IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/nwuipr/95-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Don't Men Do More Housework? A Job Characteristics Exploration of Gender and Housework Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela K. Adelmann

Abstract

Men tend to participate less in unpaid household work than women. As one potential reason why, this study explores a job characteristics explanation of men's satisfaction with housework, and with paid work, compared to women. Measures of self-direction, physical demands, time pressure, and satisfaction were compared for men and women from a national survey. Findings show that men perceive the characteristics of their housework differently than women, but not more negatively. Women's housework satisfaction is predicted by all three characteristics but men's only by housework time pressure. In the subset of individuals who occupied both housekeeping and paid employment roles, men made more discrepant ratings of their housework compared to their paid work than women, but this discrepancy favored housework, not paid work. This study suggests there is little about men's perceptions of housework that explains their lack of participation in it.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela K. Adelmann, "undated". "Why Don't Men Do More Housework? A Job Characteristics Exploration of Gender and Housework Satisfaction," IPR working papers 95-31, Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:95-31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:95-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipnwuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.