Housework: Cause and consequence of gender ideology?

Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Social Science Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch

Housework: Cause and consequence of gender ideology? Daniel L. Carlson a,⇑, Jamie L. Lynch b a b

Department of Sociology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5020, Atlanta, GA 30302-5020, United States Department of Sociology, St. Norbert College, 100 Grant Street, De Pere, WI 54115-2099, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 16 September 2012 Revised 29 April 2013 Accepted 1 July 2013 Available online 15 July 2013 Keywords: Gender Work Family Routine housework Egalitarian gender ideology Household division of labor

a b s t r a c t Nearly all quantitative studies examining the association between the division of housework and gender ideology have found that gender egalitarianism results in less housework for wives, more for husbands, and more equal sharing of housework by couples. However, a few studies suggest housework has a nontrivial influence on gender ideology. An overreliance on single-direction, single-equation regression models and cross-sectional data has limited past research from making strong claims about the causal relationship between gender ideology and housework. We use data on married couples from Waves 1 and 2 of the National Survey of Families and Households and nonrecursive simultaneous equation models to assess the causal relationship between housework and gender ideology. Results show a mutual and reciprocal relationship between the division of housework and gender ideology for both husbands’ and wives’. Reciprocity is strongest for husbands while for wives the relationship is partially indirect and mediated through their husbands’ gender ideologies. Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Quantitative research on the relationship between gender ideology—or one’s belief regarding men’s and women’s appropriate family roles—and the division of housework has focused exclusively on how gender ideology influences the division of housework among married couples. This narrow focus is problematic because it ignores the reality that gender ideology changes over time in response to changes in behavior (Risman, 1998; Vespa, 2009), and, as a few, largely qualitative, studies suggest, housework allocation within marriages also affects gender ideology (Gager, 1998; Kroska and Elman, 2009). The relationship between attitudes and behaviors is often reciprocal, and evidence indicates the gender ideology–housework relationship is no exception. Yet, to date no study has examined the possibility of a reciprocal relationship using representative data. Using quantitative methods to establish directionality between gender ideology and the division of housework is important for at least two reasons. First, although qualitative studies suggest a reciprocal relationship between gender ideology and the division of household labor, the findings are not broadly generalizable and provide little information on the relative strength and size of effects. Second, failing to account for the possibility of a reciprocal association in quantitative analyses may result in inconsistent or biased estimates when relationships are assumed to be unidirectional (Finkel, 1995). It is possible that the failure of past quantitative research to specify that housework performance can influence gender ideology has created a general misunderstanding of the magnitude and direction of effects in the housework and gender ideology relationship. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.L. Carlson). 0049-089X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.003

1506

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

In this study we examine possible reciprocality between gender ideology and the division of housework using nonrecursive simultaneous equation models that relax assumptions of single-direction causality. In an effort to compare our results with landmark studies on housework and gender ideology we use data from Waves 1 and 2 of the National Survey of Families and Households. 2. Background 2.1. The effect of gender ideology on housework allocation Although a myriad of factors including spouses’ relative resources, time availability, parental status, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status affect the sharing of household labor (Coltrane, 2000), gender ideology has been proffered as the central explanation for the division of housework in marriage. Much of the research investigating the gender ideology hypothesis overtly or implicitly emphasizes a gender socialization perspective where men’s and women’s participation in housework is predicated on beliefs regarding family roles and gendered behavior acquired in early childhood and adolescence (Blair and Lichter, 1991; Coverman, 1985; Cunningham, 2001). Not only do these learned attitudes and beliefs about gender roles directly influence housework arrangements in adulthood, they are indirectly related to housework allocation through their influence on full- or part-time employment, earnings, social engagements, and time availability (Cunningham, 2008; Glauber and Gozjolko, 2011; Heisig, 2011). Two reviews of housework research, one from the 90’s (Coltrane, 2000) and another from first decade of the 21st century (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard, 2010) report that nearly all empirical studies over the past 20 years testing the gender ideology hypothesis find support for it (for exceptions see Sanchez and Thomson, 1997; Silver and Goldscheider, 1994). Specifically, research has found that holding egalitarian attitudes about the gendered division of labor is associated with fewer hours and a smaller share of housework for wives and more hours and a larger share of housework for husbands, and that couples who embrace egalitarian attitudes tend to more equally share housework than those who espouse a belief in separate gender spheres (i.e., breadwinner–homemaker ideal). There are a few caveats, nonetheless. For example, gender ideology tends to be a weaker predictor of one’s hours of housework performed compared to one’s share of housework (Coltrane, 2000), and compared to wives’, husbands’ gender ideologies tend to be stronger determinants of who does the housework and how it is shared within couples (Cunningham, 2005; Ferree, 1991; Kroska, 2004; Ross, 1987). Despite some variation across studies, gender ideology is often associated with both men’s and women’s hours and shares of housework. A major limitation of studies testing the gender ideology hypothesis is that in all cases, except one, the dependency of housework arrangements on gender ideology is not verified but assumed. This is because nearly all studies utilize cross-sectional data and employ OLS regression. As Cunningham (2005) notes, Despite the frequency with which the causal effects of attitudes on housework have been studied, there has been a general failure to adequately demonstrate the direction of the causal relationship. It has been common for researchers to assess attitudes about gender and housework performance simultaneously and to make the strong assumption that attitudes are causally antecedent to behavior (Cunningham, 2005: p. 1040). . Indeed, Cunningham’s (2005) is the only longitudinal study to date that explicitly accounts for temporal ordering – an important, though insufficient, criterion for establishing causal directionality (Kessler and Greenberg, 1981) – in assessing the effect of gender ideology on the sharing of housework. Examining the effect of gender ideology at age 18 and at age 31 on housework allocation at age 31, he found that husbands’ but not wives’ gender ideologies at age 31 were associated with one’s share of housework within marriage. No effect of gender ideology at age 18 on housework was found among married respondents. Therefore, despite using longitudinal data Cunningham found only a simultaneous association between gender ideology and the division of housework. We see two reasons why most quantitative studies examine only the effect of gender ideology on housework allocation despite early speculation that the relationship is reciprocal (cf. Huber and Spitze, 1983). First, research on couples’ housework arrangements has been less interested in assessing causal directionality between gender ideology and housework than in identifying the causes of housework arrangements. Spurred by Hochschild’s (1989) and others’ observation of the ‘‘second shift’’ for employed women in dual-earner marriages, wives’ persistent disproportionate share of housework emerged as an outcome of particular interest for scholars focused on explaining the stalled revolution in gender equality. Second, scholars have likely treated spouses’ gender ideologies as a predictor rather than an outcome of housework arrangements because nearly all quantitative studies examining this relationship are cross-sectional. From a practical standpoint, even if some scholars question directionality, data and modeling limitations have made it difficult to examine housework arrangements as temporally prior to gender ideology. Given a gender socialization perspective arguing that gender ideology is formed as early as adolescence (Cunningham, 2001), researchers assumed and assigned temporal priority to gender ideology rather than the division of housework. Employing methods that can assess directionality is important for establishing that gender ideology does indeed affect housework arrangements in marriages. Yet, only estimating the effect of gender ideology on housework ignores the

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

1507

fact that the division of housework in marriages likely influences both spouses’ gender ideologies, and thus that the relationship is actually reciprocal. Quantitative gender ideology–housework research has generally failed to consider this possibility, an oversight that may have led to inaccurate conclusions about the direction, size, and magnitude of causal effects. 2.2. The reciprocal relationship between housework allocation and gender ideology As investigations of political participation (Finkel, 1985), health behaviors (Marsh et al., 2006), drug and alcohol use (Dorsey et al., 1999; Stein et al., 1987), school performance (Ma, 1997) and delinquency (Liska and Reed, 1985; Menard and Huizinga, 1994) demonstrate, reciprocal relationships between attitudes and behaviors are common. The theories of reasoned action and planned behavior posit that behavior is determined by one’s intention to act, which is derived from one’s attitude toward the behavior, social behavioral norms, and one’s perceived control over the behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Although attitudes drive action, scholars recognize they are not fixed. Indeed, one factor that affects attitude change is past behavior (Maio et al., 2006). According to Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory, one’s attitude toward a behavior is the product of self-attributions made by an individual on the basis of her own behavior in light of contextual constraints on a given behavior. In other words, ‘‘the individual’s own behavior will be used by him as a source of evidence for his beliefs and attitudes’’ (Bem, 1972, p. 8). In this way, individuals discover a taste or distaste (i.e., an attitude) for particular behaviors by engaging in them. Furthermore, as cognitive dissonance theory suggests, individuals may alter their attitudes (or behaviors) to alleviate psychological discomfort when attitudes and behaviors are discrepant (Festinger, 1957). Studies testing the gender ideology hypothesis implicitly subscribe to the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Yet, empirical research finds that individuals’ gender ideologies are fluid and shaped by many behavioral factors including, but not limited to, labor force participation, earnings, education, marital status, and parenthood (Carlson and Knoester, 2011; Davis, 2007; Kroska and Elman, 2009; Moen et al., 1997; Zuo and Tang, 2000). Three theoretical perspectives are used by family scholars to explain attitude development and change (Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004; Kroska and Elman, 2009). First, scholars employ control explanations – such as cognitive dissonance theory or identity control theory (Burke, 1991) – to argue that individuals adjust their gender ideologies to align with their gendered behavior when the two are inconsistent. Second, scholars often employ exposure-based or socialization explanations for gender ideology development, holding that individuals develop gender ideologies in response to encountering new situations and ideas. Examples of research from this perspective include studies that show one’s own (for women), one’s mothers, and one’s spouse’s employment (for men), to be positively associated with one’s gender egalitarian beliefs. Additional examples include the impact of education on egalitarianism (Fan and Marini, 2000). Lastly, scholars employ interest-based explanations where individuals alter gender ideology when their interests dictate that doing so would be beneficial. For example, this explanation has been used to account for increased egalitarianism among men with working wives (Zuo and Tang, 2000) and why women are more egalitarian than men, on average (Kroska and Elman, 2009). Regarding the housework–gender ideology relationship specifically, studies have found that couples’ housework arrangements can substantially transform spouses’ ideologies over time. Consistent with theories of cognitive dissonance and other control-based explanations, qualitative studies using in-depth interviews and in-home observations have found that husbands and wives, in an effort to reduce stress and frustration resulting from conflict between expected and actual labor arrangements, adjust their orientations toward these arrangements (Gager, 1998; Hochschild, 1989). For example, Gager (1998) found that couples who were financially unable to enact their desire for a breadwinner–homemaker household reevaluated their attitudes and changed their expectations for the division of labor. She noted as well that some men who wished to emulate a traditional model of separate spheres but married value-egalitarian women altered their expectations about the division of labor as did initially homemaking-oriented women who became dissatisfied with homemaking. The single quantitative study that has analyzed the effect of housework on gender ideology found that changes in the division of housework are positively associated with changes in wives’ gender ideologies over time (Kroska and Elman, 2009), something the authors attribute to exposure to this arrangement. How then, exactly, are housework and gender ideology related? The evidence is inconclusive. On one hand, since the early 80s, quantitative research has reported a consistent and robust effect of gender ideology on the division of housework. However, by using cross-sectional data and single-direction, single-equation regression models, previous research testing the gender ideology hypothesis has been unable to truly discount the possibility that observed associations are due instead to the effect of one’s housework responsibilities on gender ideology. On the other hand, qualitative evidence and recent quantitative research suggest that housework performance has a nontrivial effect on gender ideology, but studies in this area are generally non-representative or have not examined the possibility of reciprocality. It is a mistake to view these separate streams of research as mutually exclusive; indeed both processes likely operate simultaneously. Yet, a weakness of previous research has been the inability to statistically test for the possibility of a reciprocal relationship, and determine the relative strength and viability of directional effects.

1508

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

3. Method 3.1. Data Data for this study come from Waves 1 (1987–1988) and 2 (1992–1994) of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). Of the 13,017 households interviewed in the first wave, 10,005 were re-interviewed in 1992–1994. We restrict the sample to continuously married couples in Waves 1 and 2 where at least one of the spouses was of working age (under age 60 at Wave 1) and who completed interviews and self-administered questionnaires in both waves. Of the 13,017 Wave 1 primary respondents, 6877 were married (52.8%), 81% (5618) of which had at least one spouse under age 60. Of the original married couples where the primary respondent was under age 60 at Wave 1, 967 were lost to attrition, 757 couples dissolved either through divorce, separation, or widowhood, 4 reported being married to someone else, and another 16 exhibited inconsistencies between their Wave 1 and Wave 2 marital status. These restrictions resulted in an analytic sample of N = 3874 married couples. We chose the NSFH because the vast majority of research conducted on housework allocation over the last twenty plus years uses this data. Despite its age, using the NSFH to test our hypotheses ensures our findings are not an artifact of idiosyncratic data. 3.2. Analytic strategy 3.2.1. Model specification If the directional relationship between housework and gender ideology is misspecified, estimates from single-direction regression models will be biased and possibly inconsistent, even if estimates come from cross-sectional or panel data with lagged dependent variables (Bollen, 2012; Finkel, 1995; Hipp et al., 2011). Given this, testing for directionality requires a modeling technique that can estimate multiple equations with multiple dependent variables while simultaneously accounting for prediction error – a primary source of estimate bias (Finkel, 1995). As shown in Fig. 1, we employ nonrecursive simultaneous equation models using AMOS 19 to test for and measure possible reciprocal causality between gender ideology and the division of housework. We use nonrecursive models rather than cross-lagged models since the reciprocal relationship between attitude–behavior approximates a contemporaneous relationship (Liska et al., 1984). As Liska et al. (1984) note, past attitudes can only influence present behaviors through their effect on current attitudes and the formation of attitudes depends more strongly on current information, thus giving disproportionate weight to current contexts and behaviors. Simultaneous models, therefore, yield more valid estimates than cross-lagged models, which tend to underestimate effects. The decision to estimate contemporaneous reciprocity in the case of gender ideology and housework is buttressed by past studies finding gender ideology to be contemporaneously, rather than distally, related to housework (Cunningham, 2005). Even if the reciprocal associations between housework and gender ideology are time-lagged the lag is likely to be of relatively short duration. A nonrecursive model, then, would more likely approximate the true causal relationship given the 5- to 7-year lag between waves in the NSFH.

Fig. 1. Non-recursive simultaneous model of division of housework and gender ideology.

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

1509

Fig. 2. Non-recursive simultaneous model of division of routine housework, husband’s gender ideology, and wife’s gender ideology.

3.2.2. Model components As seen, the nonrecursive model in Fig. 1 estimates reciprocal paths between the division of housework and gender ideology at Time 2 while also accounting for prediction error, or equation disturbance, for both the division of housework and gender ideology (e1 and e2) and error covariance.1 The model further specifies several observed exogenous variables as predictors of gender ideology and the division of housework. Two of these predictors are measures of gender ideology and the division of housework at Time 1. These variables serve as instrumental variables (IVs) of their respective measures at Time 2. Employing such lagged measures, known as auxiliary instrumental variables (AIVs), is common when using survey data (Bollen, 2012) since IVs are essential for model identification when estimating nonrecursive paths between endogenous variables (Bollen, 1989; Hipp et al., 2011). Lagged measures satisfy the first requirement of IVs in that they are related to the endogenous predictors (Bollen, 2012), but it is uncertain that they satisfy the second requirement of IVs – that they are uncorrelated with the disturbance term of the equation (Bollen, 2012). We are fortunate that theory and past research provide several additional IVs of both gender ideology and the division of housework. These variables, shown in Fig. 1, are labeled model implied instrumental variables or MIIVs and are discussed below. We conduct two statistical tests to assess the strength of the IVs (both AIVs and MIIVs) and whether they are correlated with the disturbance term of any given equation. One the Anderson canonical correlations likelihood ratio test (Hall et al., 1996) assesses the relevance of the instruments. The other, the Hansen–Sargan test (Sargan, 1958), determines if at least one of the IVs in a given equation is correlated with the equation disturbance. The results of these tests (not shown) indicate that all IVs in the model serve to identify the model and there are no concerns with IV-disturbance term correlation. In addition to the AIVs, the MIIVs and the common covariates in the model (i.e., observed exogenous variables that predict both gender ideology and housework) are all assessed at Time 1, ensuring temporal ordering with the endogenous outcomes of interest. Indeed, some time-varying predictors of housework and gender ideology, such as labor force participation and one’s share of a couple’s income, are also affected by both the division of housework and gender ideology (Bolzendahl and Myers, 2004; Cunningham, 2008; Kalleberg and Rosenfeld, 1990; Noonan, 2001). Therefore, including Time 2 measures of these variables could result in model misspecification. An optimal model would estimate nonrecursive paths amongst all of these variables at Time 2. Unfortunately, such a model cannot be mathematically identified. 3.2.3. Procedure Using the model structure presented in Fig. 1 we first estimate the reciprocal relationship between the division of housework and husbands’ gender ideologies. Next, we estimate the reciprocal relationship between the division of housework and wives’ gender ideologies. Last, we introduce a full model (Fig. 2) where the reciprocal relationship of the division of housework with both husbands’ and wives’ gender ideologies are estimated simultaneously. For presentation purposes we do not show the MIIVs and common covariates in Fig. 2 although these paths are estimated. Because spouse’s gender ideologies are mutually reinforcing (Kroska and Elman, 2009), we estimate a third non-recursive relationship in this model between husbands’ and wives’ gender ideologies. In this full model, Time 1 measures of gender ideology for each spouse and the division of housework serve as AIVs of their endogenous counterparts. 3.2.4. Model limitations Nonrecusive models improve the ability to make causal inferences and observe reciprocality, but like all statistical procedures, nonrecursive SEMs are based on several assumptions, the violation of which may result in biased and inaccurate 1 We estimate covariance between our error terms since it is reasonable to assume correlated measurement errors between endogenous outcomes among married persons due to unobserved factors that vary across households (Sanchez, 1994).

1510

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Table 1 Descriptive statistics. M

SD

Range

a

Endogenous variables Husband’s share of routine housework (t2) Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

0.21 10.14 9.34

0.18 3.50 3.23

0–1 0–20 0–20

0.65 0.65

Auxiliary instrumental variables Husbands’ share of routine housework (t1) Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1)

0.18 10.06 9.20

0.17 3.72 3.47

0–1 0–20 0–20

0.71 0.72

Common covariates Wife’s work hours (t1) Husband’s work hours (t1) Husbands’ proportion income (t1) Wife’s occupational prestige # Of children less than age 5 (t1) Addition of child since T1 (1 = yes) Wife’s education (t1) Husband’s education (t1) Black Hispanic Husband’s share of infrequent housework (t1) Total couple hours of infrequent housework (t1)

21.85 39.57 0.59 27.87 0.42 0.37 13.06 13.28 0.10 0.07 0.53 18.93

18.71 15.67 0.33 24.07 0.70 0.67 2.60 2.78 0.30 0.25 0.23 19.63

0–95 0–95 0–1 14–90 0–4

Model implied instrumental variables Husband’s proportion income squared Own home Wife’s age (t1) Husband’s age (t1) Wife’s religious attendance (t1) Husband’s religious attendance (t1) Wife’s religious fundamentalism (t1) Husband’s religious fundamentalism (t1)

0.47 0.75 36.45 38.89 5.31 4.71 2.78 2.68

0.34 0.43 9.79 10.45 2.66 2.53 1.10 1.04

0–20 0–20

0–1

18–69 18–82 1–9 1–9 1–5 1–5

estimates. Like single-direction regression models, structural equation models may be biased due to sampling procedures, variable measurement, unobserved variables, and inaccurate modeling of the functional form of variables. Although several fit statistics help researchers assess and falsify models (i.e., demonstrate that models are inaccurate representations of the data) there are no procedures that can prove whether a model accurately represents reality (Bollen, 1989). Given these limitations, the relationships implied by our models should be interpreted with caution until they are replicated.

3.3. Measures Descriptive characteristics for all variables used in our analysis are displayed in Table 1.

3.3.1. Endogenous and auxiliary instrumental variables In the NSFH, primary respondents and their partners completed self-administered questionnaires asking respondents to report the amount of hours per week they spent in nine household activities including: (a) meal preparation, (b) washing dishes and cleaning up after meals, (c) cleaning house, (d) outdoor and other home maintenance tasks, (e) shopping for groceries and other household goods, (f) washing, ironing, and mending, (g) automobile maintenance and repair, (h) paying bills and keeping financial records, and (i) driving other household members to work, school, or other activities. Factor analyses on these nine household task items yielded 2 dimensions of household work (Eigenvalues > 1.0). The first dimension, which can be labeled ‘‘routine housework’’, consisted of items a, b, c, and f. The remaining items – d, e, g, h, and i – loaded on a second factor, ‘‘infrequent housework.’’ In keeping with the majority of research on the association between gender ideology and shares of housework we focus our analysis on routine housework (for review Coltrane, 2000; Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard, 2010). Division of routine housework T1/T2 is the husband’s proportion of hours spent completing the four routine housework items per week. It is calculated by taking the husbands’ own hours of housework divided by the total number of hours of routine housework completed by the couple. This measure ranges from 0 to 1, where a value of 0 indicates the wife does all of the routine housework, .5 indicates an equal sharing of housework by a couple, and 1 indicates the husband does all the routine housework. One’s hours of routine housework is measured as the number of hours spent on the four routine housework items per week. A small number of cases reported more hours of housework than waking hours in a week; we therefore followed Lennon and Rosenfield (1994) and truncated housework hours for those who reported 120 hours or more.

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

1511

In the NSFH respondents also report on their partners’ participation in household tasks. This is beneficial as respondent’s reports of housework may be skewed due to response bias or inaccuracy in recall (Kamo, 2000). Comparison of spouses’ time spent in housework from survey questionnaires and time diaries demonstrate that respondents, especially husbands, overestimate their own time spent in housework in surveys (Bianchi et al., 2000; Kamo, 2000; Marini and Shelton, 1993). To partially correct for this bias, we follow the recommendation of Kamo (2000) and derive each measure of household labor using the average of husbands’ and wives’ reports on these tasks. Although direct survey measures of housework are limited compared to time diary measures they are employed regularly in analysis of housework because they are more cost-effective than time-diary measures, time-diary measures have their own limitations, and both assessments of housework exhibit predictive similarity (Kamo, 2000). Wife’s/husband’s gender ideology T1/T2 is measured as the summed scale of five items which appear in Waves 1 and 2 of the NSFH and which have been used extensively in various combinations in past research (Bianchi et al., 2000; Carlson and Knoester, 2011; Kroska and Elman, 2009): (a) ‘‘It is much better for everyone if the man earns the main living and the woman takes care of the home and family’’, (b) ‘‘It is all right for mothers to work full-time when their youngest child is under 5’’, (c) ‘‘Preschool children are likely to suffer if their mother is employed’’, (d) ‘‘It is all right for children under age 3 to be cared for all day in a daycare center’’, and (e) ‘‘If a husband and a wife both work full-time, they should share household tasks equally.’’ In Wave 1 items (b) and (d) were worded somewhat differently than in Wave 2. In Wave 1 respondents were asked how much they approved or disapproved with the behaviors, whereas in Wave 2 they were asked for their level of agreement. Moreover, both are measured on a 7-point scale in Wave 1 rather than a 5-point scale as in Wave 2. Therefore, we recalibrated the Wave 1 measures on a 5-point scale (1 = 0; 2 = .67; 3 = 1.33; 4 = 2; 5 = 2.67; 6 = 3.33; 7 = 4). Responses for every item were recoded from 0 to 4 and oriented so that higher scores indicate more egalitarian gender ideologies (Time 1: wives a = .71, husbands a = .72; Time 2: wives a = .65, husbands a = .65). 3.3.2. Model Implied Instrumental Variables (MIIVs) In addition to the AIVs we also include several variables as unique instruments of gender ideology and a husband’s share of routine housework. Each of the following measures is known to be associated with one or the other variable but not both (Bianchi et al., 2000; Civettini and Glass, 2008; Coltrane, 2000; Davis and Greenstein, 2009). The MIIVs of husbands’ and wives’ gender ideologies include each spouse’s age at Time 1, religious attendance at Time 1, and level of religious fundamentalism at Time 1. A wife’s and a husband’s age is measured in years. Wife’s/husband’s religious attendance is an ordinal variable for the frequency of attendance at religious services. Categories for this variable include: 1-Never; 2-Less than once a year; 3About once a year; 4-Several times a year; 5-About once a month; 6-2 times a month; 7-Nearly every week; 8-Every week; 9-More than once a week. Wife’s and husband’s religious fundamentalism was assessed by respondents’ level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) with the statement ‘‘I consider myself a religious fundamentalist.’’ The MIIVs of husband’s share of routine housework in the model include Husband’s proportion of couple’s income squared (Brines, 1994) and whether the couple owns a home (1 = yes). 3.3.3. Common covariates We include a series of covariates as controls in our analysis that are predictors of both ones’ share of routine housework and gender ideology (Coltrane, 2000; Davis and Greenstein, 2009). These include a husband’s and wife’s work hours and years of education, a husband’s proportion of couple’s income, wife’s occupational prestige, race/ethnicity, number of children under age 5 at Time 1, whether a couple had a child between waves, a husband’s share of infrequent housework per week and the total number of hours a couple spends on infrequent housework per week. Wife’s and husband’s work hours are measured as the average number of hours per week participants reported they worked in the paid labor force at Time 1. Unemployed respondents are given a value of 0 on this measure. Wife’s and husband’s education is measured in years. Husband’s proportion of couple’s income is used to assess the couple’s relative resources and is the husband’s proportion of the couple’s total yearly earnings at Time 1. Wife’s occupational prestige is assessed at Time 1 using the total labor force socioeconomic index developed by Stevens and Cho (1985). Values on this scale range from 14 to 90 with higher scores indicating higher occupational prestige. Homemaking/unemployed wives are assigned a value of 15.71 on this scale. The presence of young children in the home is measured by the number of children under age 5 at Time 1 and whether the couple experienced the addition of a child from Time 1 to Time 2 (1 = yes). Race/ethnic categories include black and Hispanic with non-black, non-Hispanic as the reference category. Total hours of infrequent housework is measured as the sum of respondent’s and spouses’ total hours spent in the 5 infrequent housework items (d, e, g, h, and i) at Time 1. Husband’s share of infrequent housework is a husband’s proportion of total hours of infrequent housework at Time 1. We make use of multiple imputation to account for nontrivial missing information related to both spouse’s information in the NSFH. A list-wise deletion approach would result in a loss of 1974 (51.0%) cases for analysis. Accordingly, we imputed missing values using the multiple imputation routine available in AMOS 19. To assess the representativeness of our analytic sample we compared couples’ mean scores on our Time 1 variables to couples excluded from the analytical sample because they were classified as divorced, separated or widowed at Time 2. Independent sample t-tests revealed that couples who remained together and were included in the analytic sample were more egalitarian, earned more income, and did more total hours of routine housework than couples who transitioned out of marriage. We found no differences across groups in the remaining measures.

