Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Satisfaction with Time Allocations Within the Family: The Role of Family Type

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the links between inequality in the time allocations of partners in couple families and the satisfaction they have with the way they spend their time. It uses time diary and self-reported satisfaction data from the 2006 Australian Time Use Survey. It shows that inequality in the time allocations of partners in couple families affects the satisfaction with the current allocation of time in families without children, but not in families with children. It is argued that the patterns of time use associated with children, specifically specialization in specific tasks, are the main reason for this finding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This way of assessing the empirical relevance of economic theories motivated Freeman and Medoff’s (1984) analysis of job satisfaction data as a way of understanding trade union behavior, and Battu, Belfield and Sloane’s (1999) research into the nature and consequences of graduate over-education among graduates (situations where the graduates work in jobs for which a degree is not required). The importance of benchmarks and expectations to understanding satisfaction with time allocations is emphasized in the literature reviewed in Sect. 2.

  2. Shelton and John (1996) review findings of research into the links between the division of household labor and well-being. This review illustrates the wide range of issues examined, as well as the diversity of the findings.

  3. Cummins and Gullone (2000) earlier had argued in favor of a 10-point scale, though they document the “considerable divergence of opinion on the merit of shorter versus longer scales”.

  4. For example, Birch et al. (2009) report a coefficient on the presence of a child aged 0–4 variable in their model of the time females allocate to market work that was over four times the size of the coefficient on their “Excellent” health status variable.

  5. The collection of data on expectations in relation to time allocations, and matching these to actual outcomes, is clearly a topic for further study when examining satisfaction data of the type analysed here.

  6. The partial effect on the level of satisfaction of membership of a childless couple family is 0.095–0.039*TD Index for males, and 0.037–0.052*TD Index for females.

References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA)—Technical Paper 2006, Catalogue No. 2039.0.55.001, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australia.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Time use survey: User guide, 2006, Catalogue No. 4150.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). General social survey: Summary results, Australia, 2010, Catalogue No. 4159.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  • Battu, H., Belfield, C. R., & Sloane, P. J. (1999). Overeducation among graduates: A cohort view. Education Economics, 7(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Lynch-Blosse, M., & Western, J. S. (1996). Gender differences in work satisfaction. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 291–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., & Western, M. (1998). Satisfaction with housework: Examining the paradox. Sociology, 32(1), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benin, M. H., & Agostinelli, J. (1988). Husbands’ and wives’ satisfaction with the division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, E. R., Le, A. T., & Miller, P. W. (2009). Household divisions of labour: Teamwork, gender and time. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science and Medicine, 66(8), 1733–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, L., & Powell, A. (2011). Non-standard work schedules, work-family balance and the gendered division of childcare. Work, Employment & Society, 25(22), 274–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A., & Eleonora, G. (2000). Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In Proceedings of the second international conference on quality of life in cities (pp. 74–93) Singapore: National University of Singapore.

  • Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20(2), 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do?. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funkhouser, E. (2000). Changes in the geographic concentration and location of residence of immigrants. International Migration Review, 34(2), 489–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallberg, D. (2003). Synchronous leisure, jointness and household labor supply. Labour Economics, 10, 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristoffersen, I. (2010). The metrics of subjective wellbeing: Cardinality, neutrality and additivity. The Economic Record, 86(272), 98–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le, A. T., & Miller, P. W. (2010). The effect of children on specialization and coordination of partners’ activities. Economics Letters, 108, 237–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 506–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmore, E., & Luikart, C. (1972). Health and social factors related to life satisfaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 13(1), 68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piña, D. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1993). The division of household labor and wives’ happiness: Ideology, employment, and perceptions of support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55(4), 901–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, M. (2010). Intra-household arrangements and economic satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W.-C., Kao, C.-H., Huan, T.-C., & Wu, C.-C. (2011). Free time management contributes to better quality of life: A study of undergraduate students in Taiwan. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng, L. J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge financial support from the Australian Research Council. Helpful comments were provided by anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Miller.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Means and standard deviations of variables used in statistical analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Le, A.T., Miller, P.W. Satisfaction with Time Allocations Within the Family: The Role of Family Type. J Happiness Stud 14, 1273–1289 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9381-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9381-z

Keywords

Navigation