Gender, Household Labor, and Psychological Distress: The Impact of the Amount and

Division of Housework
Author(s): Chloe E. Bird
Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior , Mar., 1999, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 1999),
pp. 32-45
Published by: American Sociological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2676377

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Health and Social Behavior

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Gender, Household Labor, and Psychological Distress:
The Impact of the Amount and Division of Housework*

CHLOE E. BIRD
Brown University

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1999, Vol 40 (March): 32-45

Using a national longitudinal survey of a representative sample of 1,256 adults,

I assess the impact of the amount of household labor performed and its division
within the household on men's and women's depression levels, adjusting for
prior mental health status. I test two alternative explanations of the contribu-
tions of household labor and the division of household labor to gender differ-
ences in depression: differential exposure and differential vulnerability.
The results indicate that men's lower contributions to household labor
explain part of the gender difference in depression. Inequity in the division of
household labor has a greater impact on distress than does the amount of
household labor Employment status moderates the effect of the division of
labor on depression. Among those who describe themselves as keeping house,
depression was lowest for those who performed 79.8 percent of housework. In
contrast, for those employed full-time the minimum level of depression occurs
at 45.8 percent of the household labor Men report performing 42.3 percent of
the housework in their homes compared to 68.1 percent reported by women.
Thus, on average women are performing household labor beyond the point of
maximum psychological benefit, whereas men are not. Social support mediates
the effects of the division of household labor The only gender difference in
effects occurred among those who are married, for whom social support was
associated with lower levels of depression for women than men.

Do differences in the amount and proportion
of household labor men and women perform
explain gender differences in psychological
distress? Compared to men, women experi-
*Data for this research was collected under a grant
from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Sampling,
pretesting, and interviewing were conducted by the
National Opinion Research Council. An earlier ver-
sion of this paper was presented at the Society for
the Study of Social Problems Annual Meeting,
New York, NY, August 1996. This research was
supported by a grant from the National Institute of
Mental Health (IR03MH55523-01). I thank
Catherine Ross, Allen Fremont, Lorraine Davies,
Robin Simon, Benjamin Amick, and Sol Levine for
their comments and suggestions. Direct all corre-
spondence to Chloe E. Bird, Center for
Gerontology and Health Care Research, Box G-H3,
Brown University, Providence, RI 02912; e-mail:
Chloe_Bird~brown.edu.
ence higher rates of psychological distress
including anxiety, demoralization, depression,
and worry (Aneshensel 1992; Gove and Tudor
1973; Kessler and McRae 1981; Mirowsky
and Ross 1989). Women's higher rates of dis-
tress are not explained by reporting bias, emo-
tional reserve, or expressiveness (Mirowsky
and Ross 1995). Furthermore, gender differ-
ences in distress are largest among married
men and women.
Although the gendered division of house-
hold labor is associated with women's higher
distress rates, few studies have controlled for
prior psychological distress (Baruch, Biener,
and Barnett 1987; Brown and Harris 1978;
Glass and Fujimoto 1994; Ross and Bird 1994;
Ross, Mirowsky, and Huber 1983; Thoits
1983). In this paper, I examine the impact of
household labor on distress among men and
women, adjusting for prior reports of mental

32

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 33

health status. This reduces the possibility that
the effects of the amount and division of
household labor are artifacts of a sorting
process by which men and women enter par-
ticular arrangements of household labor based
primarily on their mental health status.
Although housework can be burdensome, it
has some positive attributes. Compared to
employment, housework offers more autono-
my (Bird and Ross 1993). In addition, house-
hold labor is productive work, involves physi-
cal activity, and yields a clean and pleasing liv-
ing environment, all of which can reduce
psychological distress. Because there are some
positive aspects of housework, spending some
time on household labor is unlikely to be
depressing and may even have beneficial
effects. However, housework is also more rou-
tinized on average than paid work and it offers
less recognition from others, less likelihood of
being thanked, and lower levels of work ful-
fillment. Consequently, spending a large
amount of time performing household labor
increases depression (Glass and Fujimoto
1994). Moreover, because household labor is
less rewarding than employment, the negative
effects of performing large amounts of house-
hold labor may be exacerbated for those who
are also employed.
Many of the worst aspects of housework are
related to its inequitable division within the
home. Women perform the majority of house-
hold labor (Entwisle and Doering 1981; Weiss
1990). Despite substantial increases in
women's labor force participation, there has
been little or no increase in men's housework
over the past 20 years (Coverman and Sheley
1986; Shelton 1992). Men whose wives work
of psychological distress (Mirowsky 1985;
Walster, Walster, and Bersheid 1978). In the
case of household labor, equity theory predicts
that those who perform an equitable share will
be less psychologically distressed than either
those who perform a disproportionately large
or small share. However, the consequences of
being disadvantaged may be more distressing
than taking advantage of one's spouse. Men's
and women's differential exposure to perform-
ing an inequitably large share of household
labor may produce higher distress levels in
women.
Employment status may moderate the
effects of the division of household labor
because, for those who are employed, inequity
can lead to role overload (Ross et al. 1983;
Lennon and Rosenfield 1994). Therefore, the
ideal share of household labor may be higher
for someone who is keeping house than for
those who are employed or in school.
According to the differential exposure theo-
ry, women experience a heavier burden of
hardship or constraint than men, which pro-
duces a higher prevalence of psychological
distress among women, particularly those who
are married. From this perspective, men's
lower distress levels are attributed to their
smaller absolute and relative contributions to
household labor. Moreover, equity theory pre-
dicts that the impact of performing a dispro-
portionately large share of household labor
will be worse for psychological well-being
than simply facing a burdensome overload of
work.
A wide range of social and psychological
studies provide support for the differential

outside the home spend the same amount of exposure theory. Among dual-earner couples
time doing housework as those whose wives in which the division of household labor is

are full-time homemakers (Berardo, Shehan,
and Leslie 1987; Pleck 1985). However,
because women have reduced the amount of
time they spend on household labor as they
have entered the labor force, men's proportion
of housework has increased as the total amount
of time couples devote to housework has
declined (Shelton 1992).
Although the amount and proportion of
housework that one performs are associated,
the division of household labor is likely to
have independent effects on psychological dis-
tress. Even though housework has some posi-
tive attributes, a lack of shared responsibility
in and of itself increases the sense of inequity.
In intimate relationships, inequity is a source
equal, Rosenfield (1989) found that women
have levels of depressive symptoms equal to'
those of men. Similarly, Glass and Fujimoto
(1994) found that time spent on housework
was associated with higher levels of depres-
sion, but the division of labor was not. The
effects of the amount and division of house-
hold labor did not differ by gender. In addition,
Ross and Bird (1994) found that performing
less than 60 percent of household labor is not
psychologically damaging for men or women
and may have health benefits. Furthermore,
Frankenhauser (1989) found that women man-
agers' higher levels of the stress hormone nor-
epinephrine in the evening hours occurred
because they were less able than their male

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
34 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
colleagues to relax and unwind at home, due in
part to the stress of household labor.
Coping resources may mediate the relation-
ships between the amount and division of
household labor and depression. In particular,
rewarding work and an equitable life increase
sense of control, which in turn reduces depres-
sion (Mirowsky and Ross 1989). Compared to
employment, household labor is associated
with lower levels of sense of control and high-
er levels of psychological distress (Bird and
Ross 1993; Brown and Harris 1978; Ross and
Bird 1994; Thoits 1983). Performing burden-
some amounts and an inequitable share of
household labor are likely to reduce perceived
control over one's life and, in turn, increase
psychological distress.
Perceived social support may also be affect-
ed by inequity in the division of housework
within one's household. Social support is the
sense of being valued as a person, being cared
for and loved, and of having someone who will
listen, understand, and help when needed
(Kaplan, Robbins, and Martin 1983;
Mirowsky and Ross 1989). Whereas marriage
indicates a level of social integration, it does
not automatically reflect a high level of social
support involving the exchange of intimate
communications and the presence of solidarity
and trust (Pearlin et al. 1981). Those who per-
form large amounts of housework and do the
vast majority of household labor within their
homes may feel the most burdened, resulting
in the lowest levels of perceived social support,
particularly from other members of the house-
hold. If inequity in the division of household
labor decreases the perception of social sup-
port, this will in turn increase psychological
distress.
In contrast to differential exposure theory,
differential vulnerability theory argues that the than men to be depressed by performing either
effects of the amount and division of house-
hold labor differ for men and women. In an
examination of malaise and physical health
among 35-year-olds in Scotland, Hunt and
Annandale (1993) found that household labor
has significant effects for women but not for
men. Similarly, Ross and colleagues (1983)
found that, although wives are less depressed
if their husbands help with housework, con-
tributing to household labor does not increase
husbands' depression levels. Thus, either
household labor has non-linear effects on well-
being as hypothesized above or the effects dif-
fer by gender.
Thoits (1992) and Simon (1995) have
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
argued that work and family roles have differ-
ent meanings for men and women, which pro-
duce different psychological consequences.
Even if family roles such as spouse and parent
have equal salience for men and women, they
may have very different meanings in terms of
the significance of household labor as a means
of role fulfillment. Thus, Simon (1995) argues
that household labor may affect men and
women differently because their sociocultural
beliefs regarding work and family roles affect
both their feelings of guilt and their self-eval-
uations as parents and spouses. For example,
the perception that one is doing more than
one's share is shaped in part by gendered
norms (Wilkie, Ferree, and Ratcliff 1998).
Perceptions of fairness are also affected by
the structural realities of men's and women's
lives. In a cross-sectional study, Lennon and
Rosenfield (1994) found that women's percep-
tion of fairness of the division of household
labor in their home is affected by the context
of their lives. Those women who had fewer
alternatives to marriage and less economic
resources were more likely to view performing
a large share of the housework as fair, while
women with more alternatives viewed the
same division as unjust. Those who perceived
an unequal situation as unfair experienced
lower psychological well-being than those who
did not. Thus, the perception and conse-
quences of household labor may also differ for
men and women due to structural differences
in their opportunities, such as men's higher
incomes and greater chance of marrying a
homemaker or a spouse who does not pursue a
career (see Bellas 1992 on the "housewife
bonus"). Because women are less likely to per-
ceive performing the majority of the house-
hold labor as unfair, they may be less likely
large amounts or an inequitably large share of
housework. In contrast, women may experi-
ence more guilt and decreased personal control
from performing an inequitably small share of
the household labor.
METHOD
Data
This research is based on the two-wave
National Survey of Functional Health Status
conducted by the National Opinion Research
Center (NORC). Respondents for wave 1, col-
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 35

lected in 1990, were drawn from the 1989 and
1990 General Social Survey samples. The
resulting sample consisted of 2,227 respon-
dents (total response rate was 77%). Wave 1
was designed to provide national norms for the
SF-36, a short, self-administered health status
measure. Wave 2, collected in 1994, consisted
of 1,645 respondents. In wave 2, I was able to
add questions on psychological distress,
household labor, and sense of control. Of the
original sample, 93 are deceased (the wave 2
response rate was 77%).
The present study focuses on those respon-
dents who were between the ages of 18 and 65
in 1989 and for whom employment status data
was complete.1 The data have been weighted to through increasing levels of psychological dis-
correct for respondents lost to attrition in the tress, up to depression (cx = .91). On average,
follow-up. In order to avoid confounding the
effects of unemployment and household labor
on depression, respondents who reported that
they were out of the labor force due to a per-
manent disability and those who were either
currently unemployed or looking for work
were excluded from the analyses. Those who
are not employed due to a permanent disabili-
ty are more likely to be depressed and their
disability is likely to reduce their absolute and
relative contribution to household labor.
Similarly, those who are unemployed may be
more depressed by housework than others, par-
ticularly if they would otherwise be doing a
smaller amount or proportion of the household
labor and find this particular consequence of
unemployment to be undesirable or
inequitable. The weighted data provide a rep-
resentative sample of 1,189 adults (581 men
and 608 women).
Measures
Psychological well-being. This study used
two measures of psychological well-being.
The dependent variable, psychological distress
at time 2 (1994), emphasizes the psychological
dimensions of well-being. Mental health status
at time 1 (1990) is included as an independent
variable. It reflects a more global measure of
key aspects of psychological well-being. The
two scales are coded in opposite directions and
have a negative correlation of .394.
Psychological distress is measured using a
modified version of the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies' depression scale
(CES-D). The CES-D is a valid, reliable mea-
sure of depressive symptoms developed to
measure symptoms of depression in the com-
munity (Radloff 1977; Weissman et al. 1977).
The modified CES-D excludes items that are
not generalizable across men and women
(Ross and Mirowsky 1984). Wave 2 of the data
includes 7 of the 20 items in the full CES-D
(e.g., "couldn't get going," "felt sad," "trouble
sleeping," "everything an effort," "felt lonely,"
"couldn't shake the blues," and "had trouble
keeping your mind on what you were doing").
Responses are averaged to produce an index
scored from 0 to 7. The index correlates .92
with the full CES-D (Mirowsky and Ross
1991). The index measures a continuum rang-
ing from an absence of depressive symptoms,
our respondents report symptoms of depres-
sion 1.2 days per week.
Mental health status was measured in wave
1 of the National Survey of Functional Health
Status using the mental health subscale of the
Short Form 35 (SF-36) known as the Mental
Health Index 5 (MHI-5) (Ware and
Sherbourne 1992). The SF-36 is a comprehen-
sive, brief, valid, and reliable instrument that
measures eight domains of health-related qual-
ity of life (McHorney et al. 1992; Ware et al.
1993). It has been extensively used in survey
and clinical research. The MHI-5 is a five-item
index that represents the four major mental
health dimensions (anxiety, depression, loss of
behavioral/emotional control, and psychologi-
cal well-being). It is a reliable scale that dis-
tinguishes well between persons differing in
the presence and severity of psychiatric prob-
lems and predicts future mental health and use
of mental health services (McHorney, Ware,
and Raczek 1993; Veit and Ware 1983; Ware et
al. 1993). Low scores on the mental health sta-
tus index reflect poor mental health; high
scores reflect high levels of mental health. On
a normed scale from 0 to 100, respondents
scored an average of 75. Reliability for the
scale is .82 (McHorney, Kosinski, and Ware
1994).
Demographics. Gender is measured using a
dummy variable coded 1 for men and 0 for
women. Age and education are measured in
years. Marital status is coded 1 for persons
who are married or living with someone as
married, and zero for all others. Household
income is measured in thousands of dollars.
Paid work. Employment is measured using a
set of dummy variables: employed full-time,
employed part-time, in school, keeping house,

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
and retired not due to a permanent disability.
In the regression analyses, full-time employ-
ment is compared to part-time employment,
keeping house, being in school, and being
retired.
Hours of housework. Time spent in house-
hold work is measured at wave 2 as the total
number of hours per week spent on nine types
of household tasks. Respondents were asked
"How many hours per week do you spend
doing things for your household including
cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, doing
laundry, and dishes, doing repairs, paying
bills, making arrangements, and caring for
children?" Percentage of housework is mea-
sured based on respondents' reports of the per-
centage of household work that they do.
Immediately following the question on the
amount of time spent on housework, respon-
dents were then asked "Thinking of all the
things that have to be done for your household,
what percentage do you do?"
Perceived control. Sense of control is mea-
sured using the Mirowsky-Ross sense of con-
trol scale which is based on level of agreement
with statements in each of the four categories:
claiming control over good outcomes, claim-
ing control over bad outcomes, denying con-
trol over good outcomes, and denying control
over bad outcomes. This 2 x 2 index balances
statements claiming or denying control over
good or bad outcomes in order to eliminate
reproducible bias caused by self-defense, self-
blame, and the tendency to agree or disagree
(Mirowsky and Ross 1991). The index is the
mean of the responses to the eight items coded
from low perceived control (-2) to high per-
ceived control (2). Reliability for the scale is
.61.
Social support. Social support is measured
at wave 2 by a four-item index. Respondents
were asked how much of the time they had
each of the following types of support: some-
one to get together with for relaxation, some-
one to turn to for suggestions about how to
deal with a personal problem, someone to love
and make you feel wanted, and someone to
confide in or talk to about yourself or your
problems. Responses were coded from none of
the time (0) to all of the time (4). The index is ences by gender in demographic characteris-
the mean of the responses (cx = .87).
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Analysis
The central questions of this paper are
whether and how the amount and division of
household labor impact psychological distress,
whether the effects are mediated by perceived
control and social support, and whether they
vary by gender. First, I examine the associa-
tions between depression and household labor
and compare means for men and women on
these and the other independent variables. I
also compare men's and women's contribu-
tions to household labor by marital status.
Then, I assess the impact of household labor
on psychological distress using multiple
regression. In order to examine the causal
steps, regression analyses are presented as pro-
gressive adjustment models in which variables
are entered in steps based on causal order
assumptions (Stolzenberg 1980). Because the
effects of household labor are expected to be
concurrent with depression rather than lagged
over a multi-year period, only prior mental
health status is measured at time 1. After
assessing the effects of the amount and divi-
sion of household labor, I test for mediating
effects of psychosocial resources and for gen-
der differences in effects. Then, I test whether
gender or employment status moderates the
effects of the amount and division of house-
hold labor. Finally, I repeat the analyses for
married respondents.
RESULTS
Bivariate Statistics
Is household labor associated with psycho-
logical distress? As expected, both amount of
time spent on housework and percentage of
housework are positively associated with dis-
tress (r = .10 and r = .12, respectively). In addi-
tion, being male, older, married, and having
more education and higher household incomes
are all negatively associated with distress (r =
-.10, r = -.08, r = -.08, r = -.07, r = -.17,
respectively) as are perceived control, social
support, and good prior mental health status
(r = -.22, r = -.40 and r = -.42, respectively).
How do men and women differ in terms of
their household labor contributions and psy-
chological distress? Table 1 presents differ-
tics, household income, employment status,
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 37

and the amount and percentage of unpaid
housework performed. As expected women
report higher levels of distress than men (1.33
versus 1.05), and women's mental health status
measured four years earlier was slightly poor-
er than men's (73.3 versus 76.8). Men had
more education (13.8 years versus 13.4), were
more likely than women to be married or liv-
ing with someone as married (74% versus
68%), and had higher levels of family income
($49,460 versus $43,900) than women. The
income difference occurs because female-
headed households have significantly lower
incomes than either male-headed or couple-
headed households. Thus, on average, women
live in households with lower incomes than do
men. Men were more likely than women to be
working full-time (82.0% versus 58.2%) or
retired (7.2% versus 3.1 %), whereas women
were more likely to describe themselves as
keeping house (21.2% versus 0%), to work
part-time (15.4% versus 10.5%), or to be in
school (2.0% versus 0.3%). (Expected values
are available on request). Women report doing
more than twice as many hours of household
labor per week compared to men (35.5 versus
16.4). Consequently, women report perform-
ing a significantly higher proportion of the
housework than men (68.1% compared to
42.3%). Thus, as expected, women had higher
levels of household labor compared to men.
Men and women did not differ in terms of per-
ceived control or social support.2
As shown in Figure 1, women who are mar-
ried or living as married perform 14 more
hours of housework per week than did single
women (54% more than single women). In
contrast, married men perform 90 minutes

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics by Gender for Variables in Analyses

Women Men

Depression 1.33 1.05***

(1.44) (1.33)
Age 41.90 41.82
(12.43) (12.29)
Education 13.40 13.84***
(2.14) (2.44)
Married .68 .74*
(.47) (.44)
Household Income 43.90 49.46***
(25.49) (25.15)
Employmenta
Employed Full-time 58.2% 82.0%***
(49.4) (38.5)
Employed Part-time 15.4% 10.5%
(36.2) (30.7)
Retired 3.1% 7.2%
(17.4) (25.8)
In School 2.0% 0.3%
(14.0) (5.7)
Keeping House 21.2% 0%
(40.9) (0)

Hours of Housework 35.45 16.36***

(25.97) (12.18)
Percentage of Housework 68.13 42.27***
(26.12) (28.17)
Sense of Control .74 .74
(.50) (.55)
Social Support 2.86 2.81
(.96) (1.02)
Prior Mental Health Status 73.27 76.77***
(17.91) (16.29)

N 608 581

* p < .03; **
Note: Table entries are means or percentages (as noted) and, in parentheses, standard deviations.
aChi-squared analyses were used to test for significant differences in the distribution of men and women across work
statuses (x2 = 169; p < .001).

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

more housework per week than did single men
(10% more than their unmarried peers).
Because the amount of time men spend on
housework does not increase substantially
when they are married, married men perform a
much smaller share of household labor than do
single men (see Figure 2). Single men and
women reported performing similar shares of
the housework in their own homes.3 Whereas
married women perform a slightly larger share
than single women (70% versus 63%), married
men's share of housework is substantially
smaller than that of single men (37% versus
59%). Gender differences in household labor
are consistent with the differential exposure
theory.

FIGURE 1. Hours per Week of Housework by Gender and Marital Status.

45

39.89
40 - Wom en

*Men
35 -

30 -

o 25.88
@ 25-
0
I

o 20
U)00 1 1 15.28 1 1 16.80
15-15.28
10

105

Single Married

FIGURE 2. Percentage of Housework by Gender and Marital Status.

80 -

70.36 OWomen
70 - 6.EMen
63.40

.~60 -58.50

X0-
0

10 -

Single Marred

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 39

The Effects of Paid and Unpaid Work on
Psychological Distress
Regression results in Table 2 show the
effects of gender, family income, employment
status, household labor, and sense of control
and social support on psychological distress,
adjusting for age, prior mental health status,
education, and marital status. Equation 1 of
Table 2 shows that compared to women, men
have lower levels of distress, adjusting for age,
education, marital status, and prior mental
health status. Having a higher level of educa-
tion also significantly decreases distress.
Adjusting for employment status and house-
hold income in equation 2 decreases the gen-
der difference in distress because men have
higher household incomes than women, a
characteristic associated with lower levels of
distress.
Do the gender differences in contributions
to household labor explain women's higher
distress levels compared to men? Equation 3
adjusts for the amount of time spent on house-
hold labor by the respondent. As expected, the
effect of the amount of time spent on house-
hold labor was not linear. Therefore, two pos-
sibilities were examined: that performing an
additional percentage of housework is benefi-
cial at low levels but detrimental at high levels,
and that performing an additional percentage
of housework does not affect depression at low

TABLE 2. Regression of Depression on Gender, Employment Status, Household Labor, Division of

Household Labor, Prior Mental Health Status, and Psychosocial Resources (N = 1,189)

Equation I Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4 Equation 5 Equation 6

b b b b b b

Male -.148* -.135+ -.097 -.092 -.142+ -.120

(.076) (.082) (.085) (.088) (.084) (.085)
Age -.005 -.004 -.003 -.004 -.004 -.004
(.003) (.003) (.004) (.003) (.003) (.003)
Prior Mental Health Status -.032*** -.032*** -.032*** -.032*** -.025*** -.025***
(.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002)
Education -.028* -.006 .004 .013 -.019 .019
(.017) (.018) (.018) (.019) (.018) (.018)
Married -.084 .015 -.006 .109 .186* .191*
(.085) (.090) (.091) (.093) (.089) (.088)
Household Income -.007*** -.007*** -.007*** -.004** -.004**
(.002) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002)
Employed Part-timea -.120 -.141 -.128 -.164 -.169
(.115) (.115) (.114) (. 109) (.109)
In Schoola -.428 -.470 -.453 -.271 -.282
(.353) (.353) (.350) (.336) (.336)
Keeping Housea .029 -.063 -.104 -.045 .236
(.135) (.146) (.145) (.138) (.189)
Retireda -.036 -.068 -.084 -.094 -.087
(.191) (.192) (.191) (.181) (.181)
Hours of Housework Squared 3.8E-5+ 2.8E-5 2.2E-5 2.9E-5
(2.3E-5) (2.3E-5) (2.2E-5) (2.2E-5)
Percentage of Housework 1.6E-4 9.2E-4 .002
(.001) (.001) (.001)
Percentage of Housework Squared 2.2E-4*** 1.4E-4*** 1.6E-4***
(4.8E-5) (4.6E-5) (4.6E-5)
Sense of Control -.143* -.138+
(.074) (.074)
Support -.403*** -.404***
(.039) (.039)
Keeping House x Percentage of Housework -.011 *
(.005)

Constant 4.320 4.073 4.006 3.650 4.260 4.242

R2 .180 .194 .196 .212 .291 .294

+ p < .05; * p < .03; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; one-tailed tests
Note. The b's are unstandardized regression weights (their standard errors are in parentheses). Each equation has a sig-
nificant increase in R2 over the previous equation.
aCompared to full-time employment.

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
levels but becomes increasingly detrimental at
high levels. The results support the latter.4 The
squared term indicates that, as time spent on
household labor increases, the effects increase
exponentially. Performing 20 hours of house-
hold labor per week would increase depression
by .02, at 50 hours the effect would be .10, and
at 60 hours it would be .14. Thus, for those
persons performing very large amounts of
household labor the increase is half the size of
the average gender difference in depression
(see Table 1). Consistent with the differential
exposure theory, adjusting for the amount of
time spent in household labor reduces the neg-
ative effect of being male because far fewer
men than women perform amounts of house-
hold labor large enough to increase their psy-
chological distress.5
Equation 4 adjusts for the division of house-
hold labor. Percentage of housework had a
curvilinear effect on psychological distress.
For this analysis, percentage of housework was
centered at 50 percent to reduce the collinear-
ity between housework and housework
squared. The coefficient of near 0 forpercent-
age of housework and the positive coefficient
for percentage of housework squared means
that doing household labor decreases depres-
sion up to doing 49.6 percent of the house-
work, beyond which the effect diminishes to
zero. When both the amount and division of
housework are entered into the same equation,
the former becomes insignificant. Adjusting
for the division of housework slightly dimin-
ishes the gender differences in distress (a 5.2%
decrease, which represents 5.7% of a standard
error) because men, on average, perform a
smaller share of housework than women and
one that is nearer the optimal point for their
psychological well-being. Although the
change in the coefficient is small, Mirowsky's
test for mediating effects indicates that togeth- Moreover, even when the division of house-
er the percentage of housework and percentage
of housework squared mediate the effect of
gender on depression (p < .01; analyses not
shown) (Bird 1997). Thus, the gendered divi-
sion of household labor has a small beneficial
effect on men's psychological well-being.
To test the potential mediating effects of
psychological resources, equation 5 adjusts for
perceived control and social support. Persons
with high levels of perceived control and
social support are significantly less depressed
than those with low levels. Adjusting for these
psychological resources reduces the curvilin-
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ear effect of the division of household labor on
distress because performing an inequitable
share of household labor reduces one's coping
resources. Entering sense of control and social
support into the model separately reveals that
social support partially mediates the effects of
the division of household labor, flattening the
curvilinear relationship between the division
of housework and psychological distress,
whereas sense of control does not. When per-
ceived control is entered alone, the coefficient
for percentage of housework squared decreas-
es from 2.24 to 2.1a. In contrast, when sup-
port is entered alone, the coefficient decreases
to 1.4a.
Because men and women report similar lev-
els of perceived control and social support,
adjusting for perceived control would not be
expected to change the effect of being male on
distress. Interestingly, adjusting for social sup-
port increases the gender difference in distress.
When sense of control is entered alone, the
coefficient for gender increases from -.092 to
-. 100. However, when support is entered
alone, the coefficient increases to -. 142.
Although men and women did not report dif-
ferent levels of social support, this appears to
indicate that women are advantaged in some
way by this resource, because a male advan-
tage would have reduced the gender differ-
ence, and no advantage would have left the
coefficient for gender unchanged.
I next tested interactions of gender and of
the time and percentage of housework with
each of the other variables. Neither gender nor
time spent on housework is moderated by
effects of any of the other explanatory vari-
ables. For example, division of housework did
not interact significantly with marital status,
indicating that the model presented here holds
for both married and unmarried respondents.
hold labor is excluded from the model, the
effect of the amount of household labor is not
moderated by any of the other variables. Only
one interaction term was significant. The
effect of the division of household labor
depends on employment status. As shown in
Figure 3, the ideal share of household labor is
higher for those who described their primary
activity as keeping house than for those who
did not (81.6% versus 45.0%). No men report-
ed that they were keeping house. Women who
were keeping house reported performing 76.8
percent of the household labor, which is rela-
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 41

tively close to the optimum. Among those who the household labor compared to 66.8 percent
are not keeping house (which included those reported by wives.
who were in school, retired, or employed full-
time or part-time) men reported performing
42.7 percent of household labor compared to DISCUSSION

65.1 percent for women. Thus, excluding those

The results provide strong support for the
who are keeping house, on average men are
differential exposure theory of gender differ-
performing less than the optimal share of
ences in psychological distress. Gender differ-
household labor whereas women are not.
ences in depression are associated with differ-
In order to verify that the results shown in
ences in men's and women's contributions to
Table 2 are not enhanced by the single men
household labor. Adjusting for the amount and
and women in the sample, I repeated the analy-
the division of household labor reduced the
sis with the sample restricted to those respon-
total effect of being male on depression by 26
dents who were married at time 2. In the
percent when prior mental health status was
restricted sample, the results were the same
included in the model and by 33 percent when
except that I found a large gender difference in
it was not. Thus, inequity in household labor
the effect of social support on psychological contributes substantially to gender differences
distress whereby, adjusting for other factors, in psychological distress. Compared to wo-
social support is associated with lower distress men, men are clearly advantaged in the divi-
levels for wives than for husbands. Even with sion of household labor. By their own reports,
this interaction in the model, the moderating men perform on average 42.3 percent of the
effect of employment status on the effect of the
housework compared to 68.1 percent reported
division of household labor remained signifi- by women. Among married respondents, the
cant. Excluding those who are keeping house, gender differences in household labor are larg-
husbands report performing 36.2 percent of er, with wives performing more than twice as

FIGURE 3. Psychological Distress Level by Percentage of Housework Performed, Adjusting for

Demographics, Income, and Hours of Household Labor.

2.0
-4--* Full-time
1.8 - \ Keeping House

1.6-

~1.4

1.2-

1.0

0.8 - l l l l l
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Housework

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
many hours of household labor and doing over
70 percent of the housework compared to 36.7
percent for men. Since the least distressed are
those who perform about half of the household
labor, men are much nearer to performing an
optimal share of household labor than are
women, even when women who are keeping
house are excluded.
The results indicate that equity in the divi-
sion of household labor is more important to
psychological well-being than is the amount of
time spent in household labor. Although per-
forming very large amounts of household
labor increases depression, the effect is
insignificant after taking into account the divi-
sion of household labor. Those people who
perform very large amounts of household
labor are typically women who also perform
the vast majority of housework in their homes.
Employment status moderates the effect of
the division of household labor but not the
effect of the amount of household labor. For
those keeping house, the least depressed per-
form almost 80 percent of housework, where-
as, for those working full-time, the minimum
level of depression occurs at 45.8 percent of
housework. Compared to those in full-time
employment, no employment status other than
keeping house differed significantly in the
effects of the division of household labor.
Perceived control did not mediate the effects
of the division of household labor on psycho-
logical distress. This is consistent with
Mirowsky and Ross' (1989) characterization
of sense of control as a general psychological
resource that is the cumulative product ,of awomen's distress levels than on men's among
lifetime of experiences. Thus, inequity in the
division of household labor is one of many
experiences that shape sense of control and in
turn affect psychological distress.
Social support mediates the effect of the
division of household labor on distress. An
inequitable division of household labor is
associated with lower levels of social support,
which in turn increases distress. Presumably,
inequality in the division of labor decreases
perceived social support from others within
the household, though a burdensome share of
housework could also serve as a barrier to
forging and maintaining other social ties.
Interestingly, taking into account the mediat-
ing effects of social support increased the neg-
ative effect of being male on psychological
distress. This indicates that men's inequitably
low shares of household labor, in particular,
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
are associated with lower levels of social sup-
port. One possible explanation is that perform-
ing an inequitably small share of the house-
hold labor reduces the social support one
receives from others in the household. As equi-
ty theory argues, taking advantage of one's
spouse has significant disadvantages, which in
turn increase one's own psychological distress.
Typically, women report higher levels of
social support than do men. However, in this
sample, social support did not differ for hus-
bands and wives. Social support is frequently
measured simply as having someone to talk to
and someone to turn to. Although the measure
used here included having someone to get
together with for relaxation and having some-
one to love and make one feel wanted, this
result does not appear to be related to the items
included in the measure. Limiting the items in
the measure did not reveal a gender difference
in social support. Another possibility is that,
due to the longitudinal nature of the data,
respondents who divorce are more likely to be
lost to attrition in the follow-up. Therefore, a
selection process may have occurred reducing
the number of married men with lower levels
of perceived social support.
This study provides no support for the theo-
ry of differential vulnerability regarding the
impact of household labor on men's and
women's distress levels. The effects of the
amount and division of household labor did
not differ by gender. Interestingly, the only evi-
dence of gender differences in response was a
stronger negative effect of social support on
the married respondents. Although the data
examined here do not include information on
spouses' employment, full-time employed hus-
bands are substantially more likely than full-
time employed wives to have a spouse who is
either employed part-time or out of the labor
force and is therefore less likely to consider an
unequal division of household labor to be
inequitable. One possible explanation is that,
among married women, those who feel loved
and supported may not perceive an unequal
division of household labor as inequitable.
Unfortunately, respondents were only asked
about the amount and share of the household
labor that they perform. They were not asked
whether the division of labor is fair. In a study
of marital satisfaction among dual-earner cou-
ples, Wilkie and colleagues (1998) found that
feeling one is doing more than one's share
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 43
decreases marital satisfaction. Future research
on household labor and depression should
examine the role of social support as it relates
to perceptions of fairness and marital quality.
Unlike the National Survey of Families and
Households, which Lennon and Rosenfield
(1994) analyzed, the respondents for the pre-
sent study made their own estimates of what
proportion of the housework they perform.
Research on housework indicates that, because
they perform less of the household work, men
may underestimate the total amount of time
spent by all household members and conse-
quently overestimate what percentage of the
total work they perform. Such an overestimate
by men could also result in a differential effect
for men and women. However, consistent with
differential exposure theory, there were no sig-
nificant gender differences in the effects of
employment, housework, or the division of
household labor. Even with the potential of
overestimating their contribution, married men
report performing far less than half of the
household labor. Moreover, if their reports
were biased, there would be a significant gen-
der difference in the effect of the division of
household labor, which was not the case.
Perhaps one reason why so few studies have
reported a relationship between the amount
and division of household labor and psycho-
logical well-being is that researchers have not
tested the hypothesis that the effects are non-
linear. This study indicates that a more equi-
table division of household labor could reduce
women's distress. Moreover, if men increased
their contribution to household labor;- the
resulting reduction in women's psychological
distress would not be counterbalanced by an
increase in men's distress levels. In fact, equi-
ty in the division of household labor con-
tributes to higher perceived levels of social
support, which also reduces psychological dis-
tress.
Cross-sectional studies cannot determine
whether observed associations represent
causal processes or selection effects.
Controlling for prior mental health status in
the present study reduces the possibility that
the effects of the division of household labor
are due to selection processes. Without histor-
ical measures of housework, its previous
effects cannot be imputed. Therefore, the
model presented here somewhat underesti-
mates the overall impact of the amount and
division of household labor on psychological
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
distress and overestimates the impact of prior
psychological well-being on current distress
levels.
In summary, inequity in the division of
household labor contributes substantially to
gender differences in depression. Women are
more distressed than men, in part because they
perform a disproportionate share of the house-
work beyond the point of maximum benefit.
Gender differences in exposure to inequitable
divisions of household labor rather than vul-
nerability explain the greater negative impact
on women's psychological well-being. The
effects of the amount and division of house-
hold labor are independent and nonlinear.
Moreover, these patterns do not reflect a selec-
tion process whereby the more depressed
assume a disproportionate share of the house-
hold labor. Because men perform less than the
ideal share of household labor, an increase in
their contribution would reduce women's dis-
tress levels without increasing their own psy-
chological distress.
NOTES
1. The six respondents who were employed
but not at work for all or most of the past
four weeks because of a temporary illness
were excluded from the analyses, as were
the five respondents who were not at work
because of a vacation or strike, the 37 who
reported that they were not working due to
a permanent disability, and the 56 who
reported their employment status as
"other;" an additional 85 responses were
missing on the employment status variable.
2. Among married persons, social support did
not differ by gender. However, among sin-
gles, women reported higher levels of
social support than men (2.7 versus 2.4, p =
.004).
3. Why would singles report performing less
than 100 percent of the total household
tasks in their own homes? The remainder
may be performed by another member of
the household if the respondent does not
live alone (e.g., a roommate or a child), by
a friend or significant other, or by a house-
keeper or person hired to do outdoor tasks
such as lawn mowing. Similarly, singles
may be more likely than married persons to
take their clothing out to be washed and to
purchase food prepared at restaurants.
44 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
4. To test the parabolic relationship, both time
spent in housework and time spent in
housework squared were entered into the
model. To reduce multicollinearity, the for-
mer was mean centered. However, neither
term was significant. Regression diagnos-
tics indicated that collinearity tolerance
limits were not reached.
5. Overall, .4 percent of men reported per-
forming between 60 and 80 hours of house-
work per week, and 17.2 percent of women
reported performing between 60 and 100
hours of household labor per week.
REFERENCES
Aneshensel, Carol. 1992. "Social Stress: Theory
and Research." Annual Review of Sociology
18:15-38.
Baruch, G. K., L. Biener, and R. C. Barnett. 1987.
"Women and Gender in Research on Work and
Family Stress." American Psychologist
42:130-36.
Bellas, Marcia. 1992. "The Effects of Marital Status
and Wives' Employment on the Salaries of
Faculty Men: The (House)wife Bonus." Gender
& Society 6(4):609-22.
Berardo, Donna H., Constance Shehan, and Gerald
R. Leslie. 1987. "A Residue of Tradition: Jobs,
Careers, and Spouses' Time in Housework."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:381-90.
Bird, Chloe E. 1997. "Gender Differences in the
Social and Economic Burdens of Parenting and
Psychological Distress." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 59:809-23.
Bird, Chloe E. and Catherine E. Ross. .1993.
"Houseworkers and Paid Workers: Qualities of
the Work and Effects on Personal Control."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:913-25.
Brown, G. W. and T. Harris. 1978. Social Origins of
Depression: A Study of Psychiatric Disorder in
Women. New York: Free Press.
Coverman, Shelley and Joseph F. Sheley. 1986.
"Change in Men's Housework and Child-Care
Time, 1965-1975." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 48:413-22.
Entwisle, D. and S. Doeringer. 1981. The First
Birth: A Family Turning Point. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frankenhaeuser, Marianne. 1989. Stress, Health,
Job Satisfaction. Stockholm: The Swedish Work
Environment Fund.
Glass, Jennifer and Tetsushi Fujimoto. 1994.
"Housework, Paidwork, and Depression among
Husbands and Wives." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 35:179-91.
Gove, Walter and Jeanette Tudor. 1973. "Adult Sex
This content downloaded from
84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Roles and Mental Illness." American Journal of
Sociology 78:812-35.
Hunt, Kate and Ellen Annandale. 1993. "Just the
Job? Is the Relationship between Health and
Domestic and Paid Work Gender-Specific?"
Sociology of Health & Illness 15(5):632-64.
Kaplan, Howard B., Cynthia Robbins, and Steven S.
Martin 1983. "Antecedents of Psychological
Distress in Young Adults: Self-Rejection,
Deprivation of Social Support and Life Events."
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
24:230-44.
Kessler, Ronald C. and James A. McRae. 1981.
"Trends in the Relationship between Sex and
Psychological Distress: 1957-1976." American
Sociological Review 46:443-52.
Lennon, Mary Clare and Sarah Rosenfield. 1994.
"Relative Fairness and the Division of
Housework: The Importance of Options."
American Journal of Sociology 100:506-31.
McHorney, C. A., M. Kosinski, and J. E. Ware.
1994. "Comparisons of the Costs and Quality of
Norms for the SF-36 Health Survey Collected
by Mail versus Telephone Interview: Results
from a National Survey." Medical Care
32(6):551-67.
McHorney, C. A., J. E. Ware, W Rogers, and A. E.
Raczek. 1992. "The Validity and Relative
Precision of MOS Short- and Long-Form Health
Status Scales and Dartmouth COOP Charts."
Medical Care 30(4):MS253-65.
McHorney, C. A., J. E. Ware, and A. E. Raczek.
1993. "The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health
Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and Clinical
Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and
Mental Health Constructs." Medical Care
31(3):247-63.
Mirowsky, John. 1985 "Depression and Marital
Power: An Equity Model." American Journal of
Sociology 91:557-92.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1989.
Social Causes of Psychological Distress. New
York: Aldine.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1991. "Age
and Depression." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 33:187-205.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1995. "Sex
Differences in Distress: Real or Artifact?"
American Sociological Review 60:449-68.
Pearlin, Leonard I., and Morton A Lieberman,
Elizabeth G. Menaghan, and Joseph T Mullan.
1981. "The Stress Process" Journal of Health
and Social Behavior 22:337-56.
Pleck, Joseph. H. 1985. Working Wives/Working
Husbands. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Radloff, L. S. 1977. "The CES-D Scale: A Self-
report Depression Scale for Research in the
General Population." Applied Psychological
Measures 1:385-401.
Rosenfield, Sarah. 1989. "The Effects of Women's
Employment: Personal Control and Sex
GENDER, HOUSEHOLD LABOR AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS 45

Differences in Mental Health." Journal of Psychological Well-Being: Gender and Marital

Health and Social Behavior 30:33-42.
Ross, Catherine E. and Chloe E. Bird. 1994. "Sex
Stratification and Health Behaviors:
Consequences for Men's and Women's Perceived
Health." Journal of Health and Social Behavior
35:161-78.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1984.
"Components of Depressed Mood in Married
Men and Women: The Center for
Epidemiological Studies' Depression Scale."
American Journal of Epidemiology
119(6):997-1004.
Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Joan
Huber. 1983. "Dividing Work, Sharing Work,
and In-Between: Marriage Patterns and
Depression." American Sociological Review
48:809-23.
Shelton, Beth Anne. 1992. Women, Men and Time:
Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework,
and Leisure. New York: Greenwood Press.
Simon, Robin W 1995. "Gender, Multiple Roles,
Role Meaning, and Mental Health." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 36:182-94.
Stolzenberg, Ross M. 1980. "The Measurement and
Status Comparisons." Social Psychology
Quarterly 55:236-56.
Veit, C. T. and John E. Ware. 1983. "The Structure
of Psychological Distress and Well-Being in
General Populations." Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 51: 730-42.
Walster, Elaine Hatfield, G. William Walster and
Ellen Bersheid. 1978. Equity: Theory &
Research Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ware, J. E. and C. D. Sherbourne. 1992. "The MOS
36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I.
Conceptual Framework and Item Selection."
Medical Care 30(6):473-83.
Ware, John E., Kristin K. Snow, Mark Kosinski, and
Barbara Gandek. 1993. SF-36 Health Survey
Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA:
The Health Institute, New England Medical
Center.
Weiss, R. S. 1990. Staying the Course: The
Emotional and Social Lives of Men Who Do Well
at Work. New York: Free Press.
Weissman, Myrna M., Diane Scholomskas,
Margaret Pottenger, Brigitte A. Prusoff, and Ben

Decomposition of Causal Effects in Nonlinear Z. Locke. 1977. "Assessing Depressive

and Nonadditive Models." Pp. 459-88 in
Sociological Methodology, edited by Karl F.
Schuessler. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1983. "Multiple Identities and
Psychological Well-Being: A Reformation and
Test of the Social Isolation Hypothesis."
American Sociological Review 48:174-87.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1992. "Identity Structures and
Symptoms in Five Psychiatric Populations: A
Validation Study." American Journal of
Epidemiology 106:203-14.
Wilkie, Jane Riblett, Myra Marx Ferree and
Kathryn Strother Ratcliff. 1998. "Gender and
Fairness: Marital Satisfaction and Two-Earner
Couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family
60:577-94.

Chloe E. Bird is Assistant Professor of Community Health and Sociology at Brown University. Her cur-
rent research on the impact of the division of household labor within couples and perceptions of equity on
men's and women's psychological distress is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The project
is titled "Women's Mental Health: Impact ofWork and Family." In addition, she is co-editor with Peter
Conrad and Allen Fremont of the 5th edition of the Handbook of Medical Sociology which is forthcoming
from Prentice Hall.

This content downloaded from

84.89.157.35 on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 11:08:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms