Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bem, S. (1974). A measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi:10.1037/h0036215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, E. (1991). The economic context of labor allocation: Implications for gender stratigication. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 140–157. doi:10.1177/019251391012002001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36, 1–12. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxer, D. (2002). Nagging: The familial conflict arena. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 49–61. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00022-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brayfield, A. A. (1992). Employment resources and housework in Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 19–30. doi:10.2307/353272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K. (1976). The behavior of women and men. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Fenstermaker, S. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 257–267. doi:10.1177/1368430200033002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliegel, M., & Martin, M. (2003). Prospective memory research: Why is it relevant? International Journal of Psychology, 38, 193–194. doi:10.1080/00207590344000114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, E. (1977). Nature of fantasy and its clinical uses. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 14, 223–231. doi:10.1037/h0086531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kozloff, M. A. (1988). Productive interactions with students, children and clients. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1994). Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntylä, T. (1993). Knowing but not remembering: Adult age differences in recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 21, 379-88. doi: 10.3758/BF03208271.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. F., & Reinholtz, N. (2015). Avenues down which a self-reminding mind can wander. Motivation Science, 1, 1–12. doi:10.1037/mot0000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (1997). Time for life. University Park: Penn State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9, 397–402. doi:10.1007/BF00289675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American Sociological Review, 59, 327–347. doi:10.2307/2095937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, E. (1978). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Terry, W. S. (1988). Everyday forgetting: Data from a diary study. Psychological Reports, 62, 299–303. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.62.1.299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, 300 Pompton Road, Wayne, NJ, 07470, USA

    Janet N. Ahn & Elizabeth L. Haines

  2. Columbia Business School, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, Uris 720, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Malia F. Mason

Authors
  1. Janet N. Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth L. Haines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malia F. Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Janet N. Ahn or Malia F. Mason.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 48 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahn, J.N., Haines, E.L. & Mason, M.F. Gender Stereotypes and the Coordination of Mnemonic Work within Heterosexual Couples: Romantic Partners Manage their Daily To-Dos. Sex Roles 77, 435–452 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0743-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0743-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation