Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China

Chinese Sociological Review
ISSN: 2162-0555 (Print) 2162-0563 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mcsa20
Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China
Zhe Zhang
To cite this article: Zhe Zhang (2017) Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China,
Chinese Sociological Review, 49:3, 263-291, DOI: 10.1080/21620555.2017.1295809
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2017.1295809
Published online: 21 Mar 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 751
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mcsa20
Chinese Sociological Review, 49(3): 263–291, 2016–2017
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 2162-0555 print / 2162-0563 online
DOI: 10.1080/21620555.2017.1295809
Division of Housework in Transitional

Urban China
Zhe Zhang, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus,
OH, USA
Abstract: This study examines how historical transitions that occurred during
individuals’ young adulthood are related to the division of housework among
married couples in urban China. Using data from the 2006 China Health
and Nutrition Survey, analyses compare housework participation among 398
married couples from the pre-reform generation, 432 couples from the early-
reform generation, and 107 couples from the late-reform generation. Ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression results show that regardless of generation,
wives continue to undertake the majority of housework. Significant shifts in
housework are found across generations among men, wherein husbands of
the pre-reform generation spend more time on housework than husbands in
the two reform generations. Although the division of housework remains highly
gendered across generations, findings suggest that a political endeavor toward
promoting gender equality may have played a role in altering men’s housework
behaviors.
Despite China’s history of sociopolitical movement toward gender equity in

employment, the contemporary Chinese division of housework is reported
to be highly gendered. For example, a study using nationally representative
survey data from 2000 reports that Chinese wives’ time spent on housework
(excluding childcare time) is almost three times that of their husbands’
(Yang 2006). In 2010, employed women devoted, on average, 2.5 to 3 times
Address correspondence to Zhe Zhang, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State

University, 238 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210.
E-mail: zhang.2040@buckeyemail.osu.edu
263
264 CHINESE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
more hours to domestic tasks compared to employed men (Attané 2012).

In comparison, American wives’ time spent on housework is about 1.7 times
that of their husbands’, and married mothers spend twice the amount of
time than their husbands on all the household chores (Bianchi et al.
2012). Compared to China, a study with cross-national data in 2002 also
reports the housework division to be more equal in the post-socialist
European countries, where wives’ time spent on housework is as low as
1.7 times (e.g., Latvia) or no more than 3 times (e.g., Slovenia) that of their
husbands’ (Fuwa and Cohen 2007).
Understanding the highly gendered division of labor in contemporary
China requires perspective on the last six decades of social change. Shifting
from a state-socialist redistributive economy (1949–1979) to a market econ-
omy (1980–present day), China experienced a different path of development
than most Western industrialized countries; this path may contextualize
changes in the division of housework, especially in urban China where the
economic reform is most influential. For instance, the employment rate
for Chinese women in urban areas has plummeted since the 1990s, although
the overall rates still remain very high relative to most countries (Wu and
Zhou 2015). Moreover, the initial political momentum toward gender equal-
ity in socialist China in the 1960s and 1970s was followed by a return to gen-
der traditionalism during the economic reform of the 1980s (Honig and
Hershatter 1988). Correspondingly, recent studies on urban China report
increasing backlash in men’s attitudes against gender equity and revitaliza-
tion of traditional family division in mainstream media (Pimentel 2006; Sun
and Chen 2015). Gender socialization theory suggests that early life gender
socialization has a lasting influence on individuals’ behaviors, including
housework participation (Cunningham 2001). Thus, examining the hetero-
geneity in the division of housework for those who experienced different
social transitions and historical periods during their young adulthood will
shed light on whether and how Chinese social transitions shape Chinese
families and change gender relations.
To this end, the present study uses the 2006 China Health and Nutrition
Survey (CHNS) to examine the division of housework among three genera-
tions of married couples in urban China. Drawing on the gender socializa-
tion theory, this study specifically asks: how does the housework division
differ among young adults of the pre-reform period, early-reform period,
and late-reform period in urban China? More specifically, how do married
women and men’s total time spent on housework and in specific tasks differ
across these generations? Finally, does the size of the within-couple gender
gap in time spent on housework differ by generation? Only by answering
these questions can one determine whether change of housework division
is related to broader historical transitions in the Chinese context, facilitating
the greater theorization of housework and providing political implications
for the advancement of gender equality.
CHINESE SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 265
Gender Socialization, Structural Changes, and the Division of Housework
Gender socialization theory claims that individuals are socialized to enact

specific gender roles, which are linked to their division of labor (Coltrane
2000; Cunningham 2001). In general, couples with more egalitarian gender
ideologies divide household chores more equally; women with more egali-
tarian gender values spend less time on housework, whereas men with more
egalitarian gender attitudes tend to spend more time on housework (Davis,
Greenstein, and Marks 2007). Another dimension of housework division is
the type of housework that men and women do. Extant research has differ-
entiated between feminine housework tasks (i.e., the “routine” housework
tasks that are less optional, such as cooking and cleaning) and masculine
tasks (i.e., the “nonroutine” tasks that are more time flexible and discretion-
ary, such as lawn mowing and car fixing) (Coltrane 2000). Characterized by
low schedule control, feminine housework is often connected with more
psychological distress than masculine housework (Barnett and Shen 1997).
Consequently, only when men perform some of the female housework
chores is the burden of women’s housework relieved (Chesley and Flood
2016).
Recent studies have shown that contextual characteristics also contribute
to the gender socialization process in shaping individuals’ housework
division. Structural and cultural forces shape the national context in which
individual behaviors are embedded and thus ultimately modify individual
behaviors such as housework participation (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard
2010). Extant research suggests contextual forces influence individual house-
work in three ways. First, a body of research focuses on the gender equality
index at the societal level, mostly measured by the Gender Empowerment
Measure (GEM; United Nations Development Program 2004), which
considers women’s opportunities and representation in the labor force and
politics. Based on cross-national comparisons of more than twenty-two
countries, research shows that couples in more gender egalitarian countries
(e.g., Canada, Sweden) are more likely to share housework equally than
those in less gender egalitarian countries (e.g., Italy, Japan), controlling
for individual characteristics (Knudsen and Wærness 2008). A second body
of research finds that couples in social democratic regimes (e.g., Norway,
Sweden) who promote gender equality avidly and have better social welfare
tend to divide housework more equally than those in liberal regimes who
rely more heavily on market distribution and individuality (e.g., Australia,
United States) (Geist 2005). Third, studies that focus on specific work-
family policies find that publicly funded childcare and paternity leave facili-
tate a more equal housework division among couples. However, lengthy
parental leave and telecommuting are associated with a more traditional
division of household labor, likely because men and women are not expected
to use their free time similarly (Hook 2006).
Despite the insights of these studies, at least two inconsistencies remain to

be examined. First, contrary to Hook’s (2006) finding that lengthy parental
leave hinders more equal housework sharing, Fuwa and Cohen (2007) found
that gender equality in housework division can be better facilitated in coun-
tries with generous parental leave policies, such as Slovakia. Second, using a
sample of dual earner couples in Britain and France, Windebank (2001) did
not find positive association between state policies that promote women’s
employment and relieve childcare burden and more equal division of house-
work. Yet, using data from fourteen countries, Iversen and Rosenbluth
(2006) found gender equity in housework division to be more prevalent in
countries with large public sectors and gender-friendly labor markets (e.g.,
France has larger public sectors and more friendly labor markets than
Britain).
These inconsistencies are likely due to the fact that nearly all of the exist-
ing studies are based on cross-national comparisons. However, the impact of
one macrolevel indicator such as a particular social policy could be counter-
acted by other historical or institutional factors that occur simultaneously,
and the combinations of these structural forces often differ across countries
(Crompton, Brockmann, and Lyonette 2005). Additionally, the effects of
these structural changes and the underlying agenda for gender equity take
time to be accepted and then enacted (Bernhardt, Noack, and Lyngstad
2008). Specifically, Gershuny, Godwin, and Jones (1994) argue that division
of household labor is able to change across generations via a mechanism of
“lagged adaptation,” in which early life exposure to social phenomenon of
reduced gender specialization, such as women’s high employment rate, can
facilitate equal housework division later in adulthood. Thus, insight will
be gained through an examination of the “lagged adaptation” of housework
division across generations in a single country that has undergone tremen-
dous changes for the past decades.
Recent Historical Transitions and Housework Division in Urban China
Insights from gender socialization theory suggest that individuals’ early life
experiences have a lasting impact on their later life family behaviors, such as
division of housework (Gershuny, Godwin, and Jones 1994; Cunningham
2001). Correspondingly, the gender division of housework in urban China
is likely to change across generations. Previous research has identified three
historical periods based on large-scale policy, social, and economic changes,
which theoretically matter for the division of household labor (Zhou, Moen,
and Tuma 1998; Shu and Bian 2003; Cao and Hu 2007; Zhang, Hannum,
and Wang 2008).
The first period, the pre-reform period, encompasses the years of the
Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) (Bian, Logan, and Shu 2000; Zhou, Moen,
and Tuma 1998), a time when China was experimenting with a highly
centralized socialist economy along with an ongoing social-political move-
ment including the promotion of gender equity. The Chinese communist
government put great efforts into increasing women’s labor force partici-
pation since the establishment of the republic (Croll 1983). As a result,
Chinese women’s labor force participation rate was among the highest in
the world during Mao’s era (Jacobsen 1998). Nevertheless, given the limited
scope of the political agenda, gender inequality persisted in many domains,
indicated by a high level of gender segregation in occupations and a substan-
tial gender gap in wages (Bian, Logan, and Shu 2000). The Chinese govern-
ment was also silent on people’s private lives, and housework remained as
women’s responsibility, although the communist state did alleviate women’s
family burdens by providing substantial social services including canteens
and daycare centers via the work units (Song 2012).
However, this era, and the prevailing socialist ideologies that were
accompanied with it, came to a sudden halt after shifts in central leadership
and the ensuing economic reform. The reform period can be further divided
into two periods marked by the pace and magnitude (Ding, Dong, and Li
2009). The period of 1979–1995, the second period of interest in this study,
is classified as the early-reform period, wherein the pattern of central distri-
bution remained deeply engrained. During this period, the communist state’s
role as the social service provider gradually declined, whereas the market
forces started to shape the class and gender relations more actively (Tang
and Parish 2000). Even though the economic reform created more opportu-
nities for women, gender inequalities persisted or even exacerbated in terms
of declining employment rates for women, widening gender wage gap, and
increasing gender segregation in the urban labor market (Shu and Bian
2003). In this period, division of labor among married couples became more
gendered in urban China. The reasons are twofold. First, urban women
encountered increasing discrimination in the labor market (Stockman
1994). Second, social structures that once assisted workers’ daily maintenance
and childcare responsibilities started to crumble, leaving these responsibilities
to individual families, especially women (Cook and Dong 2011).
In the mid-1990s, further privatization and in-depth public-sector labor
retrenchment led to large-scale layoffs and a sharp increase in urban unem-
ployment. The third period of interest in this study is 1995–present and is
recognized as the late-reform period. In this period, the state’s role to
provide social welfare continued declining and individuals’ lives were more
subject to market forces. Consequently, married women with children
became even more disadvantaged in the labor market (e.g., higher lay-off
rates, longer unemployment spells, receiving significantly fewer earnings
than the male counterparts) (He and Wu 2016). Meanwhile, a gender essen-
tialist ideology with a strong emphasis on gendered spheres became more
dominant in the postsocialist state (Cook and Dong 2011).
These three distinct historical periods are connected with different gender
socialization experiences, which influence later family behaviors. More
specifically, two notable social changes are likely to contribute to the vary-
ing housework division in urban Chinese families across recent generations:
gender ideology that becomes increasingly traditional and the decline in
women’s labor force participation.
Changes in Gender Ideology
Despite the limited scope of promotion, gender equity was prevalent in the
pre-reform era, while essentialist arguments became more prominent in
explaining gender differences in the reform periods (Honig and Hershatter
1988). Such essentialist thinking also revitalized the Confucian ideal of the
“virtuous wife and good mother,” which urged women to claim primary
responsibility for marriage, family, and children more than was evident in
Mao’s time (1949–1976) (Sun and Chen 2015). Changes in gendered ideol-
ogy have clearly altered gender attitudes, with potential implications for
the gendered division of housework. For instance, Pimentel (2006) discov-
ered that women in the reform cohorts expected more gender equality at
home, while men were becoming less egalitarian. Similarly, Hu and Scott
(2014) found women in the reform generation to be more likely to hold
egalitarian gender values than men and women from the pre-reform genera-
tions (hereafter PreR). In contrast, Zuo and Bian (2001) found that the
majority of wives and husbands viewed a gendered division of household
labor as fair if the husband was the primary breadwinner and the wife
was the primary homemaker. Despite diverging findings in women’s gender
attitudes, both studies report a backlash in men’s gender attitudes against
the egalitarian pressures from the state in the reform period.
Changes in Women’s Labor Force Participation
A greater proportion of country-level economically autonomous women

