Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Inequality in the Home: The Role of Relative Income, Support for Traditional Gender Roles, and Perceived Entitlement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on relative resources and gender construction theories, we examined economic and psychological factors that affect married parents’ domestic labor. Married parents from the United States (N = 801) reported whether they earned less, equal, or more income than their spouses, as well as the proportion of housework and childcare they performed. In line with a relative resources perspective, participants reported doing less domestic labor as their relative income increased. Yet, in line with gender construction theories, women reported doing more domestic labor than their spouses, regardless of their relative income. Moreover, support for traditional gender roles mediated the effect of income on domestic labor for women, but not men. In contrast, perceived domestic entitlement (feeling justified doing less domestic labor than one’s spouse) mediated the effect of income on domestic labor for men, but not women. The implications for the future of gender equality are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. Askari, S. F., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Staebell, S. E., & Axelson, S. J. (2010). Men want equality, but women don’t expect it: Young adults’ expectations for participation in household and child care chores. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 243–252. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01565.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, M. P., & Boles, J. (1984). WASP (wives as senior partners). Journal of Marriage and Family, 46, 861–870. doi:10.2307/352534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Auletta, K. (2011, July and 11 & 18). A woman’s place. The New Yorker, 54–63.

  4. Batalova, J. A., & Cohen, P. N. (2002). Premarital cohabitation and housework: Couples in cross-national perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 743–755. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00743.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–228. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. The American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214. doi:10.1086/378341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688. doi:10.1086/230577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bryant, A. (2003). Changes in attitudes toward women’s roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex roles, 48, 131–142. doi:10.1023/A:1022451205292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208–1233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cunningham, M. (2005). Gender in cohabitation and marriage: The influence of gender ideology on housework allocation over the life course. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1037–1061. doi:10.1177/0192513X04273592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, S. N., Greenstein, T. N., & Marks, J. P. G. (2007). Effects of union type on division of household labor: Do cohabiting men really perform more housework? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1246–1272. doi:10.1177/0192513X07300968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Deutsch, F. M., Lussier, J. B., & Servis, L. J. (1993). Husbands at home: Predictors of paternal participation in childcare and housework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1154–1166. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Axelson, S. J., Staebell, S. E., & Askari, S. F. (2010). Well… she wants it more: Perceptions of social norms about desires for marriage and children and anticipated chore participation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 253–260. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01566.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferber, M. A., & Young, L. (1997). Student attitudes toward roles of women and men: Is the egalitarian household imminent? Feminist Economics, 3, 65–83. doi:10.1080/135457097338816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fetterolf, J. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2011). Do young women expect gender equality in their future lives? An answer from a possible selves experiment. Sex Roles, 65, 83–93. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9981-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fitzpatrick Bettencourt, K. E., Vacha-Haase, T., & Byrne, Z. S. (2011). Older and younger adults’ attitudes toward feminism: The influence of religiosity, political orientation, gender, education, and family. Sex Roles, 64, 863–874. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9946-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Frank, E., Harvey, L., & Elon, L. (2000). Family responsibilities and domestic activities of US women physicians. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 134–140. doi:10.1001/archfami.9.2.134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Husbands’ participation in domestic labor: Interactive effects of wives’ and husbands’ gender ideologies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 585–595. doi:10.2307/353719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 322–335. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00322.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gupta, S. (1999). The effects of transitions in marital status on men’s performance of housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 700–711. doi:10.2307/353571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gupta, S., & Ash, M. (2008). Whose money, whose time? A nonparametric approach to modeling time spent on housework in the United States. Feminist Economics, 14, 93–120. doi:10.1080/13545700701716664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (2002). Housework and wages. The Journal of Human Resources, 37, 217–229. doi:10.2307/3069609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson, R. M. (1998). Destined for equality: The inevitable rise of women’s status. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kamo, Y. (2000). “He said, she said”: Assessing discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ reports on the division of household labor. Social Science Research, 29, 459–476. doi:10.1006/ssre.2000.0674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kaufman, G. (2005). Gender role attitudes and college students’ work and family expectations. Gender Issues, 22, 58–71. doi:10.1007/s12147-005-0015-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Killiwald, A., & Gough, M. (2010). Money isn’t everything: Wives’ earnings and housework time. Social Science Research, 39, 987–1003. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Major, B. (1993). Gender, entitlement, and the distribution of family labor. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 141–159. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01173.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Major, B. (1994). From disadvantage to deserving: Comparisons, justifications, and the psychology of entitlement. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293–355). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mannino, C. A., & Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles, 56, 309–324. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9181-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 86–103. doi:10.1177/0002716204268744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Noonan, M. C. (2001). The impact of domestic work on men’s and women’s wages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1134–1145. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01134.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Park, B., Smith, J. A., & Correll, J. (2010). The persistence of implicit behavioral associations for moms and dads. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 809–815. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 93–103. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Powers, R. S. (2003). Doing the daily grind: The effects of domestic labor on professional, managerial, and technical workers’ earnings. Gender Issues, 21, 3–23. doi:10.1007/s12147-003-0019-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Raley, S., Bianchi, S. M., & Wang, W. (2012). When do fathers care? Mothers’ economic contribution and father’s involvement in child care. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1422–1459. doi:10.1086/663354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Read, J. G. (2003). The sources of gender role attitudes among Christian and Muslim Arab-American women. Sociology of Religion, 64, 207–222. doi:10.2307/3712371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rhoads, S. E., & Rhoads, C. H. (2012). Gender roles and infant/toddler care: Male and female professors on the tenure track. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6, 13–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender & Society, 11, 747–772. doi:10.1177/089124397011006003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sayer, L. C., England, P., Bittman, M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2009). How long is the second (plus first) shift? Gender differences in paid, unpaid, and total work time in Australia and the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 523–545.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sayer, L. C., & Fine, L. (2011). Racial–ethnic differences in U.S. married women’s and men’s housework. Social Indicators Research, 101, 259–265. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9645-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schneider, D. (2011). Market earnings and household work: New tests of gender performance theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 845–860. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00851.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shelton, B. A., & Firestone, J. (1989). Household labor time and the gender gap in earnings. Gender and Society, 3, 105–112. doi:10.1177/089124389003001007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Suitor, J. J., Mecom, D., & Feld, I. S. (2001). Gender, household labor, and scholarly productivity among university professors. Gender Issues, 19, 50–67. doi:10.1007/s12147-001-1007-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191–205. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-5678-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Married parents’ use of time, 2003–06. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus2.toc.htm.

  59. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Part-time workers: Some key differences between primary and secondary earners. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/10/art1full.pdf.

  60. Verlander, G. (2004). Female physicians: Balancing career and family. Academic Psychiatry, 28, 331–336. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.28.4.331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Williams, J. C. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Tillett Hall, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – New Brunswick, 53 Avenue E, Piscataway, NJ, 08854-8040, USA

    Janell C. Fetterolf & Laurie A. Rudman

Authors
  1. Janell C. Fetterolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurie A. Rudman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janell C. Fetterolf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fetterolf, J.C., Rudman, L.A. Gender Inequality in the Home: The Role of Relative Income, Support for Traditional Gender Roles, and Perceived Entitlement. Gend. Issues 31, 219–237 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9126-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-014-9126-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation