Abstract
This study explores the household production allocation and happiness of women when their spouse is teleworker using data from the British Household Panel Survey over the years 1991–2009. The study aims to answer whether the women spend additional time on housework and are happier when they or their partner is teleworker. Also, we explore whether are happier when they share the household–domestic production with their partners. Fixed effects estimates take place, and we consider a Bayesian Network framework and a directed acyclic graph for causal inference. The results show that women are more likely to state that the household allocation, such as cooking, cleaning, ironing and childcare is shared when their partner teleworks. Shopping is an exception which can be regarded as an outdoor activity while one partner may be mainly responsible for this chore. In addition, women are happier when they or their spouse is teleworker, and they report higher levels of happiness when the household production allocation is a shared process. This may indicate men teleworkers may contribute extra to the household production releasing a burden for the partners and improving their wellbeing.
This is a preview of subscription content,
to check access.References
Anderson, G., Brosnan, P., & Walsh, P. (1994). Homeworking in New Zealand: Results from a workplace survey. International Journal of Employment Studies, 2, 229–247.
Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., & Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective wellbeing? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882–897.
Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. New York: Routledge.
Barnett, R. C., & Gareis, K. C. (2007). Shift work, parenting behaviors, and children’s socioemotional wellbeing: A withinfamily study. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 727–748.
Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (1996). She works, he works: How twoincome families are happy, healthy, and thriving. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baxter, J. (2000). The joys and justice of housework. Sociology, 34, 609–631.
Becker, G. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Benjamin, O., & Sullivan, O. (1996). The importance of difference: Conceptualising increased flexibility in gender relations in the home. Sociological Review, 44(2), 225–251.
Bentley, T. A., Teo, S. T. T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2016). The role of organizational support in teleworker wellbeing: A sociotechnical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics, 52, 207–215.
Bourguignon, F., Browning, M., & Chiappori, P. A. (2009). Efficient intrahousehold allocations and distributions factors: Implications and identification. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 503–528.
Brown, H., & Roberts, J. (2014). Gender role identity, breadwinner status and psychological wellbeing in the household. Sheffield Economic Research Paper Series SERPS No. 2014004, Institute for Economic Analysis of DecisionMaking.
Browning, M., Chiappori, P. A., & Weiss, Y. (2014). Economics of the family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bulos, M., & Chaker, W. (1995). Sustaining a sense of home and personal identity. In D. Benjamin & D. Stea (Eds.), The home: Interpretations, meanings and environments. Avebury: Aldershot.
Chiappori, P. A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56, 63–90.
Chiappori, P. A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 437–446.
Clark, A. (1997). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4, 341–372.
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61, 359–381.
Coltrane, S. (1989). Household labour and the routine production of gender. Social Problems, 36, 473–490.
Dauphin, A., El Lhaga, A., Fortin, B., & Lacroix, G. (2011). Are children decisionmakers within the household? Economic Journal, 121, 871–903.
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are officebased workers: When less contact is beneficial. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 336–361.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dualearner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51–73.
Giovanis, E. (2014). Relationship between wellbeing and recycling rates: Evidence from life satisfaction approach in Britain. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(2), 201–214.
Goldberg, D. P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the GHQ. Windsor: NFERNelson.
Golden, T. D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 176–187.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31, 301–318.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommutings differential impact on workfamily conflict: Is there no place like home?’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1340–1350.
Goossens, R. C., & de Vos, E. L. (1987). Huishoudvoering met een laag inkomen: Theoretische aanzetten voor de bestudering van strategieën in het huishoudelijk handelen bij beleidsminima. Vakgroep Huishoudkunde: Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen.
Greenhill, A., & Wilson, M. (2006). Haven or hell? Telework, flexibility and family in the esociety: A Marxist analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 379–388.
Gregson, N., & Lowe, M. (1994). Waged domestic labour and the renegotiation of the domestic division of labour within dual career households. Sociology, 28, 55–78.
Gronau, R. (1977). Leisure, home production, and work—The theory of the allocation of time revisited. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1099–1123.
Han, W. J. (2004). Nonstandard work schedules and child care decisions: Evidence from the NICHD study of early child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 231–256.
Heckerman, D. (1996). Tutorial on learning Bayesian networks. Technical Report MSRTR9506. Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/heckerman95tutorial.html.
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
Hersch, J., & Stratton, L. S. (1994). Housework, wages, and the division of housework time for employed spouses. The American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 84(2), 120–125.
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Huws, U., Podro, S., Gunnarsson, E., Weijers, T., Arvanitaki, K., & Trova, V. (1996) Teleworking and Gender. Report 317, Institute for Employment Studies.
Ilahi, N. (2000). The intrahousehold allocation of time and tasks: what have we learnt from the empirical literature? The World Bank Development Research Group/Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.
Kalisch, M., & Buhlmann, P. (2007). Estimating highdimensional directed acyclic graphs with ¨ the PCalgorithm. Machine Learning, 8, 613–636.
Levinson, A. (2012). Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9–10), 869–880.
Lim, V. K. G.,Thompson, T. H., & Har, W. S. (1997). Working at homeMyth or reality: An empirical study of factors affecting attitudes towards teleworking. Research Paper Series, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore, 1997.
Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 139–158.
Madsen, S. R. (2006). Work and family conflict: Can homebased teleworking make a difference? International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9(3), 307–350.
Mansfield, P., & Collard, J. (1988). The beginning of the rest of your life? A portrait of newlywed marriage. London: Macmillan.
Mazzocco, M., Ruiz, C., & Yamaguchi, S. (2013). Labor supply, wealth dynamics, and marriage decisions. Mimeo: University of California Los Angeles.
Morris, L. (1993). Household finance management and the labour market: a case study in Hartlepool. Sociological Review, 41(3), 506–536.
Neapolitan, R. (2003). Learning Bayesian networks. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Series in Artificial Intelligence, Pearson Education.
Nichols, S., & Metzen, E. (1982). Impact of wife’s employment upon husband’s housework. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 199–216.
Oláh, L. S., Richter, R., & Kotowska, I. E. (2014). Stateoftheart report. The new roles of men and women and implications for families and societies. Families and societies. Working Paper Series. Changing families and sustainable societies: Policy contexts and diversity over the life course and across generation.
Ozdamar, O. (2015a). Does public spending on parental leave benefits promote child health? Evidence from panel data analyses of OECD countries. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 32–49.
Ozdamar, O. (2015b). Gendered economic policy making: The case of public expenditures on family allowances. Economics Discussion Papers, No 201537, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Pahl, J. (1983). The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within marriage. Sociological Review, 31(2), 237–262.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems. California: San Mateo.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality. Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistical Surveys, 3, 96–146.
Pennartz, P., & Niehof, A. (1999). The domestic domain: Chances, choices and strategies of family households. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Pina, D., & Bengston, V. (1993). The division of household labor and wives’ happiness: Ideology, employment and perceptions of support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 901–912.
Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dualearner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 59, 348–364.
Silver, H. (1993). Homework and domestic work. Sociological Forum, 8(2), 181–204.
Sironi, M., & Mencarini, L. (2012). Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review, 28(2), 203–219.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sullivan, O. (2000). The division of domestic labour: Twenty years of change? Sociology, 34, 437–456.
Sullivan, C., & Lewis, S. (2001). HomeBased telework, gender and the synchronization of work and family: Perspectives of teleworkers and their coresidents. Gender, Work and Organization, 8(2), 123–145.
Taylor, M. F., Brice, J., Buck, N., & PrenticeLane, E. (2010). British household panel survey user manual volume A introduction, technical report and appendices. Colchester: University of Essex.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women’s sense of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181–196.
Van Praag, B., & FerreriCarbonell, A. (2004). Happiness quantified: A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Soest, A. (1995). Structural models of family labor supply: A discrete choice approach. Journal of Human Resources, 30(1), 63–88.
Van Soest, S., & Stancanelli, E. (2010). Does income taxation affect partners’ household chores? IZA Discussion Paper No. 5038, Bonn, Germany.
Vega, R. P., Anderson, A. J., & Kaplan, S. A. (2015). A withinperson examination of the effects of telework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 313–323.
Vittersø, J., Akselsen, S., Evjemo, B., Julsrud, T. E., Yttri, B., & Bergvik, S. (2004). Impacts of homebased telework on quality of life for employees and their partners. Quantitative and qualitative results from a European survey. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 201–233.
Vogler, C., & Pahl, J. (1993). Social and economic change and the organisation of money within marriage. Work, Employment & Society, 7(1), 71–93.
Vogler, C., & Pahl, J. (1994). Money, power and inequality within marriage. Sociological Review, 42(2), 263–288.
Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1999). The intersection of time in activities and perceived unfairness in relation to psychological distress and marital quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 739–751.
Waldfogel, J. (1998). Understanding the “family gap” in pay for women with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(1), 137–156.
Warde, A., & Hetherington, K. (1993). A changing domestic division of labour? Issues of measurement and interpretation. Work, Employment & Society, 7, 23–45.
Wheelock, J. (1990). Husbands at home: The domestic economy in a postindustrial society. Londen: Routledge.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived workbased social support. Journal of Management, 27, 213–229.
Wight, V. R., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008). Time for children, one’s spouse and oneself among parents who work nonstandard hours. Social Forces, 87, 243–271.
Wilkie, J. R., Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998). Gender and fairness: Marital satisfaction in twoearner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 577–594.
Zuidberg, A. C. L. (1981). Het verzorgingsniveau van huishoudens. SWOKA Onderzoeksrapporten, 4. ‘sGravenhage: SWOKA.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Marie SkłodowskaCurie Individual Fellowship (IF) Grant [652938TELE]. The author gratefully acknowledges the funding provided by European Commission to carry out this research. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, suggestions and constructive comments that greatly contributed to the improvement of the quality of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was based on data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), Waves 1–18, 1991–2009 Local Authority Districts, produced by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Essex, sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and supplied by the UK Data Archive. The data are the copyright of ISER. The use of the data in this work does not imply the endorsement of ISER, ESRC or the UK Data Archive in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the data.
Appendix
Appendix
The graphical structure G = (V, E) of a BN is a directed acyclic graph DAG where V denotes the vertex or node set and E represents the edge set as V _{ i } → V _{ j } The notation P ^{G}_{ i } is used to denote the parent set of V_{i} in G. p ^{j}_{ i } is used to denote the jth configuration of the parents of V _{ i }: P _{ i } ∈ {p ^{1}_{ i } , …, p ^{qi}_{ i } }. Based on that the definition of BN is:
Definition 1
(Bayesian Network) (Pearl 2000; Neapolitan 2003): A Bayesian network model M over a set of variables V = {X _{ 1 }, …, X _{ N }} is a pair (Γ, θ), where G(V) is a DAG over V and θ is a set of conditional probabilities: θ = {θ _{ ijk }: ∀ (ijk)} such that (θ _{ ijk } = X_{i} = x ^{k}_{ i } P_{i} = p ^{j}_{ i } ).
Definition 2
(Onestep ahead conditional independence noncausality) X does not strongly cause Y onestep ahead given a set of covariates Z and Y does not cause X given a set of covariates K if (8)–(9) hold.
Y _{ i,t } ⊆ Z _{ i,t } ⊆ Ω _{ i,t } and X _{ i,t } ⊆ K _{ i,t } ⊆ Ω _{ i,t }. and Ω is the set of all covariates included in sets K and Z, for individual i and time t. The symbol ⊥ is used to express independence.
Definition 3
(Conditional independence noncausality) The conditional independence X is conditional independent from Y in the edge set E iff Y _{ i,t } ⊥ X _{ i,t }Ω _{ i,t }
The independence assumptions discussed above and are represented by the graph imply that parameters need to be estimated because the probability distribution for each variable depends only on the node’s parents as it is shown in relations (4)–(5) in the methodology section. Using the factorisation Eq. (5) it allows the network factorisation in such a way that it considers each node and its parents in isolation from the rest of the model variables. Otherwise, without employing this factorisation, far more parameters would be required to be estimated and therefore to specify the causaleffect relationships by a fully connected network and “unfactorable” model. Thus, employing factorisation model (5) the very complex models can be estimated avoiding the combinatorial explosion problem.
Definition 4
(dseparation) (Pearl 1988; Spirtes et al. 2000; Neapolitan 2003): Let G = (V, E) be a DAG, A ⊆ V, X and Y be distinct nodes in V—A, and h be a chain between X and Y. Then h is blocked if one of the following cases holds:

There is a node S ∈ A on the chain h and the edges incident to S on h meet tailtotail at S.

There is a node S such that S and all of S’s descendants are not in A on the chain h and the edges incident to A on h met headtohead at S.
The dseparation condition is especially important and useful in constructing a BN because it controls possible confounds as in the form of S described here. Graphically, dseparation usually exhibits two main cases: firstly X → S → Y and secondly X ← S → Y. The intuition behind this graphical representation is that X and Y are independent from each other conditioned on S. In the first case X causes Y through S, while in the second case X and Y have a common cause S. In addition, given the edge X → S it is said that the tail of the edge is at X, while the head of the edge is at S. It is also: So let us consider a general directed graph in which X, Y and S are arbitrary nonintersecting sets of nodes and whose union may be smaller than the complete set nodes in the graph. To ascertain whether a particular conditional independence statement X ⊥ YS is implied the possible paths from any node in X to any node in Y are considered. Any such path is blocked if it includes a node such that either the arrows on the path meet either headtotail or tailtotail at the node, and the node is in S, such as the relations X → S → Y and X ← S → Y or the arrows meet headtohead at the node, and neither the node, nor any of its descendants, is in S. If all paths are blocked, X is dseparated from Y given S, and the joint distribution over all of the variables in the graph will then satisfy X ⊥ YS.
Estimating the effect of a factor of interest X on the outcome of interest Y a backdoor path is an undirected path between X and Y with an arrow into X and these paths create confounding, by providing an indirect non causal channel along which information can flow. Thus, a set of conditioning variables or controls Z satisfies the backdoorcriterion when Z blocks every backdoor between X and Y and also no node in Z is a descendant of X or both descendent of X and ancestor of Y because it will block the causal path between X and Y. Thus, if set Z satisfies the backdoor criterion then it will be:
All the items on the right hand of (10) are observational conditional probabilities and not counterfactuals. Based on (5) in the methodology section and the backdoor criterion, for example the causal effect of C to D in the Fig. 2 is a regression of C and its parents (A and B) on D. In this case the backdoor criterion is met since A and B block every backdoor between C and D and they are not descendant of C. However, Fig. 2 is a very simple case, where DAG derived in the empirical results section is more complicated. In the case where a variable or set of variables S are descendants of C and block every path from C to D, then the causal effect may be totally blocked off. In this case it is said that there is overcontrol bias, since the descendants of C are effects and not confounders or causes of C. In that case the frontdoor criterion (Pearl 2000; Spirtes et al. 2000; Neapolitan 2003) is applied.
Definition 5
(Partial correlation) For i ≠ j ∈ 1, …, p, k ∈ X _{ r }, let ρ _{ i,jk } be the partial correlation between X _{ i } and X _{ j } given X _{ r } and X _{ r } denotes the rest of the variables.
Based on this definition we have that X _{ i } ⊥⊥ X _{ j }X _{ r } ⇔ ρ _{ i,jk }. A test for conditional independence is therefore a test for partial correlation between the variables and the partial correlations can be estimated, via regression analysis. Next a test for the conditional independence is presented.
Then it will be:
The test for independence is based on the PC algorithm (Spirtes et al. 2000) at significance level α. Kalisch and Buhlmann (2007) show that the choice of α is not too important. However, a significance level α = 0.05 is used. The pseudocode of the PC algorithm is presented in Box 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giovanis, E. Are Women Happier When Their Spouse is Teleworker?. J Happiness Stud 19, 719–754 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090201798470
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1090201798470