Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 77, Issue 7–8, pp 435–452 | Cite as

Gender Stereotypes and the Coordination of Mnemonic Work within Heterosexual Couples: Romantic Partners Manage their Daily To-Dos

  • Janet N. AhnEmail author
  • Elizabeth L. Haines
  • Malia F. MasonEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Couples appear to help each other remember outstanding tasks (“to-dos”) by issuing reminders. We examine if women and men differ in the frequency with which they offer this form of mnemonic assistance. Five studies measure how heterosexual couples coordinate mnemonic work in romantic relationships. The first two studies demonstrate that men are assumed to do less of this form of mnemonic work (Study 1) and experience less societal pressure to do so than women do (Study 2). The next three studies suggest that men tend to do less of this mnemonic work than women do and that, when men do mnemonically help their partners, the help tends to involve errands for which they are stakeholders. This notion was evidenced in the greater accessibility of examples of women’s reminding acts than men’s reminding acts for both partners (Study 3) and in the less helpful reminders that men provided, compared to those women provided, as rated by both partners (Study 4a) and independent coders (Study 4b). These results converge on the possibility that men, relative to women, are less inclined to be concerned with keeping track of their partners” outstanding needs, perhaps because doing so is a behavior that is less strongly prescribed for men than for women. Implications for helping behavior and the possible consequences associated with performing disproportionate mnemonic work in relationships are discussed.

Keywords

Sharing mental labor Gender stereotypes Outstanding tasks Helping behavior Prospective memory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Audrey Schield, Alyssa Kenney, Thet Zaw Naing and Elif Naz Coker for their help coding the data and Elizabeth Moulton for feedback on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have approved this submission and all studies were approved by the IRB.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_743_MOESM1_ESM.docx (48 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

References

  1. Atkinson, M. P., & Boles, J. (1984). WASP (wives as senior partners). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 861–870. doi: 10.2307/352534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker, A., Schretlen, D. J., & Brandt, J. (2002). Testing prospective memory: Does the value of a borrowed item help people remember to get it back? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 64–66. doi: 10.1076/clin.16.1.64.8325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Motivation. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 268–316). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Bem, S. (1974). A measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergen, E. (1991). The economic context of labor allocation: Implications for gender stratigication. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 140–157. doi: 10.1177/019251391012002001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard, J. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36, 1–12. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.36.1.1.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bittman, M., England, P., Sayer, L., Folbre, N., & Matheson, G. (2003). When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 186–214. doi: 10.1086/378341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair, S. L. (1993). Employment, family, and perceptions of marital quality among husbands and wives. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 189–212. doi: 10.1177/019251393014002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blair, S. L., & Johnson, M. P. (1992). Wives' perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: The intersection of housework and ideology. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 570–581. doi: 10.2307/353243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boxer, D. (2002). Nagging: The familial conflict arena. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 49–61. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00022-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brayfield, A. A. (1992). Employment resources and housework in Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 19–30. doi: 10.2307/353272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652–688. doi: 10.1086/230577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clnical judgments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1–7. doi: 10.1037/h0028797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2009). The stalled revolution: Gender and time allocation in the United States. In B. Mousli & E. A. Roustang-Stoller (Eds.), Women, feminism, and femininity in the twenty-first century: American and French perspectives (pp. 55–78). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-0-230-62131-2_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 8719–8724. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900234106
  19. Cohen, A. L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149–156. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coltrane, S., & Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1992). Men's housework: A life course perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 43–57. doi: 10.2307/353274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crawford, J., Smith, G., Maylor, E., Della Sala, S., & Logie, R. (2003). The Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ): Normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Memory, 11, 261–275. doi: 10.1080/09658210244000027.
  23. Crovitz, H. F., & Daniel, W. F. (1984). Measurements of everyday memory: Toward the prevention of forgetting. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 413–414. doi: 10.3758/BF03333861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Danigelis, N. L., & McIntosh, B. R. (1993). Resources and the productive activity of elders race and gender as contexts. Journal of Gerontology, 48, S192–S203. doi: 10.1093/geronj/48.4.S192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deaux, K. (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  26. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1993). Family diversity and the division of domestic labor: How much have things really changed? Family Relations, 42, 323–331. doi: 10.2307/585562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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: 10.1111/jomf.12108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Efklides, A., Yiultsi, E., Kangellidou, T., Kounti, F., Dina, F., & Tsolaki, M. (2002). Wechsler Memory Scale, Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, and Everday Memory Questionnaire in Healthy Adults and Alzheimer Patients. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 63–77. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.63.
  35. Fenstermaker, S. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ferree, M. M. (1991). The gender division of labor in two-earner marriages dimensions of variability and change. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 158–180. doi: 10.1177/019251391012002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping & discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Fraidin, S. N., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2005). I know what I'm doing: The impact of gender stereotypes about expertise on task assignments in groups. In M. Neale, E. Mannix, & M. Thomas-Hunt (Eds.), Managing groups and teams (pp. 121–141). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gleason, M. E., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1036–1045. doi: 10.1177/0146167203253473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493.
  42. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Goal pursuit. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 208–231). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are-a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983-2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363. doi: 10.1177/0361684316634081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harris, J. E. (1984). Remembering to do things: A forgotten topic. In J. E. Harris & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Everyday memory, actions, and absent-mindedness (pp. 71–92). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 269–298). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  47. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  51. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998a). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423–442. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998b). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 257–267. doi: 10.1177/1368430200033002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hollingshead, A. B., & Fraidin, S. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355–363. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in context: Men's unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965-2003. American Sociological Review, 71, 639–660. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hultsch, D. F., Hertzog, C., & Dixon, R. A. (1987). Age differences in metamemory: Resolving the inconsistencies. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 193–208. doi: 10.1037/h0084153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Huppert, F. A., Johnson, T., & Nickson, J. (2000). High prevalence of prospective memory impairment in the elderly and in early-stage dementia: Findings from a population- based study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, S63–S81. doi: 10.1002/acp.771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kan, M. Y., Sullivan, O., & Gershuny, J. (2011). Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234–251. doi: 10.1177/0038038510394014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Kliegel, M., & Martin, M. (2003). Prospective memory research: Why is it relevant? International Journal of Psychology, 38, 193–194. doi: 10.1080/00207590344000114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Klinger, E. (1977). Nature of fantasy and its clinical uses. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 14, 223–231. doi: 10.1037/h0086531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Klinger, E. (1996). The contents of thoughts: Interference as the downside of adaptive normal mechanisms in thought flow. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Saraon (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 3–23). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Klinger, E., & Cox, W. M. (2011). Motivation and the goal theory of current concerns. In W. M. Cox & E. Klinger (Eds.), Handbook of motivational counseling: Goal-based approaches to assessment and intervention with addiction and other problems (pp. 1–47). Chichester: Wiley and Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470979952.ch1.Google Scholar
  65. Kozloff, M. A. (1988). Productive interactions with students, children and clients. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  66. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  67. Littlepage, G. E., Hollingshead, A. B., Drake, L. R., & Littlepage, A. M. (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 223–241. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591–1599. doi: 10.1037/a0016539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mäntylä, T. (1993). Knowing but not remembering: Adult age differences in recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 21, 379-88. doi:  10.3758/BF03208271.
  70. Marini, M. M., & Shelton, B. A. (1993). Measuring household work: Recent experience in the United States. Social Science Research, 22, 361–382. doi: 10.1006/ssre.1993.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mason, M. F., & Reinholtz, N. (2015). Avenues down which a self-reminding mind can wander. Motivation Science, 1, 1–12. doi: 10.1037/mot0000011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007). Wandering minds: The default network and stimulus-independent thought. Science, 315, 393–395. doi: 10.1126/science.1131295.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mason, M. F., Bar, M., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). Exploring the past and impending future in the here and now: Mind-wandering in the default state. Cognitive Science Compendium, 2, 143–162.Google Scholar
  74. Maylor, E. A., Smith, G., Della Sala, S., & Logie, R. H. (2002). Prospective and retrospective memory in normal aging and dementia: An experimental study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 871–884. doi: 10.3758/BF03195773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1993). The importance of cue familiarity and cue distinctiveness in prospective memory. Memory, 1, 23–41. doi: 10.1080/09658219308258223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  77. McDaniel, M., Einstein, O., Graham, T., & Rall, E. (2004). Delaying execution of intentions: Overcoming the costs of interruptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 533–547. doi: 10.1002/acp.1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  79. Parker, K., & Wang, W. (2013, March 14). Modern parenthood: Roles of moms and dads converge as they balance work and family. Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  80. Penningroth, S. L. (2005). Free recall of everyday retrospective and prospective memories: The intention-superiority effect is moderated by action versus state orientation and by gender. Memory, 13, 711–724. doi: 10.1080/09658210444000359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pettit, B., & Hook, J. L. (2009). Gendered tradeoffs: Family, social policy, and economic inequality in twenty-one countries. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. doi: 10.1177/0094306110386886jj.Google Scholar
  82. Piliavin, J. A., & Unger, R. K. (1985). The helpful but helpless female: Myth or reality? In V. E. O’Leary, R. Unger, & B. S., Wallston (Eds.), Women, gender, and social psychology (pp. 149–189). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269–281. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Randall, J. G., Oswald, F. L., & Beier, M. E. (2014). Mind-wandering, cognition, and performance: A theory-driven meta-analysis of attention regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1411–1431. doi: 10.1037/a0037428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rimal, R. (2008). Modeling the relationship between descriptive norms and behaviors: A test and extension of the theory of normative social behavior (TNSB). Health Communication, 23, 103–116. doi: 10.1080/10410230801967791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rimal, R., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25, 393–409. doi: 10.1111/comt.12080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
  88. Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9, 397–402. doi: 10.1007/BF00289675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1993). Does marital status make a difference? Housework among married and cohabiting men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 401–420. doi: 10.1177/019251393014003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shrout, P. E., Herman, C. M., & Bolger, N. (2006). The costs and benefits of practical and emotional support on adjustment: A daily diary study of couples experiencing acute stress. Personal Relationships, 13, 115–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N., Iida, M., Burke, C., Gleason, M. E., & Lane, S. P. (2010). The effects of daily support transactions during acute stress: Results from a diary study of bar exam preparation. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 175–199). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Smallwood, J. (2010). Why the global availability of mind wandering necessitates resource competition: Reply to McVay and Kane (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 202–207. doi: 10.1037/a0018673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smallwood, J. (2011). The footprints of a wandering mind: Further examination of the time course of an attentional lapse. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 91–97. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2010.537746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Smallwood, J., Fishman, D. J., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). Counting the cost of an absent mind: Mind wandering as an underrecognized influence on educational performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 230–236. doi: 10.3758/BF03194057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59, 327–347. doi: 10.2307/2095937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1979). Comparison of masculine and feminine personality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychology, 15, 583–584. doi: 10.1037/h0078091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  101. Stawarczyk, D., Majerus, S., Maj, M., Van der Linden, M., & D'Argembeau, A. (2011). Mind-wandering: Phenomenology and function as assessed with a novel experience sampling method. Acta Psychologica, 136, 370–381. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Tan, E., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2003, September). Gender effects on event- and time-based prospective memory: When and why are females better than men? Paper presented at the meeting of the British Psychological Society, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
  103. Terry, W. S. (1988). Everyday forgetting: Data from a diary study. Psychological Reports, 62, 299–303. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1988.62.1.299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. doi: 10.1037/a0012453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ward, A. F., & Lynch, J. G. (2015, June 9). On a need-to-know basis: Divergent trajectories of financial expertise in couples and effects on independent search and decision making. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2616867
  107. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9.Google Scholar
  108. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5044-9_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–929. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  111. Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2007). An evolutionary biosocial theory of human mating. In S. Gangestad & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies (pp. 383–390). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  114. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 55–123). London, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  115. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wright, E. O., Shire, K., Hwang, S. L., Dolan, M., & Baxter, J. (1992). The non-effects of class on the gender division of labor in the home: A comparative study of Sweden and the United States. Gender and Society, 6, 252–282. doi: 10.1177/089124392006002008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWilliam Paterson UniversityWayneUSA
  2. 2.Columbia Business SchoolColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations