Sex Roles

, Volume 78, Issue 3–4, pp 165–181 | Cite as

Changing Jobs and Changing Chores? The Longitudinal Association of Women’s and Men’s Occupational Gender-Atypicality and Couples’ Housework Performance

  • Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Original Article


Prior research linking occupational sex composition (the proportion of women in an occupation) to housework has yielded conflicting results and relies exclusively on cross-sectional data. The present article extends scholarship on the gendered division of household labor by using longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) 1981–2013 to assess how changes in occupational sex composition alter heterosexual married couples’ housework performance over time. I find that either spouse’s gender-atypical employment (e.g., husband’s employment in a predominately female job) is associated with gender-atypical housework performance by both spouses (e.g., higher housework hours for the husband and fewer hours for the wife). The association of women’s occupational sex composition with housework is driven by changes in individual women’s occupations and both spouses’ housework over time. In contrast, the association of men’s occupational sex composition with housework is driven by differences between different couples, not by within-couple change over time. Thus, fundamentally different causal mechanisms link women’s and men’s occupational sex composition to couples’ housework performance, and only for women are longitudinal changes in occupational sex composition associated with changes in housework. These findings have important implications for understanding occupation and housework as domains of gender performance.


Occupational sex composition Housework Division of labor Gender equality Marriage 



I would like to thank Emily Fitzgibbons Shafer for her comments and advice.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_794_MOESM1_ESM.docx (60 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 60 kb)


  1. 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(1), 191–228. doi: 10.2307/2675569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(1), 186–214. doi: 10.1086/378341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652–688. doi: 10.1086/230577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan, M. L., & Sevilla-Sanz, A. (2011). Does housework lower wages? Evidence for Britain. Oxford Economic Papers, 63(1), 187–210. doi: 10.1093/oep/gpq011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodson, T. A., & Borders, L. D. (2006). Men in traditional and nontraditional careers: Gender role attitudes, gender role conflict, and job satisfaction. Career Development Quarterly, 54(4), 283–296. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00194.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. England, P. (1992). Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  8. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149–166. doi: 10.1177/0891243210361475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. England, P. (2015). Sometimes the social becomes personal: Gender, class, and sexualities. American Sociological Review, 81(1), 4–28. doi: 10.1177/0003122415621900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. England, P., Herbert, M., Kilbourne, B., Reid, L. L., & Megdal, L. M. (1994). The gendered valuation of occupations and skills: Earnings in 1980 census occupations. Social Forces, 73(1), 65–100. doi: 10.2307/2579918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. England, P., Reid, L. L., & Kilbourne, B. S. (1996). The effect of the sex composition of jobs on starting wages in an organization: Findings from the NLSY. Demography, 33(4), 511–521. doi: 10.2307/2061784.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Evertsson, M., & Nermo, M. (2004). Dependence within families and the division of labour: Comparing Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(Dec), 1272–1286. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00092.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evertsson, M., & Nermo, M. (2007). Changing resources and the division of housework: A longitudinal study of Swedish couples. European Sociological Review, 23(4), 455–470. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcm018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. General Social Survey (GSS). (2017, May 31). The general social survey. Chicago, IL: NORC at the Univerisity of Chicago. Retrieved from
  15. Gough, M. (2011). Unemployment in families: The case of housework. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 59(3), 1085–1100. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00867.x.Google Scholar
  16. 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(2), 322–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00322.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta, S. (2006). Her money, her time: Women’s earnings and their housework hours. Social Science Research, 35(4), 975–999. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta, S. (2007). Autonomy, dependence, or display? The relationship between married women’s earnings and housework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 399–417. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00373.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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(1), 93–120. doi: 10.1080/13545700701716664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding, T. (2007). The construction of men who are nurses as gay. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(6), 636–644. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04447.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 664–667. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hook, J. L. (2017). Women’s housework: New tests of time and money. Journal of Marriage & Family, 79(February), 179–198. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Killewald, A., & Gough, M. (2010). Money isn’t everything: Wives’ earnings and housework time. Social Science Research, 39(6), 987–1003. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kmec, J. A., McDonald, S., & Trimble, L. B. (2010). Making gender fit and “correcting” gender misfits: Sex segregated employment and the nonsearch process. Gender & Society, 24(2), 213–236. doi: 10.1177/0891243209360531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63(11), 767–780. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mattingly, M. J., & Bianchi, S. M. (2003). Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time: The U. S. experience. Social Forces, 81, 999–1030. doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0036.
  28. McClintock, E. A. (2014). Beauty and status: The illusion of exchange in partner selection? American Sociological Review, 79(4), 575–604. doi: 10.1177/0003122414536391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McClintock, E. A. (2016). Occupational Sex Segregation and Marriage: The Romantic Cost of Gender-Deviant Jobs. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  30. McClintock, E. A. (2017). Occupational sex composition and gendered housework performance: Compensation or conventionality? Journal of Marriage & Family, 79(2), 475–510. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neuhaus, J. M., & Kalbfleisch, J. D. (1998). Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. Biometrics, 54(2), 638–645. doi: 10.2307/3109770.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Neuhaus, J. M., & McCulloch, C. E. (2006). Separating between- and within-cluster covariate effects by using conditional and partitioning methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 68(5), 859–872. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2006.00570.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Noonan, M. C. (2001). The impact of domestic work on men’s and women’s wages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1134–1145. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01134.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okamoto, D., & England, P. (1999). Is there a supply side to occupational sex segregation? Sociological Perspectives, 42(4), 557–582. doi: 10.2307/1389574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). (2016). A national study of socioeconomics and health over lifetimes and across generations. Retrieved from
  36. Parkman. (2004). Bargaining over housework: The frustrating situation of secondary wage earners. Journal of Economics, 63(4), 765–794. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00316.x.Google Scholar
  37. Parrott, H. M. (2014). Housework, children, and women’s wages across racial-ethnic groups. Social Science Research, 46, 72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.02.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Perales, F., & Vidal, S. (2015). Looking inwards: Towards a geographically sensitive approach to occupational sex segregation. Regional Studies, 49(4), 582–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petersen, T., & Morgan, L. A. (1995). Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 329–365. doi: 10.1086/230727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4(3), 227–241.Google Scholar
  41. Ruggles, S., Alexander, J. T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M. B., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated public use microdata Series: Version 5.0 [machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  42. Schneider, D. (2011). Market earnings and household work: New tests of gender performance theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(4), 845–860. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00851.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider, D. (2012). Gender deviance and household work: The role of occupation. American Journal of Sociology, 117(4), 1029–1072. doi: 10.1086/662649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stratton, L. S. (2001). Why does more housework lower women’s wages? Testing hypotheses involving job effort and hours flexibility. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 67–76. doi: 10.1111/0038-4941.00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, C. L. (1989). Gender differences at work: Women and men in nontraditional occupations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations