third ap- proach used was television cameras (Robinson, 1977a). Robinson (1977b) concluded that while there were some discrepancies in reported behavior at the individual level, the aggregate activity patterns were quite simi- lar to those obtained with the diary. For this study, time use data were gathered using a time diary de- veloped by researchers at Cornell University (Appendix B). Each diary covered a period of twenty-four hours. Time, broken down into ten min- ute segments, was listed horizontally across the chart. Eighteen cate- gories of time use were listed vertically. Respondents were provided with dictionaries to aid them in placing their activities in the proper categories (Appendix E). The methodology used in this research project is a record of how many minutes per day each family member, age six and over, spent doing a partic- ular activity. No attempt was made to assess the "quality" of the time (Berch, 1978). Obviously different individuals accomplish different things during, for example, an hour spent housecleaning. Another limitation im- posed by this methodology is the difficulty in categorizing some activi- ties. Sewing can be done for more than one reason: it could be done simply to construct a garment, or as a leisure activity, or it could be done to 46 teach a skill to a child. In a pre—categorized diary motivations for doing and feelings about an activity are difficult to take into consid- eration. The sequencing of activities and the constraints imposed by the necessity of certain tasks occurring at fixed times was not measured. This method makes no attempt to assess what Berch (1978) calls intan- "atmosphere" or a "good environment." gibles or such things as While the methodology used does have some limitations it also has many strengths. As the current study was a repeat of a study completed ten years earlier (Walker & Woods, 1976) it can be used as an indicator of social change. Time is a finite resource for everyone, consequently, additional time spent on any activity must be taken from time that was formerly spent on another activity. Research was carried out in ten states, therefore, a nationwide data bank of time use in two—parent, two-child households will be available. The data will allow numerous comparisons to be made between the states. Bem Sex Role Inventory. Currently there is a great interest in what is commonly referred to as sex roles (in this case, meaning personality characteristics that may differentiate by sex) and how they affect the way people live their lives, the options that are opened and closed by them, and whether or not they are changing. A sex role measure was in- cluded in this research to provide some insight into the reasons house- hold tasks are allocated as they are. The instrument used was developed by Bem, a psychologist, and is a measure of personality characteristics. The Bem Sex Role Inventory is a paper-and-pencil test that treats masculinity and femininity as two orthogonal dimensions rather than as two ends of a single dimension (Appendix C). Masculinity and femininity each represent positive domains of behavior. The test consists of twenty 47 masculine, twenty feminine, and twenty neutral personality characteris- tics. Bem (1976) chose the masculine and feminine characteristics in- cluded in the test because they were all rated by both males and females as being significantly more desirable in American society for one sex than for the other. The person taking the test is asked to indicate on a seven point scale how well each characteristic describes himself or herself. One represents "never or almost never true" and seven represents "always or almost always true." Masculinity and femininity scores are generated for each subject and then group medians for the masculinity and femininity scores for the sub— ject population are computed. On the bases of these scores each subject is put into one of four classifications. The classifications include (Bem & Watson, 1976, p. 2): 1. masculine: subjects who score above the masculinity median and below the femininity median. 2. feminine: subjects who score above the femininity median and below the masculinity median. 3. androgynous: subjects who score above both medians. 4. undifferentiated: those who score below both medians.~ The four groups are shown in Figure 1 Masculinity Score Above Median Below Median Above Androgynous Feminine Femininity Median Score Below Median Masculine Undifferentiated Figure 1. Bem Sex Role Inventory Classifications (Bem & Watson, 1976, p. 4). 48 Bem (1976) reported that masculinity and femininity scores are emp- irically as well as conceptually independent with an average r = -.03. The test-retest reliability over a four week interval was an average r = .93. The BSRI was uncorrelated, average r = —.O6, with the tendency to describe oneself in a socially desirable direction. Evidence for the validity of the BSRI is difficult to establish. Bem and various associates have conducted a number of laboratory tests to see if the behavior of their subjects was consistent with what would be ex- pected based on their BSRI scores. The conclusions to date offer par- tial support for its validity (Bem, 1976). Church Affiliation and Activitnguestionnaire. This questionnaire was used to gain information about the respondents' religious affiliation and degree of participation. The subjects were asked whether or not they belong to a church and if so to which one. Another question asked how active they were in their church. The three categories provided were: (1) inactive or not very active (2) active and (3) very active. Inform- ation was gathered on religion because of the impact it has on the lives of many Utah residents. While figures on percentages of the population belonging to the Mormon Church, the dominant faith, are not available, com- mon estimates are 60-70 percent. The Mormon Church has a strong position on appropriate life patterns for its members which could have an impact on many aspects of time use and particularly on sharing of household tasks between husbands and wives (Harvey, 1975). Data Collection The data were collected by professional interviewers hired through a private research firm. There were two interviewers in Salt Lake County, one in Washington County and one in Iron County. The interviewers were 49 brought to the USU campus for a training session where the author helped them become familiar with the data collection instruments and the inter— viewing procedures. A video tape developed by researchers at Cornell University was used to insure that interviewers in all ten states would conduct the interviews in the same manner. After the initial training session, the interviewers telephoned the research director for any addi- tional clarification needed. After names of possible subjects had been drawn from the school cen- sus lists they were forwarded to the interviewers. The interviewers made the initial contact with each family. During the phone call the home- maker was asked whether or not the family was a two-parent, two-child family and if they would be willing to participate in the study. If both questions were answered affirmatively, an appointment was scheduled with the homemaker. The homemaker was defined as the person, male or female, with the primary responsibility for the household. The family was sched- uled for a specific day depending on the age of the younger child. This was to insure that all families in the same level would not be interviewed on the same day of the week. During the first interview the interviewer explained the study instru- ments to the homemaker and helped her fill out a time diary for her fam— ily's time use "yesterday." The interviewer left a second time diary with the homemaker to fill out "tomorrow" and requested that the homemaker ask the other family members to check both diaries for accuracy. The ques- tionnaire booklet, the Bem Sex Role Inventory and the Church Affiliation and Activity Questionnaire were also left to be filled out. It was re- quested that the BSRI be completed separately by the husband and wife. A second appointment was arranged with the homemaker for the day after 50 "tomorrow." At the second meeting the interviewer checked the time diary for completeness and helped the homemaker fill in any information missing in the questionnaire booklet. All survey instruments were mailed to the researcher at Utah State University. Gathering time use data about family members from just one member may result in some inaccuracy. Berk and Berk (1979, p. 88) point out "household members overestimate their own contributions relative to esti- mates provided by their spouses." As time data in this research were re- corded by the wife, the husband's contribution to household tasks might have been under reported and this possibility should be kept in mind when the results are being interpreted. However, in defending this method Sudman and Bradburn (1974) note that reports about other household members are only slightly less accurate than are reports about self. They cite it as being a reasonable method to use. Sanik (1979) notes that the method saves considerable time and expense and provides greater control over the consistency of the record as only one person needs to be instructed in how to keep it. Collection of Utah data began May 1977 and continued through August 1978. Data were collected over a calendar year so that seasonal variation could be taken into account. Szalai (1972) stressed the importance of using a research design that took into account the fact that some events occur on a cyclical basis, such as once a month or once a year. Inter- views were schedules so that each day of the week would be equally rep- resented in the 210 Completed interviews. Data collection in Utah re- quired a year and three months because the interviewing firm that had been hired did not comply with the established schedule. 51 Operational Definitions time diary - "a log of activities that individuals keep over a specified period, usually a full 244hour day" (Robinson, 1977a, p. 6). family - two parent, two-child household. household work - primary time recorded in the categories of food prepar- ation; dishwashing; shopping; housecleaning; maintenance of home, yard, car and pets; care of clothing and household linens; construction of cloth- ing and household linens; physical care of family members; nonphysical care of family members; and management. urban family - a family living in Salt Lake County. rural family - a family living in Iron County or Washington County. full-time homemaker - a homemaker not employed in the labor market. employed homemaker - a homemaker employed part or full-time in the labor market. part-time employment - employed in the labor market 35 or less hours per week. Bem Sex Role Inventory — a paper and pencil test used to distinguish andro- gynous individuals from those with more sex typed self concepts (Bem, 1976). income - total family income, before taxes, for the previous 12 months. lgygl - one of the five levels by which families were stratified according to the age of the younger child. level one - younger child under one year old level two - younger child one year old level three - younger child two to five years old level four - younger child six to eleven years old level five - younger child twelve to seventeen years old education - highest grade, training, or degree completed. 52 Analysis After the interview packets had been received at USU the data were coded. All time data were coded by the same person to insure consistency. Primary, secondary, and travel time were computed for each person in each of the categories. The time use recorded for each person had to add to 1,440 minutes per day. If there was time that could not be accounted for, it was entered as "unaccounted for time." The time reported here is the average primary plus travel time con- nected with the activity reported by the respondents for the two days re- corded. Travel time was the time required to travel to and/or from an activity. The average of the two days was used because, "the average of day 1 and day 2 for households of specified compositions represented a more valid measure of the family's time use by depicting 2/7 of a week rather than 1/7 of a week" (Sanik, 1979, p. 210). It was not assumed that time use on one day would be the same as time use on the other day. The time for "all household tasks" was computed by adding together the time recorded in the first ten categories on the time diary. These activities included food preparation; dishwashing; shopping; housecleaning; maintenance of home, yard, car, and pets; care of clothing and household linens; physical care of household members; nonphysical care of household members; and management. Standard deviations for time data are large in comparison to those usually reported for survey data. As there are often substantial dif— ferences in how time is allocated by different persons and also in how it is allocated by the same person from one day to the next, large stan- dard deviations are considered normal. 53 Statistical Analysis The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975) was used to perform the statistical analysis. Two tests were utilized, analysis of variance and correlation. An analysis of variance is used to test "whether the differences among the means are large enough to imply that the corresponding pop- ulation means are different" (Ott, 1977, p. 354). It is a commonly used test for count data. The hypothesis that is being tested is that the pop— ulation means are equal and the alternate hypothesis is that at least one of the population means differs from the rest. Differences between the sample means are judged statistically signif— icant by comparing them to the variation within the samples. The formula 32b used is F = -§—-. The variability of the observations within the samples 8 W 2w and 32 designates the variability between sample is designated by s b means . When the hypothesis that the population means are equal is true, 2 2 b sume a value near 1. When the hypothesis of equality is false 82b will tend to be larger than 82w due to the differences between the population both 8 and s w would be estimates of l"‘and F would be expected to as— means. The hypothesis of equality is then rejected (Ott, 1977). The analysis of variance test is a more powerful test when the cell sizes are equal. That was not possible in this research. The level of significance set was .05. The analysis of variance was used in analyzing the data for research questions 4, 5, 6, and 7, which dealt with variation in time spent doing 54 household tasks related to educational level, hours of paid employment, church affiliation and activity, and sex role ideology. The data for research question 3, relating age of husband and wife, to time spent doing household tasks was tested using correlation. Re— search question 5, relating time spent on paid employment to time spent in doing household tasks was also examined by correlation. Correlation is a measure of linear relationship. It refers to the degree to which two variables move uniformly with respect to each other (Weinburg & Schumaker, 1974). The correlation coefficient is a measure of the strength of the relationship and also of the direction. The strength can go from -1.0 to 1.0 and the closer it is in absolute value to 1 the stronger it is considered to be. The direction of the relationship, whether inverse or direct is indicated by the sign. A direct relation- ship results when an increase in X is accompanied by an increase in Y or a decrease in X is accompanied by a decrease in Y. An inverse relation— ship occurs when an increase in X is accompanied by a decrease in Y or a decrease in X is accompanied by an increase in Y (Edwards, 1976). The Pearson Product Moment Coefficient was the correlation technique used. It is considered to be the appropriate correlation measure for two interval or ratio variables. An interval or ratio variable is present when a unit of measurement exists, a zero point on the scale corresponds to an absence of the variable being measured. Any real number may result from the act of measurement, and differences between scores reflect on the differences in the amount of the characteristic possessed (Glass & Stanley, 1970). The variables in questions 3 and 5, age and time, fulfill these conditions. 55 "The presence of a correlation between two variables does not nec— essarily mean there exists a causal link between them" (Glass & Stanley, 1970, p. 121). It is possible to have a strong correlation between two variables when neither is the "cause" of the other. When two variables are selected out of a complex situation such as usually exists in every— day life, it is not possible to have explained all of the relationships or causes present by a correlation measure (Glass & Stanley, 1970). Assumptions 1. A time diary approach is an accurate method of gathering data regarding how people use their time. 2. The time diary kept by the homemaker is an accurate reflection of the time use of all family members. 3. The interviewers carried out the data collection as they had been instructed to do. 4. The coding of the time diary was done accurately. 5. The respondents' scores on the Bem Sex Role Inventory are an accurate reflection of some of their personality characteristics. 6. The urban and rural counties chosen for the research project are representative of the urban and rural counties in the state. 7. Time is a necessary input in the process of achieving family goals, including completion of household tasks. Limitations 1. Since the time diary was divided into categories of time use, the respondents were forced to make their activities fit the categor- ies listed. 56 Only primary, not secondary, time was considered in this study and may limit the accuracy of the time reported as being spent on household tasks. The families studied were all two-parent, two-child families which are not representative of Utah families. Results are reported in mean minutes per day which could give an impression of precision beyond what should be imputed to the data. CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE Two hundred and ten two-parent, two—child Utah families were the subjects for this research. The 105 rural families were from Iron and Washington counties and the 105 urban families were from Salt Lake County. Some demographic data are reported according to rural and urban categories to facilitate comparisons between the sample and the available census data. Comparisons between the sample and the county populations were not made for age or family composition because the criteria used in selecting the sample were restrictive in terms of these variables. No comparisons are made regarding church affiliation and activity as no data on these were available for the county populations. Such information might be known by the churches, but is not made public. Age The ages of both husbands and wives ranged from the 21-25 category to the 56-60 category. The median age for the wives fell in the 26—30 category. The median age for husbands was in the 31—35 category. The sample seems to have followed the American tradition that husbands be slightly older than wives. The respondents were relatively young. This would be expected as the younger child in 40 percent of the families studied was one year old or younger. The data are summarized in Table 1. 57 58 Table 1 Ages of Respondents Wives Husbands Total 21—25 43 26 69 26-30 67 54 121 31-35 37 47 84 36-40 24 26 50 41-45 15 24 39 46-50 12 15 27 51—55 4 6 10 56-60 1 4 5 Missing 7 8 15 Total 210 210 420 Education The educational levels of the wives ranged from grade school through a master's degree, while those of the husbands ranged from grade school through doctorates and professional degrees. As shown in Table 2, husbands had, on the average, completed more years of education than had the wives in the sample. The category indicated by the most wives as the highest level com— pleted was "high school diploma." Sixty-six wives had attended college, but had not graduated. Fifty-seven husbands had earned a bachelor's de— gree, the category checked by the largest number of husbands. 59 Table 2 Education of Respondents Wives Husbands Total Grade School (1-8) 1 2 3 Partial High School (9—11) 10 6 16 High School Diploma 85 55 140 Vocational or Technical Training 5 6 11 Partial College, no degree 63 55 118 Associate's Degree 3 6 9 Bachelor's Degree 38 57 95 Master's Degree 5 12 17 Doctorate 0 4 4 Professional Degree 0 7 7 Total 210 210 420 In 1976 the median years of education completed by Utah residents eighteen years old and over was 12.8. The percentages of males and fe- males 18-24 years old who were high school graduates were almost identical with 85.4 percent of males and 85.6 percent of females. There was a slightly larger difference in the 24+ year olds; 79.8 percent of males and 77.7 percent of the females were high school graduates or above (Fjelsted & Hachman, 1979). A larger percentage of the respondents in this study had an educa- tional level of high school graduate or above than is true of the state's population. Of the husbands, 96 percent had a high school diploma or above and this was the case for 95.5 percent of the wives. One reason for the respondents having a higher level of education than the population of the 60 state could be the ages of the sample. Younger persons generally have a higher educational level and the oldest respondents in the study were in the 56-60 category. Employment Most of the wives in the study, 57 percent, reported they were full- time homemakers while 43 percent worked either part- or full-time. With regard to employment, the sample was much like the state's female pop- ulation. Sargent (1978) reported that in 1977, 48.4 percent of Utah's women sixteen years of age and older were in the labor force, which is de— fined as either having or looking for a job. The 90 women in the study who were employed indicated their occupa- tions. The occupations listed by the respondents were distributed much like the distribution reported for the state's employed women in the 1970 census. More of the respondents, however, were in the categories "pro- fessional, technical and kindred" and fewer in "sales" and "operatives" than was true for the state's population (PC (1) - C46). The women, by and large, were employed in occupations usually thought to be women's jobs. The data are summarized in Table 3. The largest percentage of the men in the study were in the category "professional, technical and kindred," a category that was over repres- ented in comparison to the distribution reported in the 1970 census. "Sales workers" was also over represented, and "clerical and kindred" was under represented. There were three husbands who were not employed at the time of the study. One was a full-time student and two were disabled and could not work in the labor market (see Table 4). 61 Table 3 Occupations of Women 1970 census Study respondents Professional, technical & kindred .17 .22 Managers & administrators .04 .02 Sales workers .08 .19 Clerical & kindred .38 .33 Craftsmen, foremen & .02 .02 kindred workers Operatives .09 .03 Laborers .01 --— Service workers .21 .22 Total 1.00 1.03 Table 4 Occupations of Men 1970 census Study respondents Professional, technical & kindred .17 .28 Managers & administrators .12 .13 Sales workers .07 .13 Clerical & kindred .07 .01 Craftsmen, foremen & .22 .24 kindred workers Operatives .16 .12 Laborers .08 .05 Service workers .08 .04 Total .97 1.00 62 The participants were asked, "How many hours did you work for pay last week?" They were also asked about time devoted to a second job and to work without pay in a family business or farm. The hours reported here are a total of the hours reported for the three categories, not the hours of paid employment recorded in the time diaries. Most of the women who reported working in the past week reported hours that would indicate part- as opposed to full-time work. The men in the study were, on the average, working at a full-time level. Table 5 Hours Worked for Pay Last Week Wives Husbands Total 0 121 10 131 1—14 29 3 32 15-29 26 6 32 30-44 29 88 117 45+ 5 103 108 Total 210 210 420 Household Income The respondents were asked to indicate their total household income, before taxes, for the previous 12 months. The reported incomes ranged from the category "under $1,000" to the category "$50,000 and over." The incomes of the urban families were, on the average, higher than those of rural families. The median income for the rural families was the "$12,000- $14,999" category while that for urban families was the "$15,000-$19,999" category (see Table 6). 63 Table 6 Household Income Rural Urban Total Under $1,000 1 0 1 $1,000-$1,999 0 0 O $2,000-$2,999 0 0 0 $3,000-$3,999 1 1 2 $4,000-$4,999 1 O 1 $5,000-$5,999 0 O O $6,000-$7,499 6 1 7 $7,500-$9,999 17 1 18 $10,000-$11,999 14 8 22 $12,000-$14,999 20 18 38 $15,000-$19,999 15 33 48 $20,000—$24,999 14 16 30 325,000-349,999 10 22 32 $50,000 and over 2 3 5 The incomes of the families in the sample were close to the estimated incomes for the three counties for 1975 (Population Estimates and Projec- tions, January 1979). The estimated per capita income for Salt Lake County was $4,780 which would have been $19,120 for a family of four. The est- imated per capita income for Iron County was $3,500 and for Washington County it was $3,373. The income for a family of four would have been $14,000 for Iron County and $13,492 for Washington County. 64 Church Affiliation and Activity As church membership and activity are variables to be considered in relation to time allocated to household tasks, the study respondents were asked three questions relating to religion. The responses are summarized in Tables 7, 8, and 9. Table 7 Church Membership Do you belong to a church? Husbands Wives Total Yes 176 187 363 No 23 16 39 No response 11 7 18 Total 210 210 420 Table 8 Denomination If yes, which church do you belong to? Husbands Wives Total L.D.S. 145 159 304 Catholic 12 12 24 Protestant 16 14 30 Other 3 2 5 Total 176 187 363 65 As expected, the denomination most represented was L.D.S. (Mormon) with approximately 72 percent of the total sample indicating that cate- gory. Eleven husbands and seven wives did not complete the question- naire. These were, by and large, the same respondents who did not com- plete the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Asking about degree of activity in one's church gives a different view of the importance of religion in a person's life than just asking what church the person belongs to. If the 58 husbands who indicated they are inactive or not very active are added to the 23 who indicated they do not belong to a church, the total is 82, or 39 percent of the sample. The comparable figure for the women would be 25 Percent. This data supported the popular belief that women are more active religiously than men, with 35 percent of the husbands and 44 percent of the wives indicating they are very active. Table 9 Level of Activity About how active are you? Husbands Wives Total Inactive or not 58 36 94 very active Active 49 60 109 Very active 73 93 166 CHAPTER V FINDINGS This chapter contains descriptive data and test results for the questions under study. Each section contains a statement of the research question, frequency data for the variables under study and summary re- sults of the statistical tests employed. Question 1 Is the amount of time spent in household tasks in Utah families simi- lar to the amount reported by researchers who have studied other popula— tions? The mean time spent doing household tasks by all family members was 9 hours and 30 minutes per day. Table 10 summarizes the mean contribu— tions of wives, husbands, and all family members. Although the defini- tion of homemaker used in the study did not assume that all the homemakers would be women, in all 210 families surveyed, the wife listed herself as the homemaker. Table 10 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks Per Day Mean time Standard deviation Wife 6 hrs. 37 min. 154.74 Husband 1 hr. 47 min. 100.0 All family members 9 hrs. 30 min. 212.41 66 67 There was substantial variation in the time allocated to household tasks by the families studied. The homemaker who reported the least time doing household tasks had spent an average of 44 minutes during the two recorded days. The largest amount recorded by a homemaker was 14 hours and 44 minutes. Husbands' time ranged from no time spent on house— hold tasks to 8 hours and 15 minutes. The time recorded for all family members, which would include wife, husband, and children ranged from a low of 1 hour and 55 minutes to a high of 21 hours and 49 minutes (see Tables 11, 12, and 13). Table 11 Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives Number Percent Less than 1 hour 2 1 1 hr. - 3 hrs. 59 min. 32 15 4 hrs. - 6 hrs. 59 min. 79 37.6 7 hrs. - 9 hrs. 59 min. 80 38 10 hrs. - 12 hrs. 59 min. 14 7 13+ hrs. 3 1.4 Total 210 100.0 The time recorded by the homemakers for contributions to household tasks from "other" workers indicated that little help was received from non-family members. The contributions from "other" workers, which in- cluded both paid and non-paid workers, averaged less than five minutes per family per day for the two days recorded. 68 Table 12 Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands Number Percent 0 10 4.8 1 min. - 59 min. 78 37.1 1 hr. - 1 hr. 59 min. 53 25.2 2 hrs. - 2 hrs. 59 min. 30 14.3 3 hrs. — 3 hrs. 39 min. 14 6.7 4 hrs. — 4 hrs. 59 min. 15 7.1 5 hrs. - 8 hrs. 59 min. 10 4.8 Total 210 100.0 Table 13 Time Per Day Spent Doing Household Tasks by All Family Members Number Percent 1 hr. - 4 hrs. 59 min. 18 8.6 5 hrs. - 8 hrs. 59 min. 85 40.4 9 hrs. — 12 hrs. 59 min. 71 33.8 13 hrs. - 16 hrs. 59 min. 27 12.9 17 hrs. - 21 hrs. 49 min. 9 4.3 69 The hours per day spent on all household tasks by all family members in Utah was 9 hours and 30 minutes. As the research design used in Utah was the same as that used to gather data in New York in 1977 (Sanik, 1979) and similar to that used to gather the New York data in 1967-68 (Walker & Woods, 1976) the figures can be carefully compared. In 1967-68 New York families averaged 10.5 hours a day to housework by all family members and 11.3 hours in 1977. Utah families devoted approximately one hour less to household tasks than the New York families studied in 1967—68 and close to two hours less than the 1977 sample. Comparison can also be made with the data from the national sample analyzed by Nickols (1976) even though child care, home repairs and yard work, and shopping were not included in the data she analyzed. Nickols reported a total of 34.8 hours per week contributed to household work by husbands and wives. If the categories "shopping; maintenance of home, yard, car and pets; physical care of family members; and nonphysical care of family members" are eliminated from the Utah time data, the total time spent on the remaining tasks by husbands and wives was 30 hours and 48 minutes per week. This is approximately four hours per week less than the families analyzed by Nickols. Utah families spent less time doing household tasks than the New York families studied in 1967-68 and those studied in 1977. They also spent less time doing housework than the families Nickols studied. Question 2 To what extent are household tasks shared by the husband and the wife? Of the total time devoted by all household members to all household tasks, 70 percent was contributed by the wives, 18.5 percent by husands 70 and 11.5 percent by children. When the time contributed by just husbands and wives is considered, 79 percent was contributed by wives and 21 per— cent by husbands. A clearer understanding of the division of household tasks between husbands and wives can be gained by examining Table 14. Table 14 Time Per Day Spent Doing Individual Household Tasks Wives Husbands Mean s.d Mean s.d Food preparation 1 hr. 19 min. 45.5 7 min. 13.4 Dishwashing 31 min. 20.2 2 min. 6.6 Shopping 37 min. 38.8 13 min. 25.7 Housecleaning 1 hr. 17 min. 56.5 3 min. 13.3 Maintenance of 29 min. 57.7 47 min. 77.5 home, yard, car and pets Care of clothing 23 min. 32.8 .5 min. 2.7 and household linens Construction of cloth- 16 min. 38.9 .2 min. 2.0 ing and household linens Physical care of 58 min. 75.7 10 min. 19.9 family members Nonphysical care of 34 min. 41.2 14 min. 24.9 family members Management 14 min. 29.0 11 min. 33.1 The category where husbands made their largest contributions was "Maintenance of home, yard, car and pets." Forty-seven of their total one hour and 47 minutes spent doing all household tasks were allocated to this 71 category. The tasks in this category are considered to be traditional male responsibilities. The remaining one hour was unevenly distributed among the other nine tasks. Shopping, physical care of family members, nonphysical care of family members and management all received alloca- tions of at least ten minutes a day. The wives in the study spent time in all of the ten categories listed and in all but the "maintenance of home, yard, car and pets" category, spent more time than husbands. The category where the contributions were closest to equal was "management" with 14 minutes contributed by wives and 11 minutes by husbands. The extent of sharing of household tasks by husbands and wives, on the average, was limited. A safe generalization would be that women did most of the tasks within the home and men were only marginally involved in anything except maintenance of home, yard, car and pets. The tradi- tional division of labor prevailed. Question 3 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary with the age of the husband and the wife? There was not a linear relationship between age and time spent doing household tasks by the wives or the husbands. Pearson's r for the home- makers' age and household work time was -.0874, indicating no linear re- lationship. For the husbands' age and household work time the Pearson's r was .0446. Question 4 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the level of education of the husband and the wife? 72 The husbands were grouped according to the highest level of ed- ucation they had completed. The time spent doing household tasks by husbands did not consistently increase nor decrease with an increase in the husbands' level of education (see Table 15). The husbands who contributed the least time, 87 minutes per day, were high school grad- uates and those who contributed the most time, 134 minutes, were those with a bachelor's degree. The difference between the smallest and largest contributions was 47 minutes per day. As shown in Table 16, when an analysis of variance was used to test for a difference between the means, the results were not statistically significant. Table 15 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Their Level of Education Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than H. S. grad. 8 97 97.55 H. S. grad. 55 87 64.10 Beyond H. S. grad. 67 101 101.66 Bachelor's degree 57 134 115.41 Grad. or prof. degree 23 110 119.16 73 mqw.ommm mow onc.mq .mwamnmsm mo mucmwum> mo wwmhama< oH maan 74 When the husbands' time spent doing household tasks was analyzed according to the wives' level of education, some marked differences appeared. The smallest contribution, 97 minutes, came from husbands whose wives were in the category "beyond high school" which included those women who had attended college but had not graduated, those with an associate's degree, and those who had vocational or technical train- ing. The largest contribution came from the husbands of wives who were in the "graduate or professional degree" category. The husbands of the five women in that category averaged 190 minutes per day doing household tasks (see Table 17). The analysis of variance was not statistically significant, as shown in Table 18. Table 17 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Wives' Level of Education Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than H. S. grad. 11 121 93.46 H. S. grad. 85 101 89.50 Beyond H. S. grad. 71 97 83.73 Bachelor's degree 38 123 130.59 Grad. or prof. degree 5 190 198.69 75 mmq.ommm mom wom.~mmamo~ manouw cfisufiz mem.o Hmm.H mnw.mqme q qu.mwmmm museum ammsumm .wwm m mumsvm cum: .m.w moumswm mo 85m ouusom mEHH xuoz vaonomaom .mwsmnwnm cam cowumozwm mo Hm>mA .mo>w3 mo moamwum> mo mwmkamcm we deans 76 Of the five women who had earned an M. S. degree, four were em— ployed full-time and one was a full-time homemaker. The time contri- buted to household tasks by the husbands of the four employed women ranged from one hour and 20 minutes to 8 hours and 15 minutes per day. The husband who contributed the most time was disabled and did not have paid employment. During the two days recorded, he contributed time to all household tasks except construction of clothing and household linens and physical care of family members. The amount of time spent doing household tasks by housewives varied according to their level of education, but not in a consistent pattern. As can be seen in Table 19, wives in the category "bachelor's degree" spent more time doing household tasks than women in the other four cate- gories. Women in the "graduate or professional degree" category allocated the least amount of time to household tasks of all the groups. This is interesting as their husbands allocated more time to household tasks than did husbands of women with less education (see Table 17). Table 19 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Level of Education Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than H. S. grad. 11 373 164.57 H. S. grad. 85 385 160.70 Beyond H. S. grad. 71 400 131.86 Bachelor's degree 38 434 180.95 Grad. or prof. degree 5 346 103.86 77 An analysis of variance was used to test for a difference between the means of the five groups. As shown in Table 20, the results were not statistically significant. When examining the time homemakers spent doing household tasks according to husbands' level of education an interesting trend can be seen. Except for the wives in the category "less than high school grad- uate" there was an increase in the time allocated to housework by wives as their husbands' level of education increased (see Table 21). Table 21 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Husbands' Level of Education Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than H. S. grad. 8 416 93.38 H. S. grad. 55 366 136.17 Beyond H. S. grad. 67 403 163.22 Bachelor's degree 57 408 159.00 Grad. or prof. degree 23 425 175.14 The wives of high school graduates spent less time doing housework than the wives in the other four categories. Wives with husbands in the "graduate or professional degree" category spent the greatest amount of time. The analysis of variance results, however, were not statistically significant as shown in Table 22. 78 oom.ooam~ mom qN~.canHm¢ masoum Gwnufiz Hqu.o oom.o maq.mmnom q oam.a~omw masouw amoBuom .wfim m ohmsvm cmmz .m.w moumsvm mo 83m mounom mafia xuoB waonowaom hum mam cowumunwm mo Hm>oq .mo>w3 Mo moamwum> mo mfimmams< om manna 79 o-.om¢m~ mom wmm.mmofifimq mmsouw awnuwz omn¢.o cmw.o om>.~mmo~ q www.0nmmw masouw amoBuom .me m mumswm sum: .m.w moumsvm mo 55m wousom mafia xuo3 caonmmsom .mm>fi3 mam c0flumoswm mo Ho>o4 .mwamamsm mo mocmwum> mo mfimxama< NN waamH 80 Question 5 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the hours of paid employment of the husband and the wife? When analyzing possible relationships between time spent in paid employment and time spent doing household tasks, there are two relation- ships that are of interest. The first is what is the relationship be- tween the person's hours of paid employment and his or her time spent doing housework? The second is the possible relationship between the time spent in paid employment by the respondent and the household work time of the spouse. The time analyzed was the time recorded in the time diary for household work time and for paid work. A hypothetical work week was constructed by averaging the time spent in paid employment for the two days recorded and then taking five times that figure for a five day work week. Since data were gathered from the respondents on all days of the week, including Saturday and Sunday, this figure could be an under-esti- mate of the hours actually worked during the week. The figures reported in this section for hours of paid employment are not the same as those reported in the description of the sample. The hours reported in that section were based on a question in the question— naire which asked, "How many hours did you work for pay last week?" The subjects were divided into three groups according to their hours of paid employment. The mean minutes per day spent doing household tasks for each group were computed. These data and the results of the statisti— cal analysis are reported in this section. When husbands' household work time was broken down by their hours of paid employment there was a decrease in the time husbands spent doing house— 81 hold tasks as their hours of paid employment increased. The data are presented in Table 23. Table 23 Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than 1 hour 14 188 156.50 1-35 hours 93 126 107.74 35+ hours 103 79 70.49 An analysis of variance was used to test for a difference between the means. There was a difference, significant at the 0.000 level. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 24. When husbands' hours of paid employment and household work were correlated, Pearson's r was — .3610, significant at .001. 82 0000.0 eeo.eeea now omm.emmmmwe neaonw daeaaz 0m0.HH Hmn.quHOH N Hoq.mmNNON maaouw amo3umm .wam m mumsvm ammz .m.0 mmumsum mo 65m ouusom mafia xuoz waonomsom mam 0am ucoahoHaEm wfimm mo musom .mwamnmsm mo oucmwum> mo mam>ams< em deans 83 Husbands' hours of paid employment could be related to the time wives devote to household tasks. As the husband spends more hours in paid work, the hours the wife spends doing householdtasks might increase to com- pensate for time the husband is not able to contribute. While there were differences between the means of the three groups in the expected direction, the differences were not statistically significant (see Tables 25 & 26). Table 25 Husbands' Hours of Paid Employment and Wives' Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than 1 hour 14 361 157.99 1-35 hours 93 392 148.48 35+ hours 103 407 160.01 The correlation between husbands' hours of paid employment and wives' household work time resulted in a Pearson's r of .1132. This was not significant at the .05 level. 84 H00.memm mom 000.m0~¢00q mmaouw cfinuwz mmNm.0 Hq0.0 0m~.0mmm~ N 00N.0¢m0m mmaouw ammSumm .me m mumsvm amoz .w.0 moumsvm mo 85m muusom mafia xuoz waonmwnom .mm>H3 0cm ua0850H08m wfimm mo musom .mwamnmsm mo oucmfium> mo mfimxamc< 0N manmfi 85 As would be expected, the hours the housewives spent doing house- hold tasks decreased as their hours of paid employment increased. There was a dramatic decrease when one compares those who were considered full- time homemakers (worked less than one hour per week) and those who worked 35 or more hours and were considered to be employed full-time in the la- bor market. The analysis of variance was significant at the 0.000 level (see Tables 27 & 28). Table 27 Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than 1 hour 147 443 143.15 1‘35 hours 51 313 119.32 35+ hours 12 195 107.94 When wives' paid employment time and household work time were cor- related a Pearson's r of - .5213, significant at .001 was obtained. 86 emo.eemme Rom ewa.emeemmm neaonw canoes cooo.o ome.em o~w.oLeme N one.emmmeea nanonw ebbsedm .wam m mumsvm amoz .m.v moumzum mo Sam mouaom mafia xuoz waonowsom pom 0am undemoamam wfimm mo musom .mo>w3 mo mo:maum> mo mfimhama< 0N oHDmH 87 In order to answer the often asked question, "Doesn't the husband help more with housework when his wife works?” an analysis of variance was used to analyze the husbands' household work time broken down by the wives' hours of paid employment. There was no significant difference between the means as shown in Tables 29 and 30. Table 29 Wives' Hours of Paid Employment and Husbands' Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. Less than 1 hour 147 106 98.87 1-35 hours 51 106 94.80 35+ hours 12 129 139.20 Although the husbands of the women who were employed full-time did spend more time doing household tasks than husbands of those who worked less, the difference was not large. The Pearson's r for wives' hours of paid employment correlated with husbands' household work time was .0611, which was not significant at .05. 88 Hee.eaooH Rom «no.moemwom neaonw canoe: eeae.o mam.o mem.oem~ N new.ammm neaonw abdaudm mumsvm can: .m.0 moumsvm mo 83m ouusom .wem a mEHH xuoz waosmmsom .mwcmnmsm 0cm uamESOHaEm wfimm mo mason .mm>w3 mo mosmwum> mo mfiwzamq< om dandy 89 Question 6 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to church affiliation and activity of the husband and wife? The respondents were asked if they belonged to a church and if so to which denomination. Eleven husbands and seven wives did not complete the questionnaire. Of those who did respond to the questions, 88 percent of the husbands and 92 percent of the wives indicated an affiliation with a denomination. The vast majority, 82 percent, of the husbands who indicated a denom- ination, indicated L. D. S. This group of husbands contributed less time to household tasks than any of the other groups. As can be seen in Table 31, time spent doing housework ranged from a low of 102 minutes to a high of 180 minutes. Table 31 Husbands' Church Affiliation and Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. L. D. S. (Mormon) 145 102 97.24 Catholic 12 121 117.97 Protestant 16 135 146.54 Other 3 180 108.89 No Church Affiliation 23 113 84.54 An analysis of variance was used to test for differences between the means. The results shown in Table 32 were not statistically significant. 9O qmq.00q0~ «0H 0mN.qw©nHON masouw dwnuwz mofim.0 me.0 000.0mmw q qwm.~0mqm mmsouw now3uom .mHm m mumsum cmoz .m.0 mmumsum mo 85m mousom mafia xuoz waosomnom mam 0am coaumfiafiwm< nousno .mvcmnmsm mo mocmwum> mo mammamam Nm deeds 91 The church affiliations listed by the wives were much like those of the husbands. The time spent doing household tasks varied greatly by church affiliation, from a low of 154 minutes to a high of 420 min— utes, as shown in Table 33. Table 33 Wives' Church Affiliation and Household Work Time Mean mins. N housework s.d. L. D. S. (Mormon) 159 406 142.80 Catholic 12 420 166.52 Protestant 14 338 144.76 Other 2 154 153.80 No Church Affiliation 16 385 237.63 The Catholic women spent more time doing household tasks than any other group while the two women who belonged to "other" religions spent the least. As can be seen in Table 34, the results of the analysis of variance were not statistically significant. 92 Nm0.0wmmm 00H www.0m00noq musouw cwnufiz awao.o ewm.H ea~.wweee a mmm.~maeme neaonm dddsbdm .mam m mumsvw :mmz .m.0 moumdvm 00 Sam mousom oEfiH xpoz waonomaom new man coaumHHwa< cousnu .mm>a3 mo mocmwum> mo mwmkamq< cm maan 93 The respondents who indicated a church affiliation were asked to indicate how active they considered themselves to be. More of the hus- bands and wives indicated they were "very active" than checked the oth- er two categories. The least amount of time spent doing household tasks was by the husbands in the "very active" category. When time of wives was analyzed, those in the "inactive or not very active" category spent less time doing housework than the women in the other two categor- ies (see Tables 35 & 36). As seen in Tables 37 and 38, the results of the analysis of variance were not statistically significant. Table 35 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Their Level of Church Activity Mean mins. N housework s.d. Inactive ot not 58 108 104.05 very active Active ' 49 117 108.58 Very active 73 98 99.86 94 Table 36 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Level of Church Activity Mean mins. N housework s.d. Inactive or not 36 360 136.98 very active Active 60 419 150.27 Very active 93 401 145.53 95 aea.ameoH Aka emo.ekmoome neaonw daenaz NmH0.0 00¢.0 HON.00Nm N Hoq.Nmm0H masouw smm3uom .me m mumsvm and: .m.w moumsvm mo saw mouaom mEHH xuoz cHonomsom pause 0cm muH>Huo< nousao mo Hm>oa .mvcmnmsm mo mocmfium> mo mfimkams< mm mHan 96 mem.o~NHN ewe mok.a~okeam neaonw manna: mmm~.0 wa.H NN0.0H00m N mqw.mm00m masouw cmwBumm .wam m mumscm can: .m.v moumsvm mo 85m ouusom mEHH xuoz vaosomaom uwonH 0cm >uw>fluo< souszo mo Ho>mq .mo>w3 mo mosmwum> mo mfimzama< mm manmh 97 Question 7 Will the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the sex role ideology of the husband and the wife? The sex role ideology of the respondents was assessed using the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), a paper and pencil test. The test was to be completed separately by the husbands and wives. Inspection of the data indicated that this procedure had been followed by the respondents. The test consists of twenty masculine, twenty feminine, and twenty neutral personality characteristics. Masculinity and femininity scores were gen— erated for each subject and then group medians for the masculinity and femininity scores for the subject population were computed. On the bases of these scores each subject was put into one of the four classifications. The classifications include: 1. Masculine: subjects who score above the masculinity median and below the femininity median. 2. Feminine: subjects who score above the femininity median and below the masculinity median. 3. Androgynous: subjects who score above both medians. 4. Undifferentiated: subjects who score below both medians. Time spent doing household tasks was computed separately for men and for women who were classified as "masculine," "feminine,' and "androgyn- ." The "undifferentiated" subjects, six women and ten men, were not ous included in the analysis. Seventeen men and three women did not complete the questionnaire. The time attributed to household tasks by the androgynous men and masculine men were nearly the same with 100 minutes and 111 minutes per day respectively. The nine men who were classified as "feminine" spent 98 approximately 50 percent more time doing housework than men in the other two categories. Table 39 shows the mean minutes per day spent doing household tasks by the three groups. Table 40 summarizes the results of the analysis of variance test, which were not statistically signifi— cant . Table 39 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Husbands According to Their Sex Role Ideology Mean mins. N housework s.d. Androgynous 120 100 86.85 Masculine 54 111 115.05 Feminine 9 156 125.52 99 mwNN.0 0mm.qwm0 00H 000.00NmNNH masouw cwnufiz qu.H Nmm.0quH N ¢0H.H0mwN masouw ammzumm .35 m mumsvm and: .m.0 mommacm mo 85m mounom mafia xuoz vfiosomsom ufimca 0am xwoaoovH maom xom .mwcmnmsm mo oucmwum> mo mwmxams< 0e oHan 100 The results for the wives were in the direction predicted by the theory underlying the BSRI. The women who were classified as "mas- culine" according to the test, spent less time doing household tasks than the other two groups. The "feminine" women, as shown in Table 41, spent more time than the two other groups of women. Table 41 Time Spent Doing Household Tasks by Wives According to Their Sex Role Ideology Mean mins. N housework s.d. Androgynous 93 377 151.15 Masculine 11 347 178.95 Feminine 97 422 148.37 101 0000.0 w~m.000NN 00H 00m.00qmmmq madouw awsuwz 005.N 0mm.m00N0 N mm¢.NNH¢NH museum cmm3umm .mam m mumsvm sums .w.0 mmumsvm mo 85m mousom mafia xuoz waonmmsom HHoSH 0am %woaom0H oHom xom .mo>H3 mo mocwflum> mo mammamq< Na manna CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This research sought to answer the following questions concerning household work time in Utah two—parent, two-child families: 1. Is the amount of time spent in household tasks in Utah families similar to the amount reported by researchers who have studied other populations? To what extent are household tasks shared the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks age of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks level of education of the husband and the Does the time spent doing household tasks by the husband and vary according to the vary according to the wife? vary according to the hours of paid employment of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the church affiliation and activity of the husband and the wife? Does the time spent doing household tasks vary according to the sex role ideology of the husband and the wife? Discussion Some significant findings resulted which are not generalized beyond this study's sample. significant, were found. 102 Other interesting results, though not statistically 103 Household Work Time (”The time Utah families devoted to household work was similar to that reported by other researchers using similar methodology (Walker & Woods, 1976; Nickols, 1976; & Sanik, 1979):] There were large differences among the times reported by the 210 families studied. If the time diaries had been kept for longer than two days, the differences may have become smal- ler. The amount of time devoted to housework by the families in the course of a week or a month might have been more similar than it was on the two days recorded. When the data are available from the other states participating in the NE 113 research project, a more complete picture of household work time will be available. Contributions of Husbands and Wives The results of this study were in agreement with studies of house- work conducted by other researchers including Lopata, 1971; Vanek, 1973; Oakley, 1974; Berk, 1976; Nickols, 1976; Lovingood and Firebaugh, 1978; and Sanik, 1979. Most household tasks were done by women. In this study, when only time of husbands and wives was considered, 79 percent was con- tributed by wives, compared to 21 percent by husbands. The average contri— bution of husbands was 1 hour and 47 minutes compared to 6 hours and 37 minutes for wives per day. When examining the individual household tasks it was apparent that the traditional division of labor prevailed. The husbands who were stud- ied made their largest contribution to "maintenance of home, yard, car, and pets,‘ all tasks usually considered to be in the male domain. WOmen, on the other hand, contributed time to all ten household tasks. 104 There were ten husbands in the study who, during the two days re- corded, averaged six hours or more of housework. The time diaries of the husbands were examined to gain insight into the specific activities they performed. The tasks they did which resulted in large contributions of time included working on income tax, painting windows, filling out applications for a loan, and digging out a tree in the yard. The only man who had averaged over six hours of household work and who contri- buted time to almost all tasks was disabled and not employed in the labor market. He was not, however, designated as the homemaker, "the adult with the major responsibility for operating the household." Large time inputs into housework by husbands seem to result from unusual circum— stances or seasonal tasks as opposed to being a regular occurrence. eat If there is a change in attitude about housework responsibility among younger couples compared to older couples, the attitude had not been translated to action by the couples studied. There may, however, have been constraints such as paid employment which prevented a more eq- ual sharing of household tasks. Education There were no statistically significant results when education and household work time were analyzed. There were, however, some interesting results. The results are in concurrence with those reported by Nye (1976); the relationship between education and housework was not linear. When husbands were grouped according to the highest level of ed— ucation completed, the husbands with a bachelor's degree made the largest contribution to household tasks. When grouped according to the wives' 105 educational level, the largest contribution came from husbands of the women with a graduate degree. Four of the five women in that category were employed full-time. They were the women who spent the least time doing housework. As the N for this group was very small the results should be regarded as tentative. Employment The only statistically significant results found in this research re— sulted from the analyses which related employment time to household work time. For both husbands and wives there was a significant inverse rela— tionship between their time in paid employment and their time spent doing household tasks. The time husbands contributed to housework did not in- crease greatly when their wives were employed full-time compared to those whose wives were full-time homemakers. This finding agrees with the con- clusions of Cook (1975), Nickols (1976), Berk (1976), and Robinson (1977a). Religious Affiliation and Activity There were differences in time contributed to household tasks by hus- bands and wives belonging to different denominations. There were also dif- ferences according to how active the respondents were in their church. None of the differences, however, were statistically significant. Sex Role Ideology While the results of the analysis of sex role ideology, as measured by the Bem Sex Role Inventory, were not statistically significant, they were interesting. Both husbands and wives who were categorized as "mas- culine" spent less time doing household tasks than the other two groups. Also, for both husbands and wives, the most time spent doing housework was done by those in the category "feminine." 106 Bem's (1976) research indicated that androgynous males were willing, in laboratory experiments, to perform behavior, regardless of whether the culture would label it as male or female. The "androgynous" males in this study did just eleven fewer minutes of housework than did the "fem- inine" males, but much less than the women in any of the three categories. When the time spent in the individual household tasks by the three groups of men were analyzed, there were no significant differences. In Bem's (1976) laboratory research, the "androgynous" females were also willing to perform cross-sex behavior. An examination of the time the housewives contributed to "maintenance of home, yard, car, and pets" revealed that the times for the three groups were almost identical. The "androgynous" females did not put more time into the one household task usually considered to belong to men. The results for the husbands and the wives may have been different if some constraints such as the demands of paid employment had not been present. It may also be that a measure of personality traits is not a good indicator of everyday activities. Perhaps such a test would be a better predictor of how much one would enjoy specific tasks or the satis- faction one would gain from doing them than of the time one spends doing them. Conclusions The conclusions that can be inferred from this research are: 1. Household tasks required a significant amount of time for the Utah families studied and most of that time was contributed by the wives. 107 2. Husbands contributed very little time to household tasks and their contributions were mainly to the maintenance tasks, traditionally considered to be the husbands' responsibility. 3. Time spent in paid work reduced the time spent in housework for both women and men. 4. Time contributed to household tasks was very stable for men and women. It did not change significantly with changes in age, ed- ucation, church affiliation and activity, or sex role ideology. 5. When housework time and time spent in paid employment are com- bined, women employed full-time had less discretionary time than their male counterparts. Implications There has been and continues to be an increasing number of married women in the labor force. There have also been predictions that more women will seek paid employment in the future. Research, this study and others cited, have documented that men are not yet sharing, in any mean- ingful way, the work that is necessary in order that homes may function and care be provided for family members. While scholars have predicted that families where earning a living and caring for home and family are equally shared will become more prevalent in the future, this "best of all possible worlds" has not yet appeared for most families. If there is to be an equitable distribution of work and leisure be- tween husbands and wives, Changes must occur. How to bring about change is a difficult matter. Much of housework is not enticing; it is routine, the results are either not tangible or do not last long, and tasks must be repeated over and over again. As Tognoli (1979) points out, there is an ambivalence toward housework and homemaking roles in our culture. 108 While housekeeping is glorified in the media, men often have a disdain for it. There would seem at present little hope that most housekeeping tasks can be changed to become attractive enough to men that they would spontaneously participate in them on a more equal basis with their wives. It is probably true that not all women would welcome more participation from their husbands. Scanzoni (1979) suggested three possible strategies for changing male family roles, for increasing their participation in household tasks. They include: 1. self interest strategy——show men how they personally would bene- fit from the change. 2. prosocial or altruistic strategy—-encourage men to see it is best for women if these changes take place, convince them it is only right and fair that women participate fully. 