Social Indicators Research

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 381–400

Measuring Housework Participation: The Gap between “Stylised” Questionnaire Estimates and Diary-based Estimates

Article

Abstract

This article compares stylised (questionnaire-based) estimates and diary-based estimates of housework time collected from the same respondents. Data come from the Home On-line Study (1999–2001), a British national household survey that contains both types of estimates (sample size = 632 men and 666 women). It shows that the gap between the two types of estimate is generally smaller in the case of women. But the gap between the estimates in the case of women is associated with the amount of housework performed as secondary activities and the level of irregularity in housework hours. Presence of dependent children, on the other hand, inflates the gap for both men and women. Men holding traditional gender-role attitudes tend to report more housework time in surveys than in diaries, but the tendency is reversed when they undertake long hours of housework. The overall results suggest that there are systematic errors in stylised housework time estimates.

Keywords

Housework Measurement error Time-diary method Time use 

References

  1. Baxter, J., & Bittman, M. (1995). Measuring time spent on housework: A comparison of two approaches. Australian Journal of Social Research, 1, 21–46.Google Scholar
  2. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000), Is anyone doing housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79, 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittman, M., England, P., Folbre, N., Sayer, L., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonke, J. (2005). Paid work and unpaid work: Diary information versus questionnaire information. Social Indicators Research, 70, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender and the division of domestic labour at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987), Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 175, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fenstermaker Berk, S., & Shih, A. (1980). Contributions to household labor: Comparing wives and husbands reports. In S. Fenstermaker Berk (Ed.), Women and household labor. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Gershuny, J. (2000). A concise atlas of time use: Twenty countries, 33 years change. In J. Gershuny (Ed.), Changing times: Work and leisure in postindustrial society (pp. 160–219). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gershuny, J. (2003). Time, through the lifecourse, in the family in Working Paper of Institute for Social and Economic Research, Paper 2003–2003. Colchester, UK: The University of Essex.Google Scholar
  10. Gershuny, J. (2004). Costs and benefits of time sampling methodologies. Social Indicators Research, 67(1), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gershuny, J. (2005). Stylised estimates, activity logs and diaries: estimating paid and unpaid work time. Paper presented at the XXVII International Association for Time-Use Research Conference, 2 November–4 November, (Halifax, Canada).Google Scholar
  12. Gershuny, J., & Robinson, J. P. (1994). Measuring hours of paid work: time-diary vs. estimate questions, Bulletin of Labour Statistics. Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  13. Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Juster, F. T., Ono, H., & Stafford, F. P. (2003). An assessment of alternative measures of time use. Sociological Methodology, 33, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Juster, F. T., & Stafford, F. P. (1991). The allocation of time: Empirical findings, behavioral models, and problems of measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 471–522.Google Scholar
  16. Juster, F. T., & Stafford, F. P. (1985). Time, goods, and well-being. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  17. Kan, M. Y., & Gershuny, J. (2006). Infusing time diary evidence into panel data: An exercise on calibrating time-use estimates for the BHPS, Working Paper of the Institute for Social and Economic Research Paper 2006-19. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  18. Kan, M. Y., & Pudney, S. (2007). Measurement errors in stylised and diary data on time use, Working Paper of the Institute for Social and Economic Research, Paper 2007-03. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  19. Kitterød, R. H., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2005). Diary versus questionnaire information on time spent on housework—The case of Norway. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 2, 13–32.Google Scholar
  20. Laurie, H., & Gershuny, J. (2000). Couples, work and money. In R. Berthoud & J. Gershuny (Eds.), Seven years in the lives of British families: Evidence on the dynamics of social change from the British household panel survey (pp. 45–72). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, Y.-S., & Waite, L. J. (2005). Husbands and wives time spent on housework: A comparisons of measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marini, M. M., & Shelton, B. A. (1993). Measuring household work: Recent experience in the United States. Social Science Research, 22, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niemi, I. (1993). Systematic error in behavioural measurement: Comparing results from interview and time budget studies. Social Indicators Research, 30, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plewis, I., Creeser, R., & Mooney, A. (1990). Reliability and validity of time budget data: Children’s activities outside school. Journal of Official Statistics, 6, 411–419.Google Scholar
  25. Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives and husbands housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender and Society, 12, 188–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson, J. P. (1985). The validity and reliability of diaries versus alternative time use measures. In F. T. Juster & F. P. Stafford (Eds.), Time, goods, and well-being (pp. 33–62). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, J. P. (1997). The overestimated workweek and trends in hours at work. In J. P. Robinson & G. Godbey (Eds.), Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time (pp. 81–96). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania States University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Warner, R. L. (1986). Alternative strategies for measuring household division of labor: A comparison. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations