Relative equity a nd relationship satisfaction 1 - unifr.ch equity a nd relationship satisfaction 1 Division of labor in German dual-earner families: Testing equity-theoretical hypotheses

Relative equity and relationship satisfaction 1

Division of labor in German dual-earner families: Testing equity-theoretical hypotheses

Petra Klumb*, Christiane Hoppmann+, & Melanie Staats* * University of Fribourg, + Georgia Institute of Technology

Running head: Relative equity and relationship satisfaction Author address: Petra Klumb Department of Psychologie University of Fribourg Rue de Faucigny 2 1700 Fribourg Switzerland Phone: +41-26-300-7643 Fax: +41-26-300-9712 Email: [email protected]

Author note

The research reported here was funded by Volkswagen Foundation. The assistance of Sylvia

Böhme, Cristina Cretulescu, Christine Hennen, Kerstin Kaehlert, and Bianca Kusma in

recruiting and briefing participants and establishing a research relationship with them was

most valuable for us. Finally, our participants deserve special thanks for contributing their

precious time to this demanding study.


Abstract

Based on 52 German dual-earner couples with at least one child under 5 years of age, we

tested the effects of an unequal division of labor on relationship satisfaction. We analyzed

diary reports of time allocated to productive activities according to the actor-partner-

interdependence model. Hierarchical linear models showed that rather than individual time

allocated to household work, the absolute difference in partners’ contribution to productive

activities influenced relationship satisfaction. This reduction in satisfaction disappeared after

accounting for perceived social appreciation of individual contributions. Models with gender-

specific slopes showed the effect of input and output to be different for women and men. The

findings indicate that a relative equity model best explains the effects of an unequal division

of labor.

Keywords: division of labor, equity theory, time sampling, dual-earner couples


Although the majority of couples in contemporary industrialized societies aspire to the

ideal of equality, families with small children still do not divide equally their household labor

at the turn of the millenium (Bittman & Wajcman, 2000). In dual-earner families, it is usually

the woman who allocates less time to the labor market than the man and more time to the

household (Mattingly & Bianchi, 2003) or who, even in case of full-time employment, works

a “second shift” at home (Frankenhaeuser et al., 1989; Hochschild, 1989), and/or whose

housework has less favorable temporal characteristics than that of her partner (Barnett &

Shen, 1997). Because the division of labor tends to diverge from equality after the birth of a

child (Blossfeld & Drobnic, 2001), the aim of this study is to investigate the personal and

social consequences of these well documented differences in the distribution of household

tasks among mothers and fathers of small children.

Equity theory provides a framework for linking household division of labor with

individual and dyadic outcomes. According to this theoretical approach, unfair exchanges

should increase distress for both parties involved and reduce relationship satisfaction (Adams,

1965; Lerner & Mikula, 1994; Walster & Walster, 1975). For the underbenefited partner,

increased depressive symptoms reflect discontent with the unfavorable exchange. Moreover,

if the underbenefited partner attributes the unfavorable exchange to a transgression of the

“exploiter”, this partner is also likely to experience anger and decreased relationship

satisfaction. For the partner with the favorable exchange, however, increased depressive

symptoms are the assumed result of two mediating processes. The violation of socially

accepted fairness norms leads to guilt and to criticism by third persons both resulting in

increased depressive symptoms (Mirowsky, 1985).

What we consider a fair exchange depends on the underlying distribution rule.

Objective equality is a simple rule according to which the inputs of both partners have to be

equal for partners to consider an exchange to be fair. Hence, a division of household labor

would be fair if both partners allocated the same amount of time to household chores. In


addition to inputs, more complex conceptualizations of fairness also take outputs into account.

According to a relative equality rule, fair exchanges result if the ratios of both partners’ inputs

and outputs are equal. This means that two partners can still perceive an unequal division of

labor as fair as long as the partner who contributes more also benefits more. Finally,

according to a proportional equality rule, partners view a distribution of outputs that is

proportional to the relevant social statuses of the parties involved as fair. In line with this

principle, a division of household chores would be fair if the partner with the higher social

status contributed less. Accordingly, the gender gap is smaller the more resources women

possess as compared to their partners (e.g., education, income) and the more egalitarian the

relationship (Lavee & Katz, 2002; Presser, 1994). Equity theoretical research favored the

relative-equality rule and successfully applied it in studies establishing the link between

household division of labor and personal outcomes such as depressive symptoms and

relationship satisfaction (Freudenthaler & Mikula, 1998; Frisco & Williams, 2003; Perry-

Jenkins & Folk, 1994; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1999). Note that, in the majority of studies, it

was the subjective perception rather than the actual difference in household labor that

produced the effect on the respective outcome measures.

Also in other areas of research, the concept of relative equality has proven useful for

predicting differences in well-being. Inspired by the idea of social reciprocity, the effort-

reward- imbalance model assumes that an imbalance of input and output leads to physical and

psychological strain (Siegrist, 2002). As Semmer, McGrath, and Beehr (2005) put it, the

conceptual and empirical focus in stress research has shifted from the question of whether one

can bear something to the question of whether something is worth bearing. This means that

individuals weigh their inputs against the compensation they receive for it. According to the

effort-reward- imbalance model, a given input increases distress only if the reward is

inadequate. Although individuals make this judgment within a specific social context, there is

no reference group explicitly included in this framework. Equity theory posits, in contrast,


that rather than being a stressor per se, the imbalance within one individual leads to distress

only if social comparisons detect a difference to the input-output balance of a referential

person such as the marriage partner.

For both paid and unpaid work, inputs generally consist of the expenditure of time and

energy under specific conditions often operationalized via demands and commitments.

Researchers typically measure inputs via time use, that is, the allocation of time to productive

activities. Outputs differ as a function of the context of work. Only work activities in the labor

market yield monetary compensation, career opportunities, and status security as rewards. In

both contexts, however, the performance of an activity may yield social acknowledgement

and appreciation. Social apprecia tion of one’s work activities affects well-being by increasing

the subjective meaning of the activities and by sustaining identities within reciprocal role

relationships (Thoits, 1983). Furthermore, research shows feelings of appreciation for

women’s family work to be strong predictors of their sense of fairness (Blair & Johnson,

1992; Hawkins, Marshall, & Meiners, 1995). This may indicate that appreciation is an output

that balances the scale, that is, high appreciation may offset the negative effects of imbalanced

inputs. Because previous research rarely addressed this effect of appreciation, the goal of the

present study was to investigate the effect of actual household division of labor on

relationship satisfaction as well as the role of perceived appreciation. In addition to the effect

of the inequitable division of labor between the couple, we deem it necessary to consider the

main effect of each partner’s contributions. Because individuals perform productive activities

in the household primarily for their results rather than for their immediate rewards (see Klumb

& Baltes, 1999), the full benefits from work performed by one partner are available to the

other partner and may contribute to the other partner’s relationship satisfaction.

Testing the effects of inequitable household division of labor on relationship

satisfaction requires a model of the main effects of (a) each partner’s allocation of time to

market and household work and (b) the appreciation of the inputs each partner perceives on


each partner’s relationship satisfaction. The duration of the couple’s relationship (Glenn,

1988) and the number of children (Bittman & Wajcman, 2000) are variables that often

influence the division of labor within the household and/or couples’ relationship satisfaction

and, therefore, we consider them in the current paper. Evidence regarding the effects of the

type of relationship – formal marriage versus cohabitation – is mixed (e.g., Huinink, 1995;

Lothaller, Mikula, & Jagoditsch, in preparation; South & Spitze, 1994). On the one hand, in

line with findings from most North American studies, Huinink and Konietzka (2003) found

cohabiting couples’ division of labor to be less traditional also in Germany. On the other

hand, first results of the Bamberg Longitudinal Study show the traditional division of labor to

dominate also for cohabiting couples. It seems that events in the relationship such as the birth

of a child are much more important for explaining variance in couples’ division of labor than

the type of relationship they live in (Rupp 1999; Vaskovics et al. 1997). Therefore, we

recruited a sample of parents with at least one child under five years of age, whether they

were married or cohabiting.

Because both the absolute contribution of each partner and also the relative difference

between the partners’ inputs has an influence, a couple-specific difference score is necessary.

This implies the dyad as unit of analysis (Smith, 1998), a feature that is often missing in

research on social reciprocity in formal and informal work contexts. In research on the

household division of labor, researchers either neglected to study couples or did not take

advantage of the features of couple data and simply analyzed their data as if they originated

from a set of unrelated individuals. Dyadic data are not independent and, on the one hand, this

is part of the richness of these data. This property does, on the other hand, pose problems with

regard to the choice of an adequate data analytic strategy.

The assumed dependence of data obtained in research on couples stems from three

sources. The partners of a specific couple are more similar (or dissimilar) to one another than

to members of other couples. Because in the selection of marriage partners, socioeconomic


characteristics play an important role, partners tend to be similar, for instance, with regard to

their social class. Furthermore, common fate creates nonindependence within couples as the

partners coexist in the same environment. The most important factor that leads to

dependencies is the mutual influence between partners (Kenny, Manetti, Pierro, Livi, &

Kashy, 2002). In addition to a covariation between the partner’s independent variable scores,

one person’s independent variable score (here, time allocated to productive activities) affects

both that person’s own dependent variable (here, relationship satisfaction) and the partner’s

dependent variable score (here, partner’s relationship satisfaction). It is, therefore,

theoretically and statistically important to model these nonindependencies.

Kenny and colleagues’ Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (Kashy & Kenny, 2000;

Kenny, 1990, 1996; Kenny & Cook, 1999) seems to be the adequate analytic tool (see Figure

1). The model uses the dyad as the unit of analysis and allows researchers to estimate

simultaneously the effect of an individual’s characteristics on the individual’s own score on

the dependent variable (actor effect) and on the partner’s score on the dependent variable

(partner effect). The partner effect from the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model directly

models the mutual influence that may occur between individuals in dyadic relationships.

Another advantage of the model is the possibility to include couple- level predictors

(compositional effects). With this model, it is hence possible to estimate the effect of Partner

A’s and Partner B’s input and output on Partner A’s and Partner B’s distress. Additionally, we

can add the differential within the couple as a couple- level predictor.

Both appraisal-based stress theories and equity theoretical research rely on subjective

balance perceptions (Freudenthaler & Mikula, 1998). For the calculation of perceived equity,

researchers have employed a number of different formulas. Subjective measures of equity or

social reciprocity, however, have the disadvantage of being criterion contaminated if

subjective ratings are a basis for the criterion (Weber & Westmeyer, 2001). For this reason, it

is necessary to use different methods to assess predictors and criteria. Fairness ratings, global


estimations of time use, or diary recordings of the activities performed by each partner can

assess equity in contributions. Previous research shows that the latter approach is closer to

behavior, more reliable, and not overlapping with self-reports of distress and relationship

satisfaction (Klumb & Perrez, 2004; Press & Townsley, 1998). The ideal administration

technique for diaries involves computer-aided time-sampling methods (Bolger, Davis, &

Rafaeli, 2003).

Drawing on the above reasoning, we made the following predictions:

1. Input model: The more time one partner allocates to housework, the higher the

relationship satisfaction of the other partner.

2. Equity model I: In line with the relative equality rule, we expect that the larger the

within-couple difference in time allocation the lower each partner’s relationship

satisfaction.

3. Equity model II: We expect the reduction in relationship satisfaction resulting from the

within-couple difference in time allocation to attenuate to the extent that the actor

perceives social appreciation as compensating for the actor’s time allocation.

4. Gender model: Because traditionally, the male partner possesses more resources

indicative of a higher social status known to influence fairness judgments, we

explored whether the postulated processes are identical for men and women, that is,

whether they are equally sensitive to the input differential and outputs.

Method

Participants.

Fifty-two dual-earner couples participated in the present study. In return for their

participation, participants received individual feedback on their time use and took part in a

lottery for a weekend in a nice hotel in the vicinity of Berlin including dinner and child care

arrangements. Participants had an average age of 37 years (SD = 4.9) and their number of

children ranged from one to four with a mean of 1.7. The majority of participants were


married (84 %), the remainder were cohabiting. Particularly in East Germany, cohabitation

has developed into a common and socially accepted alternative to marriage connected with a

high rate of extramarital births (Kiernan, 1999). Ninety percent held a university degree, 10%

had received other vocational training after 13 years of schooling. For both men and women,

average work weeks ranged from 20 to 40 hours according to their work contracts. 58.5% of

the men and 32.1% of the women earned more than EURO 25.000 (about 30,500 U.S. dollars)

of gross yearly income.

Procedure.

The empirical investigation consisted of three parts. (a) First, the participants

answered an internet questionnaire containing sociodemographic characteristics and

questionnaires about working conditions, for instance, that we did not ut ilize in this study. We

chose this form of data collection because it allowed us to directly receive each questionnaire

participants had completed in an economic way. (b) A week later, both partners participated

in a 6-day intensive time-sampling phase beginning with a visit of a research assistant to

participants’ home, during which she explained the use of the time-sampling device, a

handheld PSION computer, and supervised responses to one simulated signal. In the course of

each of the six days (between 9.30 a.m. and 9.30 p.m), both partners simultaneously received

five signals separated by intervals of approximately three hours. Signal-contingent

questionnaires presented via handheld computer sampled the activities performed at the

moment of the signal and their perceived social appreciation. In addition, participants

recorded those activities they performed during the time interval between the previous and the

current signal via a paper booklet containing a time- line with 96 15-minute intervals (e.g.,

5:00, 5:15, 5:30). Taken together, answering the questions took five to seven minutes per

measurement occasion. For the activities performed after the last signal, an additional prompt

appeared the next morning after waking up in order to continuously record all the activities of

the waking day. For the current purpose, we used aggregates of the continuous activity


recordings because the recordings took place retrospectively. Although participants rated

perceived social appreciation concurrently, we had to use aggregates across the sampling

period because of the low number of time samples; that is, we did not have an appreciation

rating for housework on each day. (c) One month after completion of the time-sampling

period, participants had to complete an internet questionnaire assessing the ir relationship

satisfaction.

Selectivity of the sample.

We recruited employed parents through advertisements in local newspapers,

information leaflets at pediatrician offices, and through public and private organizations in

Berlin. Out of a total of 133 couples who called in, we had to exclude 46 because they did not

meet all of the inclusion criteria: In 23 cases (17%), one partner reported an illness or took

medication known to affect cortisol regulation; in 13 cases (10%), one partner had less than

20 hours of paid work; in 5 cases (4%), one partner was telecommuting or had so much work

travel that the time at home was less than three weekdays ; in 4 cases (3%), one partner did not

have sufficient years of education; in 1 case (0.8%), the youngest child was too old. Thirty-

five couples decided not to participate after the first contact: Fifteen couples (11%) dropped

out prior to the time-sampling phase, 14 couples (11%) had other reasons such as a move

during the study time or they did not like the questions asked or they did not give a reason, 5

couples (4%) found the exigencies of the study to be incompatible with their work

requirements or work hours, and one study participant (0.8%) did not answer the final internet

questionnaire. Not a single couple dropped out in the course of the time-sampling phase.

Measures.

Daily activities. For their time-use reports, participants used a coding scheme

distinguishing between five activity categories with 5 to 8 subcategories each (market work;

leisure; household work including shopping, preparing meals, cleaning, doing laundry,

maintaining house and garden; childcare; personal activities. From the continuous time-use


recordings, we computed the following time-use indices across the six sampling days : (a) total

duration of market work (37.3 hours for men and 30.3 hours for women, t = 2.43, p < .05), (b)

total duration of household work (13.3 hours for men and 15.8 hours for women, t = -1.26,

n.s.), and (c) the absolute within-couple difference in total work load (6.7 hours).

Social appreciation. We assessed perceived social appreciation of the activity

performed at the moment of the signal with the item “To which extent do other people

appreciate the activity you are engaged in?” Participants answered using a 5-point scale

ranging from not at all (0) to very much (4). Mean social appreciation aggregated across the

sampling period and all activities was 2.40 (SD = 0.58), mean social appreciation aggregated

across household work was 2.56 (SD = 0.88, 2.82 for men and 2.35 for women, t = 2.80, p <

.01). The internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s a was .69.

Relationship satisfaction. We used the German version of Hendrick’s (1988)

relationship satisfaction scale (Sander & Boecker, 1993) to assess each partner’s satisfaction.

Participants rated each of the 7 items on a scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (5).

Sample items are “How well does your partner meet your needs?,” “In general, how satisfied

are you with your relationship?.” Relationship satisfaction scores ranged from 1.86 to 4.86

(SD = .58). The internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s a was .85.

Number of children. Participants reported the number of children below age 18 living

in the household, it ranged from one to four (M = 1.7).

Relationship duration. Participants reported the length of their partnership in years, it

ranged from 1 to 19 (M = 9.21).

Analytic strategy.

For modeling the substantive hypotheses, we employed actor-partner interdependence

models for all the dependent variables within a multilevel framework (Bryk & Raudenbush,

1992; Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Kashy & Kenny, 2000). If individuals did not have a score

for the social appreciation of their household work on a specific day, we imputed it as a


function of the individual’ s gender. We analyzed both the data set with and the one without

imputed missing variables in order to be able to report divergences in the results between the

two. As a reference model, we used a model that contained only control variables. The input

model included the main effect of input on relationship satisfaction. The following model

represents this relationship with the actor’s satisfaction score as dependent variable and

actor’s and partner’s time allocated to market and household work as grand-centered

individual- level predictors:

Yij = ß0j + ß1j (Market Work Actor) + ß2j (Market Work Partner) + ß3j (Housework Actor) + ß4j

(Housework Partner) + rij

In the couple-level model, we allowed only the intercept to vary across couples, we set all

other residual parameter variances to zero.

ß0j = ?00 + u0j

ß1j = ?10

ß2j = ?20

ß3j = ?30

ß4j = ?40

In the first equity model, we added the effect of the intracouple difference in inputs

while the individual- level predictors remained the same as in the input model. Including the

input difference as a couple- level predictor led to the following couple-level model, in which

we expected the intercept to vary across couples as a function of a grand mean and the input

difference per couple and we set the residual parameter variances of the slopes to zero:


ß0j = ?00 + ?01 (Absolute difference in inputs) + u0j

ß1j = ?10

ß2j = ?20

ß3j = ?30

ß4j = ?40

In the second equity model, we added the effect of outputs on relationship satisfaction

by including the measure of perceived appreciation on the individual level. The following

model represented this relationship with actor’s satisfaction score as dependent variable and

actor’s and partner’s time allocated to market and household work and the actor’s perception

of the appreciation of the actor’s housework by others as grand-centered individual- level

predictors:

Yij = ß0j + ß1j (Market Work Actor) + ß2j (Market Work Partner) + ß3j (Housework Actor) + ß4j

(Housework Partner) + ß5j (Perceived Appreciation of Actor’s Housework) + rij

Again, input difference was as a couple- level predictor and apart from the intercept,

we set all the residual parameter variances to zero. This led to the following couple- level

model, in which we expected the intercept to vary across couples as a function of a grand

mean and the input difference per couple, while preventing the slopes from varying:

ß0j = ?00 + ?01 (Absolute difference in inputs) + u0j

ß1j = ?10

ß2j = ?20

ß3j = ?30

ß4j = ?40


ß5j = ?50

In the gender model, we estimated a version of the third model containing gender-specific

intercepts and slopes.

Results

Descriptive information. Table 1 displays intercorrelations between predictors and

criteria as well as their gender specific means and standard deviations. Mothers and fathers

did not differ with respect to the number of hours allocated to housework or in relationship

satisfaction. Fathers as compared to mothers, however, allocated more hours to paid work,

and reported higher levels of appreciation for housework. Housework negatively related to

time allocated to market work. A positive association existed between appreciation of

housework by others and relationship satisfaction.

Input model. The first hypothesis regarded the effect of partner’s input on actor’s

satisfaction. The fully unconditional model revealed 62% of the variance in relationship

satisfaction to originate between individuals (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.62).

Model 2 of Table 2 displays the results of including both partners’ inputs. The average

relationship satisfaction was 3.98. In contrast to our expectations, neither partner’s time

allocated to market or household work (0.0032, 0.0050) nor actor’s own time allocated to

market or household work had an effect on an actor’s relationship satisfaction (-0.0058, -

0.0063). The predictors accounted for 9.11% of the unconditional intraperson variance, the

deviance reduction was not significant (?2 = 6.44, df = 6). Hence, contrary to our hypotheses,

we did not find evidence for a positive relationship between time spent on housework and

partner’s reports of relationship satisfaction.

Equity model I. The second hypothesis specified the effect of the intracouple

difference in inputs. Model 3 in Table 2 displays the results of including the difference as a

couple-level predictor. The average relationship satisfaction was 3.99. As expected, the


absolute difference in time allocated to productive activities reduced both partners’

relationship satisfaction reliably. The proportion reduction in variance of the random

intercepts was 14.85%; the deviance reduction was not significant, however (?2 = 10.41, df =

7).

Equity model II. The third hypothesis regarded the effect of the actor’s perception that

others appreciate the actor’s input. Model 4 in Table 2 displays the results of including

perceived appreciation of an actor’s input. The average relationship satisfaction was 3.99. As

expected, perceived appreciation of housework increased relationship satisfaction by 0.13.

The proportion reduction in variance of the random intercepts was 20.1%; the deviance

reduction was significant (?2 = 16.51, df = 8). The effect of the input difference disappeared

after taking this predictor into account. Hence, in line with the predictions, perceived

appreciation of housework compensates for the negative effect of within-couple differences in

time allocation on relationship satisfaction. In the next section, we move to an examination of

possible gender-specific effects.

Gender model. Table 3 displays the results of the models based on separate intercepts

and slopes for women and men . The average relationship satisfaction for mothers and fathers

was 3.98 and 3.99, respectively. The effect of the couple difference in inputs did not hold up

in this analysis, probably because of reduced power. We found, however, two interesting

gender differences regarding the valuation of inputs and outputs. For fathers, but not for

mothers, partner’s contributions to household work increased relationship satisfaction. For

mothers, but not for fathers, perceived appreciation increased relationship satisfaction. The

proportion reduction in variance of the random intercepts was 19.1%; the deviance reduction

(?2 = 27.83, df = 16) was significant. These results show that the processes underlying the

relationship between input, appreciation, and output vary between mothers and fathers with

mothers reporting a higher relationship satisfaction if they perceived others to appreciate their


housework whereas fathers reported a higher level of relationship satisfaction when their wife

allocated more time to housework.

Discussion

In a sample of professional dual-earner couples with a least one child under 5 years,

we investigated whether, in addition to individual contributions to market and household

work, couple-level differences in those contributions had an effect on relationship satisfaction

and whether perceived social appreciation of housework activities could reduce this effect.

The findings did not support the input model’s prediction that partner’s actual

contribution to housework increases an individual’s relationship satisfaction. Consistent with

findings of previous studies (Presser, 1994), the number of hours allocated to housework was

relatively low. On average, it did not differ between mothers and fathers in this sample of

highly educated professionals with comparable combinations of social roles and comparable

social status. Although rarely reported, this is a remarkable instance of gender equality

(Frankenhaeuser et al., 1999; Hochschild, 1989; but see Pleck & Stance, 1995; Barnett &

Shen, 1997). The following is the only unsupported prediction and we did not deduce it from

equity theory: The number of hours allocated to housework by one partner did not relate to

the other partner’s rela tionship satisfaction. One explanation for the lack of support for it may

be that it is possible to neutralize positive effects of instrumental support through the concrete

fashion in which a person delivers it (e.g., with criticism, or reproach, see Semmer et al.,

2005; but see Klumb, Hoppmann, & Staats, submitted).

The findings supported the prediction of the first equity model that the absolute

difference in actual contributions within the couple decreases relationship satisfaction. Both

partners reported decreased relationship satisfaction if housework was unequally distributed,

independent of the direction of the difference, that is, of whom it favored. Showing that not

solely the disadvantaged partner experiences effects of an unequal division of housework, this


result supports the core assumption of equity theory, which posits that an unfair exchange

affects both parties (Lerner & Mikula, 1994; Walster & Walster, 1975).

In contrast to most other equity-theoretical studies, however, the effect was based on

an objective time-use measure. The majority of existing evidence showed that perceptions of

equity have a stronger effect on couples’ well-being and relationships than the amount of time

allocated to household chores per se, which was frequently found to have no effect at all

(Bird, 1999; Frisco & Williams, 2003; Perry-Jenkins & Folk, 1994; Voydanoff & Donnelly,

1999). Because we avoided substantive overlap and common method variance, inferences

from our study using actual time use as measure of inequity should be more valid than those

based on a subjective measure. The price to this gain, however, may be a reduced effect size.

Future research will benefit from continuing efforts to combine objective and subjective

measures.

In line with the prediction of the second equity model, the negative effect of an

unequal division of housework disappeared when we took into account the appreciation

individuals reported to receive for their household activities, indicating that this perception

indeed compensates for the difference in contributions. Hence, it seems that, consistent with

equity theory as well as with the effort-reward- imbalance model (von dem Knesebeck &

Siegrist, 2003; Walster & Walster, 1975), considering both inputs and outputs, the relative

equality model represents the observed phenomenon well. Interindividual differences in

habitual perceptions of the world did not cause the effect, because in our models, we tried to

eliminate these differences.

Our findings regarding the gender model were mixed. We did not find a differential

effect of discrepancies in contributions as posited by the proportional equity hypothesis

according to which the party owning more resources will perceive a difference in its favor as

fair. Mothers and fathers seemed to have equal concern about an unequal division of labor.

Previous studies did report gender differences in the effect of perceived inequity on


relationship satisfaction (e.g., Lavee & Katz, 2002). One reason for not finding such a

differential effect could be the high degree of equality within our couples that may be the

result of both pertinent attitudes (which we did not assess) and the intracouple similarity in

resource-based power (Geerken & Gove, 1983; South & Spitze, 1994), which is a

consequence of our sampling strategy. Furthermore, one has to bear in mind that the total

amount of time allocated to housework by our couples was relatively low (“cash-paying

couples” according to Bergmann, 1986). This is one of the reasons for whwhy the findings

may possess limited generalizability. Whether they do also apply to couples from other social

strata, for example, to those who cannot afford to substitute money for time, remains for

testing in future studies.

The association between the two kinds of outputs and relationship satisfaction was a

differential one, however. For fathers’ relationship satisfaction, partner’s contributions were

more important than the appreciation received for their own contributions. For mothers’

relationship satisfaction, perceived appreciation was more important than tangible

contributions of the partner. Rather than revealing differential preferences, this pattern may

reflect the gender difference in available resources. On one hand, mothers received a lower

amount of appreciation for the ir housework than fathers (cf. Table 1) and may, therefore,

consider it as more important than fathers did. On the other hand, fathers worked more hours

on the labor market and had, therefore, less time available that may have resulted in their

placing more emphasis on their partner’s engagement in housework. Before translating this

finding into simple recipes for marital happiness, replication of it in other groups of working

parents is necessary.

Strengths and limitations. Using interval-contingent diaries allowed us to assess

reliable and valid measures of time use, which come as close as possible to the quality of

observational measures. Kenny’s Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (Kashy & Kenny,

2000) enabled us to model simultaneously the effect of both partners’ inputs and outputs on


both partners’ relationship satisfaction. We believe that this is the most appropriate fashion of

handling this kind of nonindependent data. Because our outcome measure, relationship

satisfaction, was a subjective rating, as a predictor, we employed a diary-based measure of

actual time use aggregated by ourselves to circumvent problems of criterion contamination.

We also have to mention a number of shortcomings. First, because of the highly

selected and homogenous sample, there was a restriction of power to detect intercouple

differences and generalizations to other groups of working parents require caution. For

example, the high degree of equality in our couples may be a result of self-selection. Second,

we could not rule out the possibility that enhanced marital conflict over the division of labor

mediates the effect of the absolute difference in contributions (Perry-Jenkins & Folk, 1994).

We did not assess conflict episodes and were, therefore, not able to test this mediation. Third,

through focusing on the effect of paid work and housework on relationship satisfaction, we

cannot say anything about the effect of child care that might differ from that of housework

(Strazdins, Galligan, & Scannell, 1997).

Conclusion. In a sample of dual-career families with at least one child under 5 years of

age, we found an inequitable division of labor to negatively influence relationship satisfaction

of both the advantaged and the disadvantaged partner. The perceived appreciation of

performed housework reduced this effect. Whereas there were no gender differences in these

primary effects, we did find gender-specific slopes: Their partner’s contribution to housework

influenced fathers’ relationship satisfaction more strongly than perceived appreciation of their

own contributions, and the appreciation they received for their contributions influenced

mothers’ relationship satisfaction more strongly than their partner’s contributions did.

With its focus on social appreciation, this study contributes to the literature on fairness

in the division of labor and extends existing evidence in four ways. (a) Adopting a microlevel

perspective, our study complements previous research on fairness in the division of labor. The

microanalytic approach allows stronger inferences of within-couple associations and of the


between-couple factors tha t may affect these associations. (b) Using an objective measure of

time use, that is, a predictor that is not criterion-contaminated, we still found differences in

contributions to housework to explain differences in relationship satisfaction, thereby

confirming results based on subjective perceptions of fairness. (c) In line with a paradigm

shift in stress research, we showed that we can offset negative consequences of an inequitable

division of labor, if the performed activities are socially appreciated. (d) We further found a

gender difference in the effect of social appreciation that may reflect gender differences in

available resources and seems worthy of further investigation.


References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Barnett, R. C., & Shen, Y.-C. (1997). Gender, high- and low-schedule-control housework

tasks, and psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 403-428.

Bergmann, B. (1986). The economic emergence of women. New York: Basis Books.

Bird, C. E. (1999). Gender, household labor, and psychological distress: The impact of the

amount and division of housework. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 40, 32-45.

Bittman, M., & Wajcman, J. (2000). The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender

equity. Social Forces, 79, 165-189.

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.

Blossfeld, H.-P., & Drobnic, S. (Eds.) (2001). Careers of couples in contemporary society.

From male breadwinner to dual-earner families. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived.

Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579-616.

Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: An

evolutionary perspective on its importance for health and well-being. In W. Stroebe &

M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology. Vol. 10. Chichester, UK:

Wiley.

Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994). A biopsychological approach to stress in women and men. In V.

J. Adesso, D. M. Reddy, & R. Fleming (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on women’s

health (pp. 39-56). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.


Frankenhaeuser, M., Lundberg, U., Fredrikson, M., Melin, B., Tuomisto, M., & Myrsten, A.-

L. (1989). Stress on and off the job as related to sex and occupational status in white-

collar workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 321-346.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs.

subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In C.

L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp.

375-411). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Freudenthaler, H. H., & Mikula, G. (1998). From unfulfilled wants to the experience of

injustice: Women's sense of injustice regarding the lopsided division of household

labor. Social Justice Research, 11(3), 289-312.

Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and

divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51-73.

Glenn, N. D. (1998). The course of marital success and failure in five American 10-year

marriage cohorts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 569-576.

Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Meiners, K. M. (1995). Exploring wives' sense of fairness

about family work: An initial test of the distributive justice framework. Journal of

Family Issues, 16, 693-721.

Hendricks, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage

and the Family, 50, 93-98.

Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York: Avon Books.

Huinink, J. (1995). Warum noch Familie? [Why still family?] Frankfurt a.M., Germany:

Campus.

Huinink, J., & Konietzka, D. (2003). Die De-Standardisierung einer Statuspassage? Zum

Wandel des Auszugs aus dem Elternhaus und des Übergangs in das Erwachsenenalter

in Westdeutschland [De-standardization of the status passage? Change in moving out


from the parental home and the transition to adult age in Western Germany]. Soziale

Welt, 54, 285 - 311.

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T.

Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality

psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kenny, D. A. (1990). Design issues in dyadic research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.),

Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 164-184). Newbury Park:

Sage.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). The design and analysis of social- interaction research. Annual Review of

Psychology, 47, 59-86.

Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues,

analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.

Kenny, D. A., Manetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis

of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.

Kiernan, K. (1999, September). European perspectives on non-marital childbearing. Paper

presented at the European Population Conference, The Hague, Netherlands.

Klumb, P. L., & Baltes, M. M. (1999a). Time use of old and very old Berliners: Productive

and consumptive activities as functions of resources. Journal of Gerontology: Social

Sciences, 54B, S271-S278.

Klumb, P. L., Hoppmann, C., & Staats, M. (submitted). Work hours affect spouse’s cortisol

secretion—For better and for worse. Psychosomatic Medicine.

Knesebeck, O. v. d., & Siegrist, J. (2003). Reported nonreciprocity of social exchange and

depressive symptoms. Extending the model of effort-reward imbalance beyond work.

Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 55, 209-214.

Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The

moderating effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 24-39.


Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Lerner, M. J., & Mikula, G. (Eds.). (1994). Entitlement and the affectional bond: Justice in

close relationships. New York: Plenum.

Lothaller, H., Mikula, G., & Jagoditsch, S. (in preparation). What contributes to the

(im)balanced division of family work between sexes? An empirical test of different

theoretical approaches.

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.

Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and marital power: An equity model. American Journal of

Sociology, 91, 557-592.

Perry-Jenkins, M., & Folk, K. (1994). Class, couples, and conflict: Effects of the division of

labor on assessments of marriage in dual-earner families. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 56, 165-180.

Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives' and husbands' housework reporting: Gender, class

and social desirability. Gender & Society, 12, 188-218.

Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of

household labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 59, 348-364.

Rupp, M. (1999). Die nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaft als Bindungsphase.

Paarkonstellationen und Bindungsprozesse [The non-marital union as phase of

attachment. Couple-constellations and attachment processes]. Hamburg, Germany:

Kovac.

Semmer, N. K., McGrath, J. E., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Conceptual Issues in research on

stress and health. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of stress and health (2nd ed., pp. 1-

43). New York: CRC Press.


Siegrist, J. (2002). Effort-reward imbalance at work and health. In P. Perrewe & D. Ganster

(Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well being, historical and current

perspectives on stress and health (pp. 261-291). New York: JAI Elsevier York.

Smith, H. L., Gager, C. T., & Morgan, S. P. (1998). Identifying underlying dimensions in

spouses´ evaluations of fairness in the division of household labor. Social Science

Research, 27, 305-327.

South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Housework in marital and nonmarital households. American

Sociological Review, 59, 327-347.

Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not

be controlled in job stress research: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.

Thoits, P. A. (1983). Multiple identies and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test

of the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48, 174-187.

Vaskovics, L. A., Rupp, M., & Hoffmann, B. (1997). Lebensverläufe in der Moderne I:

Nichteheliche Lebensgemeinschaften - Eine soziologische Längsschnittstudie [Life

courses in modernity I: Non-marital unions – A sociological longitudinal study].

Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.

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.

Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31,

21-43.

Weber, H., & Westmeyer, H. (2001, September). Zur Konfundierung von Prädiktoren und

Kriterien in der Psychologie [On the confounding of predictors and criteria in

psychological research]. Paper presented at the 6. Arbeitstagung der Fachgruppe für


Differentielle Psychologie. Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische

Diagnostik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Leipzig.


Table 1

Hours of work, Couple difference, Appreciation, Relationship Satisfaction, Demographic

Variables: Correlations, Means, and Standard deviations (N = 52)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Male

partner

M (SD)

Female

partner

M (SD)

1. Hours of market work − 37.27

(10.86)

30.33*

(8.90)

2. Hours of housework -.42*** − 13.31

(6.74)

15.82

(6.71)

3. Couple Difference .02 .05 − 6.74

(4.66)

6.74

(4.66)

4. Appreciation of

housework by others

.01 -.11 -.19 − 2.72

(.76)

2.35*

(.88)

5. Relationship satisfaction -.17 .07 -.16 .35** − 3.90

(.57)

4.00

(.58)

6. Relationship duration .06 .06 .12 .28** .21* - 9.21

(.55)

9.21

(.55)

7. Number of Children -.19 .05 .02 .05 .17 .46** 1.67

(.09)

1.67

(.09)

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Table 2

Multilevel Model Results Predicting Relationship Satisfaction From Individual and Couple Level Variables Using Restricted Maximum Likelihood

Estimation (N = 104 Individuals From 52 Couples)

Relationship Satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Unstandardized

Coefficient

SE Unstandardized

Coefficient

SE Unstandardized

Coefficient

SE Unstandardized

Coefficient

SE

Fixed Effects

Couple level

Relationship Duration .0244 .0188 .0331 .0195 .0395 .0183 .0395 .0191

Number of Children .1341 .1166 .0554 .1053 .0777 .1073 .0777 .1191

Couple Difference -.0333* .0144 -.0283 .0150

Individual level

Intercept 3.9572*** .0693 3 .9582*** .0655 3 .9578*** .0641 3.9577*** .0642

Household labor

Actor

-.0044

.0092

-.0036

.0094

-.0018

.0084

Partner .0031 .0093 .0038 .0095 .0043 .0083

Market work

Actor

-.0126

.0077

-.0119

.0071

-.0110

.0068


Partner .0061 .0064 .0055 .0062 .0028 .0068

Appreciation Actor .1184* .0582

Table 2 continued

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variance SE Variance SE Variance SE Variance SE

Random Effects

Intercept .1770*** .4217 .1611*** .4017 .1407*** .3750 .1255*** .3542

Residual .1371 .3702 .1330 .3647 .1329 .3646 .1320 .3633

Estimated parameters 5 9 10 11

Deviance 153.2002 149.1381 144.0896 139.5865

Note: Convergence criterion = 0.000001.

*p <.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Table 3

Gender-Specific Multilevel Model Predicting Relationship Satisfaction From Individual and

Couple Level Variables Using Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (N = 104

Individuals From 52 Couples)

Relationship Satisfaction

Unstandardized

Coefficient

SE

Fixed Effects

Couple level

Relationship Duration

Female

.0176

.0219

Male .0579 .0298

Number of Children

Female

.1720

.0953

Male -.0020 .1813

Couple Difference

Female

-.0303

.0176

Male -.0321 .0183

Individual level

Intercept

Female 3.3440*** .4556

Male 4.5854*** .4260

Household labor

Female Actor

.0086

.0126

Male Actor -.0088 .0157

Female Partner -.0048 .0154

Male Partner .0178* .0087

Market work

Female Actor

-.0044

.0089

Male Actor -.0125 .0010


Female Partner .0054 .0077

Male Partner -.0165 .0092

Appreciation

Female

.2065*

.0967

Male .0503 .0805

Table 3 continued

Variance SE

Random Effects

Intercept Female .2508*** .5008

Intercept Male .2222*** .4713

Estimated parameters 21

Deviance 124.7406

Note: Convergence criterion = 0.000001.

*p <.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.


Figure Caption

Figure 1. The Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (Kenny, 1996)


Figure 1

Input/Output Partner A

Satisfaction Partner A

Satisfaction Partner B

Input/Output Partner B

Documents

Relative equity a nd relationship satisfaction 1 - unifr.ch equity a nd relationship satisfaction 1 Division of labor in German dual-earner families: Testing equity-theoretical hypotheses