3. negotiation and conflict-—process of give and take, concessions and compromises in exchange for benefits. The parties concerned end up with something, but not everything they originally wanted. Undoubtedly, different strategies or combinations of strategies would work in different families. An interesting feature of all three of Scan- zoni's proposed strategies is that they put the responsibility on women to motivate men to become more involved in home and family care. A positive approach to change would be to study families, assuming some exist, where household tasks are defined as family work. Implied in this definition is the idea that family members who benefit from the goods and services produced would also be responsible to do a fair share in pro- ducing them. Insight into how these families function and how they came to be, could be helpful in promoting change. Studying how such families 109 function could aid other families who are attempting a redefinition of family responsibilities. As both Berger (1979) and Pleck (1979) warn, not all of the consequences of attempting change in family roles are im- mediately apparent and not all are going to be positive for husbands, wives, and children. However, Berger (1979, p. 643) states: Challenging the limits of conventional sex role ideology will increase the chance that men and women can find out what they are really like, that people can learn what they truly love and can, however haltingly, embody in action. This is an op- portunity which, like all opportunities has its price. Further Research This study attempted to measure contributions to household tasks of husbands and wives by comparing the number of minutes-per day that each spent in housework activities. This methodology, particularly when studies using it are carried out at different times and in different areas of the country, provides answers to important questions that are often asked by husbands and wives, scholars, lawyers, and legislators. It does not answer other, equally important questions. An area of study related to household tasks is the issue of quantity of time devoted to the tasks related to the quality of the work done and to the subsequent outcomes. Most individuals would agree that not every- one accomplishes the same amount of work in an hour. One person may clean just one room in an hour while another may clean the whole house. Obviously there are differences in the quality of the work accomplished. The first person may have done a thorough cleaning job while the second may have done a hurried, haphazard job. The outcomes of the work of the two persons would be quite different, while each would have recorded an hour of housecleaning. Research techniques are needed to take these dif- ferences into account. 110 A second area of research that could be pursued is the feelings in- dividuals have toward household tasks, both the work itself and the out- come. Individuals, of course, vary in their feelings about household work in general and also toward specific tasks. The feeling can vary from intense dislike to pleasure. While one can dislike doing a speci- fic task there is also the possibility that the satisfaction gained by completing the task can out weight the dislike of the work. Satisfaction can come from the product created, such as good food produced by cooking or from the satisfaction of having completed a disliked task. How do feelings toward tasks relate to the time spent on them, to the quality of the work done and to the satisfaction from having completed them? Another area of concern related to household tasks is shared time. How much of household work is done by individuals working alone and how much reflects time that was being shared by two or more family members? Davey and Paolucci (1980), after examining the 1967-68 Cornell time study data, concluded that family members do little household work together. Interest in shared time spent doing household tasks is primarily related to two issues. The first is the concern with how much time family members spend together. If feelings of responsibility for other family members, caring, and affection are developed through interaction, then time spent performing household tasks together is an avenue for achieving this goal. A second point often made in relation to shared time is that it is through doing household tasks that young family members are taught skills that they will need as adults. If they do not learn how to do household tasks while working with parents or older siblings, how will this neces- sary learning take place? During this shared time the human resources 111 of children are developed, resources that will be useful not only in a home setting but also in school and in the labor market. As more and more women enter the labor market it will become in- creasingly necessary that housework cease being regarded as women's work and come to be defined as family work. Are there families where house- hold work is regarded as family work and all family members equitable contribute to carrying out the necessary tasks? In-depth case studies of a small number of such families could pro- vide information that would be useful to other families. How did house- work come to be shared? Was it always shared? How was opposition to sharing by a spouse or child overcome or was there no opposition? How are pressures toward a more traditional arrangement from individuals out- side the family handled by family members? What satisfactions do they receive from their arrangement? If the predictions of increased labor force participation of women are correct, answers to these questions will become imperative. Household work--what is done, how, and by whom--is an intriguing area of research. As resources available to families continue to change while basic needs remain, what adjustments will be made? APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE HOUSEHOLD CODE: 00 NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE I 112 Would you give me information about the meals prepared at home yourday, whether they were eaten at home or elsewhere. If the total time for preparing the meal,or sunk was less man 3 minutes, do not include it. Start with the first meal of the day. . 1. Recording Day I: Recording Day II: 4. Time prepara- 2. What meal was it? fimorning Snoon Sevening anac ipacked lunch comer tion started 1Howmanypersonswereserved? ESS§§gljy 7. How much we 8. What kind of paration was required cooking was done? for each item? 5 ‘5? 5 < §§ % Number - 3_ 39 i=5. §n€ 0' 6. What were the items prepared or eaten z§§ag “a: 3" 3% items atthismeal? §"‘o32 °g§= 0%: 8380 gfiagaga (I H H H H N n 0 H n '9 2 2 u 2 .. u a v 1 n, B n n i n n or ii i n gauge use“! 3323.; 3;" 3 33 h n Fr F! n n n' n n n n “ eyvuv ‘kuuur 9. Recording Day I: Recording Day II; 12. Time prepara- 10. What meal was it? Emorning finoon Kevening 3snack gpackad lunch ‘pother tion started ll.Howmanyperaonswereaerved? ggggggygg. 15. How much we 16. What kind of ' paration was required cooking was done? * foreachitem? 2 ° 3’ 0 u 13. < gg g = Number 3 35." go Fro-E ’0' 14. What weretheitems prepared or eaten zg‘fla’g ‘33,“ E'g 3% items atthismeal? {33.2. 0393.233 EESQ 8%32gga qr annnn vnnnnnrr l llllllllll “Uklll'llk l RKKNH anniah l RN!!! *uuunuu hhflhh banana runner ~uuxayr “HENH nnnfifir‘rH I IN!!! "9 wave coonv euameaa roe-Ia. me. PAGE 1 eaana carnaaai 1. Yesterday did you or any household member eat a meal away from home that had NOT been prepared at home? '8 l0 2. IF YES,howmany times were meals eaten away? I 2 3 t s 6 1 I or noussuom coat. a: A s' :4 t.” ‘ll 31!. .er' .:.3 91'35 17.5.3. it 35 ... - 5.1 A a IUSE SEPARATE COLUMNS FOR EACH MEAL EATEN, WHETHER BY ONE OR MORE THAN ONE FAMILY MEMBER) (1) (2) (3) (4) l5) (6) (7) (8) l9) 3. Recording Day I E j E _i_ 1‘3 3 I 3 Recording Day II a 2 z 2 z 2 2 2 z 4. Starting with the first meal eaten MY "3‘ "7 a morning meal (1) 1 1 3 .1 3 3 S 1" E a noon meal (2) a z z 1 z z ’1 1 i an evening meal (3) 3 a a 3 3 3 fl 5 Ii 8 snack (4) l a a a a s 3 a a 5. How many household members ate this meal? maniac-3m: ban-3n- 2-3 mm m Malabar—J mac-2 “‘8”: mon: MX‘S but" maul-a more”; W4 new.“ 6. From which of the following was this food obtained? , fast food (1) i E 3 3 3 § 3 i 1 school cafeteria (2) z 2 '2 ' 5 . 2 z 3 Industrial cateteria ‘ (a) 3 3 I I S 8 3 8 3‘ private cafeteria (4) 4 a ’1 a I a a' 3 ' a restaurant (5) 3 3 a I S S a 5 g private club or resort (6) a r a g g Q s a g social gathering (7) . 3 2 3' 3 z 2 3 i 3 friend's or relative's house (8) i s i E p E Q a g p. K. , (9i i I i i E 'a‘ i i a 7. What was the approximate cost in- cluding the tip, of this meal for all household members who ate it? 1 1 2.1 3. 1 4.1 FOR OFFICE l USE " . g ONLY 5 6. 7. 8. ‘ i l l l g a . 5 E 5 E i E i 9' E 2 1 1 l_l 111 L14 1 L XL 1 4:00le evil-CI- roe-e. nag. we use car meal HOUSEHOLD c . I 11.. ___,_.°1' 5' 511”" lgéigm; " r-—-—«-D ' 9 l I , L- r ; g1: : :1 E l—Hr—Hdr 11 I I ‘ I L—w—«éfi ‘1 I III I 1.00 you own or rent your home? E t 4' E E 1: E Own or buying Rent Other 2. About what year was your home built? 3. Is your household responsible for care of the yard? mull IF YES, what is the approximate size of the lot that you take care of? 1.11__111 4. How many rooms are in your home? (DO NOT COUNT BATHROOMS OR HALLS) a l 2 1 s s s 1‘ '0 .’.° 7.5- How "WW '0" bathrooms do YOU hat/9h l 2 a u 6. How many partial bathrooms do you have?p' :I‘ '2: g 9;. 7. What is the main source of heat for your home? Electric Gas Oil Coal Wood Other L OK- 8. What is the main source of heat for cooking? Electric Gas Oil Coal Wood Other 9. How many motor vehicles do you have that are used for transportation by members of your hwnholtflolzsassn 10. How many drivers are in your household? 9 . 2 a . s 8 1. 11.00 you have any household pets? .933. 12. What is approximate size of your refrigeratorls)? a. Refrigerator 1 b. Refrigerator 2 small (less than 7 cu. ft.) small (less than 7. cu. ft.) medium (7-12 cu. ft.) medium (7-12 cu. ft.) ' large (12.1-19 cu. ft.) large (12.1-19 cu. ft.) extra large ”9.1+ cu. ft.) extra large ”9.1+ cu. It.) not applicable not applicable I3. Is your refrigeratorls) unit: 14. Is your refrigerator/freezerafrost-frae model? a. Refrigerator 1 b. Refrigerator 2 a. Refrigerator 1 b. Refrigerator 2 , 1 door model? 1 door model? ‘Yes, refrigerator only ijes, refrigerator only 1 2 door model? 2 door model? Yes, both freezer/ :Yes, both freezerl. ' not applicable ' not applicable refrigerator refrigerator p, Not applicable 3 Not applicable ‘ No ' " No 15.00 you have a nparate freezarlsl (free standing)? ",5“ " 16 IF YES is your freezer space - '17.ll=1 on MORE FREEZERS, ASK: '3 "ma" “9“ than ‘2 cu. It)? How many of ywr free.mnding * medlum “2'19 cu. ft)? freezers are frost-free? '3' S I 3 g i. .. large “9.1+ cu.'ft.l? f not applicable ' continuous cleaning? u self cleaning? , neither? l—-1 b—i I I V r U PAGE 3 as use see "seal 18. Is your oven FOR OFFICE USE ONLY “‘11:“ UVSA 133:! 'OS memo: emu H W man: Ema-“'0 emu” 0“ .0 HOUSEHOLD CO“: I _15 On how many of the last seven days were the following done by someone in your household? canning, pickling, makingiams and jellies -_.. g‘ freezing food . - __________________ a preparing food for another day ______________ ' shopping for food - ......................... On how many of the last seven days have the following been consciously used to sorrre dishwashing or laundry? N W‘N.” "":U M earns-mus ‘F‘m .n-a :- mas-a ~=e~as~ra~a .1. ‘M‘f’: i 0...: O .M We cooking or ming dishes-m— .1. — alumimum foil or disposable baking pans —————————————————— dhoaabla diapers ---------- disposflle household textiles ------- e ‘ Mz-M an" ”a" sum em : Mnm a coalescence 3? i i ' e Doyouhavea 1: 5th.." ._ - _ .. .1 1 . .-_._4._--__ I ge- E microwave oven?..1.._1..11__-_1111 didrwadrerL- -1- m disposer? '1 trash compactor?. . wadring machine-wtomatic? walling machineunorrautomatic? clothes dryer? -- --- _ f ”wing machlne? vellum cleaner? -——- power garden and/or yard emipment? -1. ————————————— air-conditioner? ——————————————— Q '_w1‘-‘"w- W essaassaush-a .m mnu ns-e meson-lea her male DC-o W“ ens-r .. "‘3 WWWSE-m CC. 4 mru)o-ree>qoz IF YES, identify: Central I 2 ' 3+ room units ‘ Davll ,home someoneelse'shouse martmenthouse Howmanyloadsofclotlreswerewashedonoayl ————— H m ' ' MOW" ------ "'43.: duringlast7days—-—----I .lltf‘ Where was walling done? abome .someoneelse‘shouse apartmentnouse l" L Q Lt Onhowmaryoftlrelastsevendaysdidsorneoneinyourhouselroldr “reiteratecommarciallaundryordryclaaner? a,' use coin operated laundry or dry cleaning equipment? __-_...._._--_.. ‘ do hard weaning? . iron? ...._ 1. 1 . do sawing? - :1: ..... II— 2. 3. 4. 5. HOUSE HOLD CODE : 7' H i‘ 5" ‘3 E 5‘ l 3‘ I 5' ' “6 L'jiié.‘5f£§§?il «3 Y s. 3 E s s 7 95" F“sir“.ia‘iiriii i3 5’. Q9. I" i S 5. i ‘ ' HUME?“ a :1 9 s. a: 2 ii On how many of the last seven days were the following done by a household member for your family: shoppingforitemsorservicespricedoverSlOO? 45f?‘i£§£i~3 special housecleaning? -f’ 1 f { 1 5 ‘ ’u painting, redecorating? {-1 L f4 .5, t S 5 3'3 washing orwaxing motorvelricles? 4 l. i 3 1 5 i 7:: repairingappliancee? QLESSSEZ'Q working in the yard, garden, including harvesting? e I 1 J r 5 t r n werkingonoutsideareasofthehouseorproperty? §€83€§§§q Onhowmanyofthelastsevendayswasanyhouseholdmemberill? ——————— —el2:lcss7 On how many of the last seven days did any household member chauffeur another household member: toand/orfromdoctor,dentistorbarber? 35335532 toand/orfrompaidworlt? 7 orzarser toand/orfrornschoolorclasses? aggggggg to and/or from a social function? a I 2 J 3 s e r to and/or from an organization, including church? § 3: 3 g 3 g g 3 to and/or from an educational or athletic activity? a i g’ a 9 ? fl ‘1 toand/orfromastore? 331233353 On how many of the last seven days were the following modes of transportation used by one or more household members: maven? language cornpanycar? crzsaseru macaw e Misses” 68! 900'? a I z i 4 s e r citvbus? 4338333533 taxi? a I '2 3 a s s ‘1‘. News? #3333253“; other,? 61233561.". In the last seven days, did you or any family 6. 7. member have someone from outside the household - How many hours How much do any of 'the following: ' vuaaaa did it take? did it cost? take care of your children -- in your home? ———————— --~___-_ ‘___ ‘ ‘ take care of your children -- in someone else's home? —- a .. take care of your children« in day care center? ----- . take care of other household memberis)? —————————— do housecleaning? do lawn or yard work? do painting, redecorating? service appliances? work on your motor vehicles? do house maintenance? ----- -- other services? PAGE 5 L t '- .S I) 7. CI'C’OO” 2 p 2 How many of your children, 12-17 years of age, worked for pay I.“ M? o 4 : . v i. u ' IfnoneorNA,gotonextpage. Houseuow (9.095; I J I 7 Z 7 I I PAGE 3 CHILD I CHILD ll CHILD lll What is the age and sex of the child? u u u u I." II n I‘ II I! . a e n '.' I; a g, g .Q What kind of work did he/she do? How many hours did Ire/she work last week? hrs hrs hrs Approximately how much did he/she earn last week? $____ __ S $— " ‘ CHILD Iv ' CHILD v CHILD VI What is the age and sex of the child? a II '3 in E l? B " B as a .' l‘ l' l’ L I! D F! What kind of work did Ire/she do? How many hours did he/she work last week? ___hrs hrs _ _hrs Approximately how much did he/she earn lat weak? 8_ S— _ DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LlNE-—FOR OFFICE USE ONLY WASE§ "fl WAGES 7 V s 7 3 3; 9 . ”‘ 2 i i! I I 1 : z s s“ 5. 5 l ' r i a ._. 4! 1, g “I I _ B E z "‘ l . I _ I _ ‘. i , 3. _ 3,) : s: .L I it rm ‘7 ~ I! 4. : ‘ TIN l——I {J 'I I.” “'Illm' 118 (FOR EACH ADULT ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS) I aunties-.5.) . a. HOUSEHOLD CODE: I W k-as-x-ac—ac-x- : ‘ - 3 I I I _.‘—-_—-..4-. —V— .- —‘- 0“- I I I I HOMEMAKER ADULT I U sexeacaacaxexasu > Wumtuxu LT I. What was the highest grade in school you completed? (IF DEGREE MENTIONED NOTEI 2. Last week were you employed? FOR EACH EMPLOYED ASK: 'fifi 3. Was this for pay? (CODE II For pay, but not at work, example, illness or vacation? (CODE 2) Wiflrout pay, example, family farm or business? (CODE 3I £01 28 SE 4. What kind of work did you do? (IF MORE THAN 1 JOB, ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIRST W 5. What kind of industry or business were you employed in? 6. How many hours did you work for pay last week? H II III as)": 0F¢ H U .0 u“, out“ rose. . maul roar. I cord; arms "on; can)“: roar.) Lev x31 5.1.1 and: toad: swam 7. What is the usual number of hours you work for pay a week? ’1'. (can: '3 U raw... rand: (- 20 It. ; ha "'1 t- 2:37 watt.» enact) CU!” enact. text: to at. g and: coat. . (03:8: Dew (Ouch mac's on 1:31 com: and: Cox. :I and: and: anal: cued: and: III-ad: :43“: Cu)“: pasta 0.3“: 001.1 8. Are you: an hourly wag earner? salaried? on commission? self-employed? other? (0005 n Icooe:a Icooe:n (CODE4II, Icooesn,, oo-nachreaes_a4_. GO TO 0. IO H—H— CH; .3 I'd? on m: I. '1 (I! n I u 9. What is your hourIy wage rate? I” III—l} you_were salaried, seIT-employfl or on commrssnon, what amount did you earn last week? (USE INCOME BEFORE DEDUCTIONSI 9 ( H II 1m “It-‘13 OJ .1“ am I . HI _—.4 —-—q ”It—.4 EC ‘i —_ I——-( -—-1 ——4 uuuuwituuu.u nexus-emannrurwamae . 'ntmmnamibm. '0 7m LN stars-53s.» its 1hr on 54;. we Jill c3319 3!. m1tpxnc-2z-1 ua ”mm and museum DJDJCO-;-4 L. :z .mhu‘. 3E.1F‘3C.Ji but. SI I‘c—ac-Jc-as-x-i k-ac-zt-zc- I ”an 5;. arcaxaa ‘djt-xmdea-qln'IKCE’IC ? ‘chr-nt are. u Ir.» . tuft-n 'u'I ruxuuuno» 2 -uu Immune: an: arms ‘-r~"u1ru~u as. ea ‘ macmmndtoataxenzo. rwt~x~sx~3c~1t~ncm~.~rt~7 (Ox 512.36.. , rumor-133:“ rues-“racer C00“? .WIIC. POIHI. INC. PAGE 7 ¥[I III Adrmuczrmr .1I.‘”§2‘." ‘. wanna: m‘ntteaILnrxw: mm :er21 ext-scavenge . L. 2:01 (ca)! nor cuta- )(‘d‘f— r -"‘¢3:- ' mzm'uxuxadpmgux or (U -. a". Famtm: ("'4‘ v -— c~x~ asuxw and rust ~43:qu (my ' mt. .r— 'O .370 CI' III.” HouseHDI of com; 119 o. i; ‘ I‘ ' i,- c i‘ I: E I I: I ,-—-—4 .. ‘. ., _d::§§$ééh I e—e - a. (I ‘ It I I .‘I.’.§..?:..I: I II I: I I. I I: I. I. I I I I! I. I a 1 a I . I I HOMEMAKER ADULT II ADULT III I. Did you have more than one paid job ‘ last week? (IF NO, 60 TO 0 9I «m m- #0 2.(IF YES.) What kind of work was this? 3.What industry or business was it in? 4.Howmanyhoursdidyouworkforpay .,,,,,,,,,... ,"l..';., "r" " ‘ I-tw-okonthisiob? ......;.? MIMI?” fiWhatistheusual numberofhoursyou nn'II-Icu'rle 'N"'"(!!II §§§§IIHI workforpayperweekonthisiob? '1050lffi'?3‘|'?0?":56f, l. 6. For this second job are you: an hourly wage earner(CODE I) salaried? (CODE 2) _ . . . . oncommission? (c0053), .,,., '2“! EH“ self-employed? (CODE 4) v otherL. (CODE 5) 7. What is your hourly wage for your S S S sacond job? . 8. If you were salaried, self-employed, or on commission for a second job, what amount did you earn last week? S S 3 (USE INCOME BEFORE DEDUCTIONSI - - -- . 9.." you worked without pay in family ' n n u - .. r :r -. - ‘ ; (I businessorfarm,how many hours . 21.2.1“??? :tjggrgfii Qggflgiatl did you work last week? " I“ (‘ 5 ' ‘ ,1 I0. Which category on this card represents the total income before t_a_x_e_s f_o[ 'your household In the past twelve months? This includes wages and—salaries, net income from business or Iann, pensions, dividends, interest, rent, Social Security payments and any other money received by members of VOW "WOW BLOCK our one LETTER ONLY ascetrsuristaa a: coouv nulrulaa roan-a. Inc. PAGE 8 ea one car "seat HOUSEHOLD CODE: Were there unusual weather conditions that affected household members’ time use? on the lst day on the 2nd day Were there any unusual physical conditions or situations regarding your residence that affected household members' time use? on the 1st day on the 2nd day Were there any unusual activities of your family or household members that affected household members' time use? on the 1st day on the 2nd day Are there any special situations in your home, for example: handicapped or chronically ill family members, that affected household members' time use? Are there special ways your household members "save" time on household activities? PAGE 9 APPENDIX B TIME DIARY 121 APPENDIX C BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY 122 APPENDIX C BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY (Husband-Wife) (Please Print Full Name) Sex On the following page, you will be shown a large number of personality characteristics. We would like you to use those characteristics in order to describe yourself. That is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how true of you these various characteristics are. Please do not leave any characteristics unmarked. Example: sly Mark a 1 if it is NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 2 if it is USUALLY NOT TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 3 if it is SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 4 if it is OCCASIONALLY TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 5 if it is OFTEN TRUE that you are sly. Mark a 6 if it is USUALLY TRUE that you are sly. Mark 3 7 if it is ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE that you are sly. Thus, if you feel it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are "sly," never or almost never true that you are "malicious,' always or almost always true that you are "irresponsible,' and often true that you are "carefree," then you would rate these characteristics as follows: Sly 3 Irresponsible 7 Malicious 1 Carefree 5 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 usually always or almost never or usually sometimes occasionally often almost not but true true true never true true infrequently always true true Self reliant Analytical Masculine Yielding Sympathetic Warm Helpful Jealous Solemn Defends own Has leadership Willing to take beliefs abilities a stand Cheerful Sensitive to the Tender needs of others Moody Friendly Truthful Shy Aggressive Willing to take Conscientious risks Gullible Athletic Understanding Inefficient Affectionate Secretive Acts as a leader Theatrical Makes decisions Childlike easily, Assertive Adaptable Compassionate Flatterable Individualistic Sincere Happy Does not use Stronggpersonality Self-sufficient harsh language Eager to soothe Unsystematic Loyal hurt feelings Competitive Unpredictable Conceited Loves children Forceful Soft-spoken Tactful Feminine Likable Ambitious Reliable ominant Gentle Conventional APPENDIX D CHURCH AFFILIATION AND ACTIVITY 124 APPENDIX D CHURCH PARTICIPATION Household Code Name 1. Do you belong to a church? yes no 2. If yes, which church do you belong to? 3. About how active are you? inactive or not very active active very active APPENDIX E ACTIVITY DICTIONARY FOOD SHOPPING 3. 125 APPENDIX E ACTIVITY DICTIONARY NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY A Statutory College of the State University Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Department of Consumer Economics and Public Policy Use—of—time Research Project Definition of Activities of Household Members Food Preparation All tasks relating to the preparation of food for meals, snacks, and future use. Include time spent setting the table and serving the food. Dishwashing In addition to washing and drying dishes, loading and unloading dishwasher or dish drainer. Include after-meal cleanup of table, leftovers, kitchen equipment and refuse. Shopping All activities related to shopping for food, supplies, equipment, furnishings, clothing, durables, and services, whether or not a purchase was made (by telephone, by mail, or at the store). HOUSE CLOTHING 6. 126 Also include: Comparison shopping, putting purchases away, getting or sending mail and packages, hiring of services (cleaning, repair, maintenance, other). Housecleaning Any regular or periodic cleaning of house and appliances, in— cluding such tasks as: Mopping, vacuuming, sweeping, dusting, waxing Washing windows or walls Cleaning the oven; defrosting and cleaning the refriger- ator or freezer Making beds and putting rooms in order Maintenance of Home Yard, Car and Pets Any repair and upkeep of home, appliances, and furnishings such as: Painting, papering, redecorating, carpentry Repairing equipment, plumbing, furniture Putting up storm windows or screens Taking out garbage and trash Caring for houseplants, flower arranging Daily and periodic care of outside areas such as: Yard, garden Sidewalks, driveways, patios, outside porches Garage, tool shed, other outside areas Swimming pool Maintenance and care of family motor vehicles (Car, truck, van, motorcycle, snowmobile, boat) Washing, waxing Changing oil, rotating tires and other maintenance and repair work Taking motor vehicle to service station, garage, or car wash Feeding and care of house pets. Also include trips to kennel or veterinarian. AND HOUSEHOLD LINENS Care Washing by maching at home or away from home, including: 127 Collecting and preparing soiled items for washing Loading and unloading washer or dryer Hanging up items and removing from the line Folding Hand washing Ironing and pressing. Also include: Getting out equipment, sprinkling Putting away cleaned items and equipment Polishing shoes Preparing items for commercial laundry or dry cleaning Seasonal storage of clothing and textiles 7. Construction Making alterations or mending Making clothing and household accessories (draperies, slip- covers, napkins, etc.) include such activities as: Sewing Embroidering Knitting, crocheting, macrame If these activities are to make product for self, im- mediate family members or to give as gift, include under (7). If activity is primarily to produce product for sale, include time under paid work (12). If activity is primarily as recreation rather than goal motivated, include time under "recreation" (15). HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 8. Physical Care All activities related to physical care of household members other than self such as: Bathing, feeding, dressing and other personal care First aid or bedside care Taking household members to doctor, dentist, barber 9. Nonphysical Care All activities related to the social and educational development of household members such as: Playing with children Teaching, talking, helping children with homework 128 Reading aloud Clauffering and/or accompanying children to social and educational activities Attending functions involving your child MANAGEMENT 10. Management Making decisions and planning such as: Thinking about, discussing, and investigating alternatives Looking for ideas and seeking information Assessing resources available (space, time, money, etc.) Planning--family activities, vacations, menus, shopping lists, purchases and investments Supervising and coordinating activities Checking plans as they are carried out Thinking back to see how plans worked Financial activities such as: Making bank deposits and checking bank statements Paying bills and recording receipts and expenses Figuring income taxes WORK (OTHER THAN HOUSEHOLD) 11. 12. 13. School Classes related to present or future employment. Include time spent in preparation for each of the above. For example, work or reading done at home or at the library relating to job or classes. Paid Paid employment and work-related activities, such as work brought home, professional, business and union meetings, conventions, etc. Paid work for family farm or business, babysitting, paper route. Unpaid Work or service done either as a volunteer or as an unpaid worker for relatives, friends, family business or farm, social, civic, or community organizations. NONWORK 14. 15. PERSONAL 16. 17. OTHER 18. 129 Organization Participation Attending and participating in: Religious activities and services Civic and political organizations Other clubs and organizations Social and Recreational Activities Reading (other than required for school or work) Watching TV Listening to radio, stereo, etc. "Going out" to movies, car shows. museums, sporting events, concerts, etc. Participating in any sport, hobby or craft Taking a class or lesson for personal interest Walking, cycling, boating, "taking a ride", training animals Talking with friends or relatives, either in person or by telephone Entertaining at home or being entertained away from home Writing letters, or cards to friends, relatives Playing games, musical instruments, etc. (If adult is playing with child include such activities under nonphysical care) MAINTENANCE Personal Care (of Self) Sleeping Bathing, getting dressed, other grooming and personal care Making appointments and going to doctor, dentist, beautician and other personal services Relaxing, loafing, resting Meditation Eating Eating any meal or snack, alone, with family or friends at home or away from home. Other Any activity not classified in categories 1 to 17 Any block of time for which you cannot recall, do not know, or do not wish to report. BIBL IOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Angrist, S. S. The study of sex roles. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, _22, 215-232. Bahr, S. J. Effects on power and division of labor in the family. In L. W. Hoffman & F. I. Nye (Eds.), Working mothers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Bem, S. L. Probing the promise of androgyny. In A. G. Kaplan & J. P. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex-role stereotypes: readings toward a psych- ology of androgyny. Boston: Little, Brown, 1976. Bem, S. L. & Watson, C. "Scoring packet: bem sex role inventory." Revised 4-76. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University, 1976. (Mimeographed.) Berch, B. The development of housework. International Journal of Wo- men's Studies, 1978, 1, 336-347. Berger, M. Men's new family roles--some implications for therapists. The Family Coordinator, 1979, 2B, 638-649. Berk, R. A. & Berk, S. F. Labor and leisure at home. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1979. Berk, S. F. The division of household labor: patterns and determinants (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, g1, 7348A. (University Microfilms No. 77-10,003, 411) Bernard. J. The future of marriage. New York: World Publishing Co., 1972. Brown, D. L. Women in the labor force. Journal of Home Economics, 1977, _§2(5), 21-22. Brown, J. K. A note on the division of labor by sex. American Anthro- pologist, 1970, 12, 1073-1078. Boulding, K. E. The household as Achilles' heel. The Journal of Con— sumer Affairs, 1972, Q, 110-119. Campbell, A. Lifestyles, free time and well-being. In A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, & W. L. Rodgers (Eds.), The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. 130 131 Chapin, F. 8., Jr. Human activity patterns in the city: things people do in time and space. New York: Wiley, 1974. Cook, A. H. The working mother: a survey of problems and programs in nine countries. Ithaca: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1975. Coser, R. L., & Rokoff, G. Women in the occupational world: social disruption and conflict. Social Problems, 1971, l§, 535-554. Cowan, R. S. The "industrial revolution" in the home: household tech— nology and social change in the 20th century. Technology and Culture, 1976,_lZ, 1-23. Davey, A. J., & Paolucci, B. Family interaction: 3 study of shared time and activities. Family Relations, 1980, 22, 43-49. Deux, K. The behavior of women and men. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Co., 1976. Edwards, A. L. An introduction to linear regression and correlation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1976. Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. The manufacture of housework. In Capital- ism and the family. San Francisco: Agenda Publishing, 1976. Ehrenriech, B., & English, D. For her own good. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978. Fjelsted, B. L., & Hachman, F. C. State data from the 1976 survey of in- come and education. Utah Economic and Business Review, 1976, 39, 2. Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J. C. Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Glazer-Malbin, N. Housework. Signs, 1976, 1, 905-922. Harvey, D. L.D.S. head lauds motherhood role. The Herald Journal, Logan, Utah, October 3, 1975, pp. 1-2. Holstrom, L. L. The two—career family. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1972. Hoyenga, K. B., & Hoyenga, K. T. The question of sex differences. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1979. Kreps, J., & Clark, R. Sex, age, and work: the changing composition of the labor force. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. Kreps, J. M., & Leaper, R. J. Home work, market work and the allocation of time. In J. M. Kreps (Ed.), Women and the American economy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976. 132 Leibowitz, A. Women's work in the home. In C. B. Lloyd (Ed.), Sex dis- crimination and the division of labor. New York: Columbia Univer— sity Press, 1975. Lichtenstein, G. Paradox in women's movement: feminists who are Mor- mons. The New York Times, October 28, 1975. Lipman-Blumen, J. How ideology shapes women's lives. Scientific Amer- ican, 1972, 226(1), 34—42. Lopata, H. Z. Occupation: housewife. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Lopata, H. Z., & Thorne, B. On the term "sex roles." Signs, 1978,_3, 718-720. Lovingood, R. P., & Firebaugh, F. M. Household task performance roles of husbands and wives. Home Economics Research Journal, 1978, 1, 20—33. Lynch, M. Sex role stereotypes: household work of children. Human Ecology Forum, 1975, 2, 22-26. Lynch, M. C. Participation in household tasks by children from six to seventeen years of age. Unpublished masters thesis, Cornell Univer- sity, 1975. Maklan, D. M. How blue-collar workers on 4-day workweek use their time. Monthly Labor Review, 1977, 100(8), 18—26. Manning, S. L. "Time use in household tasks in Indiana families." Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bul- letin No. 837, January 1968. Mott, F. L. The nls mature women's cohort: a socioeconomic overview. In Women's changing roles at home and on the job. A special report of the National Commission for Manpower Policy Special Report No. 26, September 1978, 23-60. Nelson, A. Birthrate in Utah reaches new high. Salt Lake Tribune, April 1, 1978, pp. B1-B2. Nickols, S. Y. The dynamics of family time allocation to productive activity (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1976). Big: sertation Abstracts International, 1976, 31, 44203-4421B. (Univer- sity Microfilms No. 77-5635, 234) Nickols, S. Y., & Metzen, E. J. Housework time of husband and wife. Home Economics Research Journal, 1978, 1) 85-97. Nie, N. H.; Hull, C. H.; Jenkins, J. G.; Steinbrenner, K.; & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1975. 133 Nye, F. I. Role structure and analysis of the family. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976. Oakley, A. The sociology of housework. New York: Random House, 1974 Olson, M. E. Distribution of family responsibilities and social strati- fication, Marriage and Family Living, l960,_22, 60-65. O'Neill, B. M. Time-use patterns of school—age children in household tasks: a comparison of 1967-68 and 1977 data. Unpublished masters thesis, Cornell University, 1978. Osborne, L. L. Contributions to household work by children in two-parent, two-child families in Utah. Unpublished masters thesis, Utah State University, 1979. Ott, L. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1977. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. Family socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955. Pifer. A. "Women working: toward a new society," Reprinted from the 1976 Annual Report, Carnegie Corporation of New York. Pleck, J. H. The psychology of sex roles: traditional and new views. In L. A. Cater, A. F. Scott, & W. Martyna (Eds,), Women and men: changing roles,_relationships and perceptions. New York: Praeger, 1977. Pleck, J. H. Men's family work: three perspectives and some new data. The Family Coordinator, 1979, 28, 481-488. ' Population estimates and projections. Bureau of Census, Series P-25, No. 785. Washington, DC: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, January 1979. Robinson, J. P. How Americans use time: a social:psycholggical analysis of everyday behavior. New York: Praeger, 1977a. Robinson, J. P. Changes in Americans' use of time: 1965-75, a progress report. Cleveland:, Communication Research Center, Cleveland State University, August 1977b. ' Sanik, M. M. A twofold comparison of time spent in household work in two—parent, two—child households: urban New York state in 1967-68 and 1977; urban-rural New York--Oregon in 1977 (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 32, 5334B-5335B. (University Microfilms No. 7910832) Sargent, R. L. Report on women in the Utah labor force. Salt Lake City: Utah Department of Employment Security, September 1978. 134 Scanzoni, J. Strategies for changing male family roles: research and practice implications. The Family Coordinator, 1979, 28) 435-442. Stafford, R.; Backman, E; & Dibona, P. The division of labor among cohabiting and married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1977,_32, 43-57. Strzeminska, H. Educational status and time-budgets. In A. Szalai (Ed.), The use of time: daily activities of urban and suburban populations in twelve countries. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1972. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. Response effects in surveys. Chicago: Aldine, 1974. Szalai, A. (Ed.). The use of time: daily activities of urban and sub- urban populations in twelve countries. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1972. Tavris, D., & Offir, C. The longest war: sex differences in perspective. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977. Tognoli, J. The flight from domestic space: men's roles in the house- hold. The Family Coordinator, 1979, 28, 599-607. Vanek, J. Keeping busy: time spent in housework, United States, 1920- 1970 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973). .Dlg- sertation Abstracts International, 1974,'3£, 5345A. (University Microfilms No. 74-3741, 216) Walker, K. E., & Woods, M. E. Time use: a measure of household pro- duction of family goods and services. Washington, DC: Center for the Family of the American Home Economics Association, 1976. Weinburg, G. H., & Schumacker, J. A. Statistics: an intuitive approach. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1974.