1512

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Table 2 Nonrecursive simultaneous equation model for division of routine housework and husbands’ egalitarian gender ideologies NSFH (N = 3874).

Endogenous predictors Husband’s share of routine housework (t2) ? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Auxiliary instrumental variables Husband’s share of routine housework (t1) ? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Model implied instrumental variables Husband’s proportion income squared (t1) ? Own home (t1) ? Husband’s age (t1) ? Wife’s age (t1) ? Husband’s religious attendance (t1) ? Wife’s religious attendance (t1) ? Husband’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Wife’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Common covariates Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Husband’s work hours (t1) ? Wife’s work hours (t1) ? Husband’s proportion income (t1) ? Wife’s occupational prestige (t1) ? # Children age 5 or younger (t1) ? Addition of child since T1 ? Black ? Hispanic ? Total couple hours infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s share of infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s education (t1) ? Wife’s education (t1) ?

Husband’s share of routine housework (t2)

Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

b

b

SE

2.247***

.663

.118

.393***

.017

.455

.008 .004 .021 .013 .140** .197***

.010 .011 .027 .026 .052 .050

.023 .011 .017 .011 .047 .068

.090*** .001 .007* .043 .000 .092 .201* .561*** .129 .001 .287 .011 .029

.015 .003 .003 .150 .003 .075 .079 .159 .197 .002 .211 .021 .026

.102 .005 .042 .004 .002 .019 .040 .050 .009 .006 .020 .009 .023

2.661***

.033

.779

SE

b

.008***

.002

.157

.434***

.016

.444

.045  .021***

.147 .006

b

.089 .051

.001 .000 .000 .040 .000* .004 .019*** .011 .004 .000* .005 .000 .002

.001 .003 .000 .026 .003 .004 .078 .004 .011 .000 .011 .001 .001

.025 .015 .023 .076 .049 .014 .070 .018 .006 .033 .007 .001 .031

.151*** .151**

.002 .054 .290

.842 .151

Disturbances

e1 ? e2 ? e1 M e2 R2

.394

Note: Fit statistics for non-recursive model: v2 = 12.46 df = 8, p < .13; IFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .012.   p < .1 (two-tailed tests). * p < .05 (two-tailed tests). ** p < .01 (two-tailed tests). *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

4. Results Both unstandardized (b) and standardized (b) results from nonrecursive models for the division of routine housework and husbands’ gender ideology are shown in Table 2. Fig. 3 is a path model of the standardized path coefficients. Fit indices indicate excellent model fit. The omnibus chi-square test statistic (v2 = 12.46; df = 8; p < .13) indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis of a perfectly fitting model. The incremental fit index (IFI) and normed fit index (NFI) have values of 1.000 and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is .012. Values of the IFI, NFI, and RMSEA range from 0 to 1. IFI and NFI values greater than .95 and a RMSEA of less than .05 represent an excellent fit to data. As hypothesized, we observe evidence of a reciprocal relationship between gender ideology and the division of routine housework such that husbands’ gender ideologies at Time 2 significantly and positively predict their shares of routine housework at Time 2 while their shares of routine housework at Time 2 significantly predict their valuation of gender egalitarianism at Time 2. Table 3 and Fig. 4 show results from the nonrecursive simultaneous model testing reciprocity between wives’ gender ideologies at Time 2 and the division of routine housework at Time 2. Fit statistics again show exceptional model fit. The omnibus chi-square test statistic (v2 = 14.25; df = 8; p < .08) indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis of a perfectly fitting model. The IFI and NFI have values of 1.000 and the RMSEA is .014. As with husbands the results indicate reciprocality in the relationship between gender ideology and housework among wives. Increases in the valuation of gender egalitarianism among wives at Time 2 are associated with increases in husbands’ shares of routine housework at Time 2. Moreover, increases in husbands’ shares of routine housework predicted higher valuation of gender egalitarianism among wives. Comparison of the two models indicates a significantly weaker association between the division of routine housework and gender ideology, in both directions, for wives than husbands. For husbands, a one standard deviation change in his

1513

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Fig. 3. Non-recursive simultaneous model of division of housework and husband’s gender ideology.

Table 3 Nonrecursive simultaneous equation model for division of routine housework and wives’ egalitarian gender ideologies NSFH (N = 3874).

Endogenous predictors Husband’s share of routine housework (t2) ? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Auxiliary instrumental variables Husband’s share of routine housework (t1) ? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Model implied instrumental variables Husband’s proportion income squared (t1) ? Own home (t1) ? Husband’s age (t1) ? Wife’s age (t1) ? Husband’s religious attendance (t1) ? Wife’s religious attendance (t1) ? Husband’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Wife’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Common covariates Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Husband’s work hours (t1) ? Wife’s work hours (t1) ? Husband’s proportion income (t1) ? Wife’s occupational prestige (t1) ? # Children age 5 or younger (t1) ? Addition of child since T1 ? Black ? Hispanic ? Total couple hours infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s share of infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s education (t1) ? Wife’s education (t1) ?

Husband’s share of routine housework (t2)

Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

b

b

SE

1.463*

.666

.073

.450***

.015

.485

.015 .016 .073** .001 .050 .149**

.010 .011 .027 .026 .054 .050

.036 .041 .061 .002 .003 .065

.105*** .001 .006  .234 .004 .111 .092 .045 .142 .002 .060 .018 .011

.017 .003 .003 .148 .003 .074 .078 .159 .193 .002 .207 .021 .025

.109 .004 .044 .021 .026 .026 .027 .017 .012 .013 .001 .013 .001

2.754***

.033

.766

SE

b

.004*

.002

.074

.440***

.016

.450

.046  .021***

.025 .006

b

.094 .051

.003*** .000 .000 .041 .000* .003 .018*** .011 .004 .000* .005 .000 .002 

.001 .000 .000 .026 .000 .004 .004 .009 .011 .000 .011 .001 .001

.071 .016 .021 .083 .049 .015 .075 .024 .005 .033 .004 .003 .037

.151***

.002

.845

.052

.051 .292

.052

Disturbance terms

e2 ? e3? e2 M e3 R2

.438

2

Note: Fit statistics for non-recursive model: v = 14.25, df = 8, p < .08; IFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .014. p < .1 (two-tailed tests). * p < .05 (two-tailed tests). ** p < .01 (two-tailed tests). *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).  

gender ideology is associated with a .157 standard deviation increase in his share of routine housework. This association is about half as strong (b = .074) among wives. The effect of the division of routine housework on gender ideology is 1.66 times as strong among husbands compared to wives. A one standard deviation increase in husbands’ shares of housework is associated with a .118 standard deviation increase in a husbands’ valuation of gender egalitarianism, but only a .073 standard deviation increase among wives. In addition to gender differences in strength of the associations, the effect of ideology on housework among husbands is clearly stronger than the effect of housework on ideology. For wives, however, the two effects are approximately equal.

1514

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Fig. 4. Non-recursive simultaneous model of division of housework and wife’s gender ideology.

Table 4 Nonrecursive simultaneous equation model for division of routine housework and both spouse’s egalitarian gender ideologies NSFH (N = 3874).

Endogenous predictors Husband’s share of routine housework (t2) ? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Auxiliary instrumental variables Husband’s share of routine housework (t1) ? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t1) ? Model implied instrumental variables Husband’s proportion income squared (t1) ? Own home (t1) ? Husband’s age (t1) ? Wife’s age (t1) ? Husband’s religious attendance (t1) ? Wife’s religious attendance (t1) ? Husband’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Wife’s religious fundamentalism (t1) ? Common covariates Husband’s work hours (t1) ? Wife’s work hours (t1) ? Husband’s proportion income (t1) ? Wife’s occupational prestige (t1) ? # Children age 5 or younger (t1) ? Addition of child since T1 ? Black ? Hispanic ? Total couple hours infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s share of infrequent housework (t1) ? Husband’s education (t1) ? Wife’s education (t1) ?

? Husband’s share of routine housework (t2)

? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

b

b

b

SE

b

SE

1.898** .008*** .001

.002 .002

.160 .029

.433***

.016

.443

.046  .021***

.025 .006

b

.655

.099

***

.200

.033

.210

.393***

.017

.431

SE

b

.920 .255***

.681 .039

.046 .242

.427***

.016

.461

.092 .031

.000 .000 .041 .000* .003 .018*** .011 .004 .000* .005 .000 .002

.000 .000 .026 .000 .004 .004 .009 .011 .000 .011 .001 .001

.015 .024 .078 .050 .013 .069 .018 .006 .033 .007 .003 .031

.150***

.002

.841

.013 .008 .009 .009 .140** .159***

.010 .011 .026 .025 .051 .050

.040 .024 .008 .007 .047 .055

.015 .016 .073** .001 .050 .149**

.010 .011 .027 .026 .054 .050

.044 .044 .055 .001 .016 .049

.001 .006  .067 .001 .067 .181* .510*** .080 .001 .302 .014 .031

.003 .003 .147 .003 .074 .078 .156 .192 .002 .206 .021 .025

.003 .034 .007 .008 .014 .036 .052 .006 .003 .021 .012 .025

.001 .006  .234 .004 .111 .092 .045 .142 .002 .060 .018 .011

.003 .003 .148 .003 .074 .078 .159 .193 .002 .207 .021 .025

.002 .033 .020 .027 .022 .017 .005 .010 .012 .004 .015 .008

2.600***

.032

.761 2.693***

.032

.749

.058 .056 .057 .421

.150 .241 .005

Disturbance terms

e1 ? e2 ? e3 ? e1 M e2 e1 M e3 e2 M e3

**

.150 .241*** .005

R2

.292

.438

2

Note: Fit statistics for non-recursive model: v = 14.13, df = 10, p < .17; IFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .010. p < .1 (two-tailed tests). * p < .05 (two-tailed tests). ** p < .01 (two-tailed tests). *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).  

Although both models suggest reciprocal associations between gender ideology and the division of routine housework for husbands and wives, neither model considers the mutual influence of both spouses’ gender ideologies at Time 2 on the division of routine housework or on each other’s gender ideology. Evidence that wives’ gender ideologies at Time 1

1515

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Fig. 5. Non-recursive simultaneous model of division of housework husband’s gender ideology, and wife’s gender ideology.

(b = .102; p < .001) predict their husbands’ gender ideologies at Time 2, and that husbands’ Time 1 gender ideologies predict their wives’ gender ideologies at Time 2 (b = .242; p < .001) warrants such a model. Table 4 and Fig. 5 present results from the nonrecursive model estimating reciprocal relationships between both spouses’ gender ideologies at Time 2 with the husbands’ shares of routine housework at Time 2 and an additional reciprocal relationship between the spouse’s ideologies themselves. Fit statistics once again show exceptional model fit. The omnibus chi-square test statistic (v2 = 14.13; df = 10; p < .17) indicates that we fail to reject the null hypothesis of a perfectly fitting model. The IFI and NFI are 1.000 and the RMSEA is .010. As shown in the table and figure, there is a significant reciprocal relationship between husbands’ and wives’ ideologies. Although both relationships are relatively strong compared to other associations in this analysis, the results indicate that husbands’ ideologies have a slightly stronger effect on wives’ ideologies than the converse. The most significant change in this model from previous models is that although the reciprocal relationship between housework and ideology persists among husbands, we no longer observe a statistically, significant reciprocal relationship between wives’ gender ideologies and the division of routine housework. Although we observe no direct association between the two variables, the significant reciprocal associations between husbands’ and wives’ gender ideologies suggests that a relationship does exist – however – it is indirect and mediated by husbands’ gender ideologies. Examination of the total, direct, and indirect effects in these relationships (not shown) indicates that 38.6% of the effect of wives’ ideologies on the division of housework and 55.9% of the effect of housework on wives’ ideologies operates through husbands’ ideologies. Table 5 presents a comparison of results from our full nonrecursive model (Table 4) and estimates from OLS regression analyses of gender ideology and the division of housework. As the table shows, the two models produce different estimates of this relationship, for wives especially. Compared to estimates from nonrecursive simultaneous models, OLS regression overestimates both the effect of wives’ gender ideologies on the division of housework (b = .001; n.s. vs. b = .004; p < .001) and the effect of housework on wives’ ideologies (b = .920; n.s. vs. b = 1.290; p < .001). 5. Discussion This study addresses central theoretical and methodological questions surrounding the relationship between gender ideology and the division of housework. Causal directionality between gender ideology and the division of housework in Table 5 Comparison of unstandardized regression coefficients for Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression with non-recursive simultaneous equation models for the relationship between spouse’s egalitarian gender ideology and share of routine housework (N = 3874).

Endogenous predictors Husband’s share of routine housework (t2) ? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2) ? Note: Standard errors in parentheses. p < .05 (two-tailed test). ** p < .01 (two-tailed test). *** p < .001 (two-tailed test). 

? Husband’s share of routine housework (t2)

? Husband’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

? Wife’s egalitarian gender ideology (t2)

OLS

Non-recursive

OLS

Non-recursive

OLS

Non-recursive

1.730*** (.249)

1.898** (.655)

.006*** (.001) .004*** (.001)

.008*** (.002) .001 (.002)

1.290*** (.264) .222*** (.015)

.920 (.681) .255*** (.039)

.194*** (.014)

.200*** (.033)

1516

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

marriages has been hypothesized but never assessed. Our aim, therefore, was to test this relationship using statistical models that relaxed the assumption of relational unidirectionality and accounted for possible reciprocal effects. Our results indicate that the relationship between spouses’ gender ideologies and the division of routine housework is reciprocal. Although we find evidence of reciprocal effects, the effect of attitudes on behavior is stronger (at least for men) than the effect of behavior on attitudes, a result consistent with the gender ideology hypothesis. Our results suggest that not only has past research failed to observe an effect of housework on gender ideology, but that OLS regression greatly overestimates directional effects among wives. Our findings reinforce the fact that single-direction, single-equation models based on cross-sectional data provide no information on causality and are therefore severely limited in their ability to test explanatory hypotheses. Past research has been constrained by available data, but longitudinal data on family processes do exist as do analytic techniques that can better parse directionality. It is important for family scholars to use analytic strategies that provide more rigorous tests of their theoretical premises about housework. Indeed, past research has not only treated gender ideology as causally prior to housework, but it has also often treated women’s wages, relative resources, and work hours in the same manner despite theory (Becker, 1985) and research (Cunningham, 2008; Noonan, 2001; Hersch, 2009) suggesting a more complex relationship. Assessing the strength and direction of these likely reciprocal relationships is an important next step in family research. Although structural equation models make such assessments possible, it is important to stress that these modeling procedures are based on assumptions that if violated, may bias results (see Bollen, 1989). Therefore, while our models are consistent with a reciprocal relationship between gender ideology and housework, model-data consistency does not necessarily mean a model perfectly represent reality (Bollen, 1989). In order to assess our results and any estimation of a reciprocal relationship between variables it is important that researchers replicate findings with new data. Beyond methodological issues, our observation of reciprocality between housework and gender ideology has important implications for our understanding of gender equality inside and outside the home. Although we found, like others before us, that husbands’ attitudes are more strongly predictive of the division of housework in marriages than wives’ attitudes, housework arrangements do not necessarily derive from men’s attitudes, although men’s attitudes do eventually affect them. Past research has concluded that gender equality in the home ultimately depends upon changing men’s ideologies (see Cunningham, 2005; Ross, 1987). Given that housework arrangements are the product of institutional, economic, and political structures that shape peoples’ gendered behaviors regardless of their orientations toward them (Connell, 1987; Risman, 1998), changes to these structures and shifts in family policies toward support of gender egalitarian arrangements – such as promoting paid paternal family leave or flexible work schedules – can be important first steps toward creating egalitarian arrangements in the home, regardless of men’s initial attitudes. As Risman (1998) notes, microstructural factors are also important in determining men’s and women’s behaviors and our analysis indicates that situational conditions – such as parenthood and spouses’ relative resources – are important microstructural family factors that shape the division of housework, and ultimately spouses’ gender ideologies. It is important to consider housework–gender ideology reciprocality in relation to shifts over the past half century in both the division of labor and gender ideology (Thornton and Young-DeMarco, 2001). Clearly housework arrangements have become more equal over time, and this is likely due in part to more egalitarian attitudes (Artis and Pavalko, 2004; Presser, 1994). Yet, our findings suggest that more equal sharing of housework has also been responsible, at least in part, for increases in valuation of gender egalitarianism. Though many factors account for rising beliefs in gender equality over time (for review see Davis and Greenstein, 2009), our study is one of the first to suggest that more equal shares of housework are also likely a contributing factor. Although we found reciprocality for both spouses, a significant proportion of the reciprocal association among wives is mediated by husbands’ gender ideologies. Moreover, when we considered the reciprocal relationship between husbands’ and wives’ ideologies we no longer observed a statistically significant direct association between wives’ ideologies and the division of housework. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, such a mediating effect may be a reason some past studies observed weak or no effect of wives’ ideologies on housework, especially when both spouses’ characteristics were entered into models simultaneously. Second, it suggests further avenues to affect change in the household. Indeed, any factor that is likely to affect women’s gender ideologies, such as their labor force participation, occupational prestige, or parental status serves to affect the division of household labor directly, and indirectly, through wives’ influence on their husbands’ beliefs and the effect those attitudes have on housework arrangements. Nonetheless, husbands’ attitudes had a stronger effect on their wives’ attitudes, implying that when spouses’ attitudes diverge, husbands’ attitudes are likely the stronger determinant of housework arrangements. Indeed, that wives’ ideologies are mediated by husbands’ ideologies is consistent with both theory (Connell, 1987; Risman, 1998) and empirical work (Ferree, 1991; Komter, 1989; Ross, 1987; Tichenor, 2005) on wives’ limited power and agency in marriage and demonstrates husbands’ greater decision making ability regarding the division of labor. The discovery of reciprocality between housework and gender ideology leads to several theoretical issues of interest to future research. First, it remains unclear why gender ideologies are affected by the division of routine housework. Though it is beyond the scope of our study, future work can make an important contribution by identifying the mechanisms through which housework shapes gender ideologies. Our findings are consistent with numerous theories of behavioral influences on attitudes; however, these theories propose different explanations for attitudinal development and change. Self-perception, exposure, and socialization theories suggest that ideologies change due to socialization processes while others such as cognitive dissonance and identity control theory suggest that ideologies change in order to alleviate distress arising from

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

1517

behavior–attitude discrepancy. One set implies a passive, learning process; the other a more active and calculated decisionmaking process that is spurred by incongruence with expectations. Our aim was not to differentiate between these explanations, and therefore we cannot offer definitive statements as to which explanations account for the effect of one’s share of routine housework on one’s gender ideology. It seems likely given the findings from qualitative work on the topic that dissonance or control explanations may be the strongest. This may have consequences for the interpretation of our own findings. Indeed, because our findings are limited to couples who were continuously married over a 5–7 year period, those with the greatest discrepancies and therefore the largest impetus to change behaviors and attitudes may have dissolved their unions in an attempt to eliminate dissonance or in response to the marital conflict it creates (Frisco and Williams, 2003). It is possible therefore that our sample of married couples is biased in a way that may have led to an underestimation of the reciprocal effects between gender ideology and the division of housework. The second theoretical issue this study raises is whether the strength of this reciprocal relationship is static across the marital life course or whether it varies depending on marital duration. Most importantly, what is the relationship between these factors for newly married adults and how does it change over time? Last, given differences in housework allocation and gender ideology across social groups, future work should examine whether this reciprocal relationship varies across race/ ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and for same-sex and cohabiting couples. 5.1. Conclusion Does one’s gender ideology influence one’s share of housework? Does one’s share of housework influence one’s gender ideology? Is it both? Despite decades of research on the causes and consequences of housework allocation in marriage, these central questions in gender and family research have not been adequately addressed. Ours was the first study to examine the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between gender ideology and one’s share of routine housework, and the first to find evidence of one. In both cases we think that this study not only addresses key theoretical questions about this relationship but also raises new and important ones. Aside from answering questions about the nature of the relationship between housework allocation and gender ideology, the results of this study highlight the importance of developing and choosing appropriate analytic techniques and data to more rigorously test hypotheses. References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211. Artis, J.E., Pavalko, E.K., 2004. Explaining the decline in women’s household labor: individual change and cohort differences. Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (3), 746–761. Becker, G.S., 1985. Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics 3 (1), S33–S58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2534997. Bem, D.J., 1972. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6, 1–62. 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. Blair, S.L., Lichter, D.T., 1991. Measuring the division of household labor gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues 12 (1), 91–113. Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley, New York, NY. Bollen, K.A., 2012. Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 38, 37–72. Bolzendahl, C.I., Myers, D.J., 2004. Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces 83 (2), 759–789. Brines, J., 1994. Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at Home. American Journal of Sociology 100 (3), 652–688. Burke, P.J., 1991. Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836–849. Carlson, D.L., Knoester, C., 2011. Family structure and the Intergenerational transmission of gender ideology. Journal of Family Issues 32 (6), 709–734. Civettini, N.H., Glass, J., 2008. The impact of religious conservatism on men’s work and family involvement. Gender & Society 22 (2), 172–193. Coltrane, S., 2000. Research on household labor: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (4), 1208–1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1566732. Connell, R.W., 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford University Press. Coverman, S., 1985. Explaining husbands’ participation in domestic labor. The Sociological Quarterly 26 (1), 81–97. Cunningham, M., 2001. Parental influences on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review, 184–203. Cunningham, M., 2005. Gender in cohabitation and marriage the influence of gender ideology on housework allocation over the life course. Journal of Family Issues 26 (8), 1037–1061. Cunningham, M., 2008. Influences of gender ideology and housework allocation on women’s employment over the life course. Social Science Research 37 (1), 254–267. Davis, S.N., 2007. Gender ideology construction from adolescence to young adulthood. Social Science Research 36 (3), 1021–1041. Davis, S.N., Greenstein, T.N., 2009. Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology 35, 87–105. Dorsey, A.M., Miller, K.I., Scherer, C.W., 1999. Communication, risk behavior, and perceptions of threat and efficacy: A test of a reciprocal model. Journal of Applied Communication Research 27 (4), 377–395. Fan, P.-L., Marini, M.M., 2000. Influences on gender-role attitudes during the transition to adulthood. Social Science Research 29 (2), 258–283. Ferree, M.M., 1991. The gender division of labor in two-earner marriages dimensions of variability and change. Journal of Family Issues 12 (2), 158–180. Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, vol. 2. Stanford University Press. Finkel, S.E., 1985. Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 891–913. Finkel, S.E., 1995. Causal Analysis with Panel Data, vol. 105. Sage Publications, Incorporated. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Frisco, M.L., Williams, K., 2003. Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues 24 (1), 51– 73. Gager, C.T., 1998. The role of valued outcomes, justifications, and comparison referents in perceptions of fairness among dual-earner couples. Journal of Family Issues 19 (5), 622–648. Glauber, R., Gozjolko, K.L., 2011. Do traditional fathers always work more? Gender ideology, race, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (5), 1133–1148.

1518

D.L. Carlson, J.L. Lynch / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 1505–1518

Hall, A.R., Rudebusch, G.D., Wilcox, D.W., 1996. Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. International Economic Review, 283– 298. Heisig, J.P., 2011. Who does more housework: rich or poor? A comparison of 33 countries. American Sociological Review 76 (1), 74–99. Hersch, J., 2009. Home production and wages: evidence from the American Time Use Survey. Review of Economics of the Household 7 (2), 159–178. Hipp, J.R., Marquart-Pyatt, S., Paxton, P., 2011. Nonrecursive Models: Endogeneity, Reciprocal Relationships, and Feedback Loops, vol. 168. Sage Publications, Incorporated. Hochschild, A., 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Penguin Books. Huber, J., Spitze, G., 1983. Sex Stratification: Children, Housework, and Jobs. Academic Press, New York, NY. Kalleberg, A.L., Rosenfeld, R.A., 1990. Work in the family and in the labor market: a cross-national, reciprocal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 331–346. Kamo, Y., 2000. ‘‘He Said, She Said’’: assessing discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ reports on the division of household labor. Social Science Research 29 (4), 459–476. Kessler, R.C., Greenberg, D.F., 1981. Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative Change. Academic Press, New York. Komter, A., 1989. Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society 3 (2), 187–216. Kroska, A., 2004. Divisions of domestic work revising and expanding the theoretical explanations. Journal of Family Issues 25 (7), 890–922. Kroska, A., Elman, C., 2009. Change in attitudes about employed mothers: exposure, interests, and gender ideology discrepancies. Social Science Research 38 (2), 366–382. 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. Lennon, M.C., Rosenfield, S., 1994. Relative fairness and the division of housework: the importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 506–531. Liska, A.E., Reed, M.D., 1985. Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency: estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 547–560. Liska, A.E., Felson, R.B., Chamlin, M., Baccaglini, W., 1984. Estimating attitude–behavior reciprocal effects within a theoretical specification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 15–23. Ma, X., 1997. Reciprocal relationships between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 221– 229. Maio, G.R., Olson, J.M., Bernard, M.M., Luke, M.A., 2006. Ideologies, values, attitudes, and behavior. In: Delamater, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Springer, US, pp. 283–308, . Marini, M.M., Shelton, B.A., 1993. Measuring Household Work: Recent Experience in the United States. Social Science Research. Marsh, H.W., Papaioannou, A., Theodorakis, Y., 2006. Causal ordering of physical self-concept and exercise behavior: reciprocal effects model and the influence of physical education teachers. Health Psychology 25 (3), 316–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.3.316. Menard, S., Huizinga, D., 1994. Changes in conventional attitudes and delinquent behavior in adolescence. Youth & Society 26 (1), 23–53. Moen, P., Erickson, M.A., Dempster-McClain, D., 1997. Their mother’s daughters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 281–293. 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. Presser, H.B., 1994. Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 348– 364. Risman, B.J., 1998. Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Ross, C.E., 1987. The division of labor at home. Social Forces 65 (3), 816–833. Sanchez, L., 1994. Gender, labor allocations, and the psychology of entitlement within the home. Social Forces 73 (2), 533–553. Sanchez, L., Thomson, E., 1997. Becoming mothers and fathers parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender & Society 11 (6), 747–772. Sargan, J.D., 1958. The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 393–415. Silver, H., Goldscheider, F., 1994. Flexible work and housework: work and family constraints on women’s domestic labor. Social Forces 72 (4), 1103–1119. Stein, J.A., Newcomb, M.D., Bentler, P.M., 1987. An 8-year study of multiple influences on drug use and drug use consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (6), 1094. Stevens, G., Cho, J.H., 1985. Socioeconomic indexes and the new 1980 census occupational classification scheme. Social Science Research 14 (2), 142–168. Thornton, Arland., Young-DeMarco, L., 2001. Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: the 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (4), 1009–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3599811. Tichenor, V., 2005. Maintaining men’s dominance: negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles 53 (3), 191–205. Vespa, J., 2009. Gender ideology construction a life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society 23 (3), 363–387. Zuo, J., Tang, S., 2000. Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. Sociologoical Perspectives, 29–43.