predicts men’s greater participation in household work independent of
individual characteristics (Hook 2006). Chinese women’s employment rate
was among the highest in the world back in Mao’s era (Jacobsen 1998).
However, the employment rate of women, especially among married
women, has declined since the launch of Chinese economic reform, and is
most notable during the late-reform era due to the public sector labor
retrenchment. In urban areas, only 74.9 percent of wives were employed
in 2002 compared to 91.9 percent in 1995 and 96.8 percent in 1988 (Ding,
Dong, and Li 2009). Women’s decreasing labor force participation since
the reform era suggests increasing exposure to gender specialization across
generations. More specifically, the norms of gender equity popularized in
the pre-reform period may prevent husbands in that generation from adopt-
ing gender essentialist arguments, whereas men in the reform generations
may use women’s massive unemployment to justify a gendered division of
labor and thus spend less time on housework.
Hypotheses
Chinese historical transitions such as the declining influence of former socio-

political movements, which uphold gender equity and the progression of
Chinese economic reform, likely influence the gendered division of labor
across generations. In particular, the backlash in men’s gender attitudes
and the declining female employment rate in the aggregate level suggest gen-
erational differences in men’s housework performance in urban China.
Therefore, I hypothesize:
H1: Among the husbands, the PreR spends more time on housework
than the two reform generations; early-reform generation (here-
after EarlyR) spends more time on housework than late-reform
generation (hereafter LateR), but such a difference is smaller
compared to that between PreR and the reform generations.
H2: Partly due to the declining housework participation among hus-
bands, Chinese wives spend more time on housework across
generations, especially when controlling for the age-related
covariates.
H3: Corresponding to H1 and H2, with the decrease in husbands’
housework participation and increase in wives’ housework par-
ticipation, there is an enlarging gender gap in housework across
successive generations.
Data, Variables, and Methods
Sample
This study uses data from the CHNS to address the research hypotheses.
CHNS is a collaborative project conducted by Carolina Population Center
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National
Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety at the Chinese Center for Disease
Control and Prevention. CHNS is an ongoing longitudinal survey that uses
multistage, random cluster process to draw samples, which contains house-
holds in seven provinces in China.1 Previous research has demonstrated
the CHNS data is representative of the national averages (Chen 2005).
CHNS is especially appropriate for the study because it is by far the only
data set that contains a wealth of couple-level information on housework
division in China. In the absence of any methodological solution to the
Age-Period-Cohort conundrum, this study follows prior research by

measuring the cohort effects directly with 2006 CHNS and further explain-
ing the results based on theories in the substantive areas (Firebaugh and
Chen 1995; Artis and Pavalko 2003; Luo and Hodges 2016).
The 2006 CHNS includes 4,468 households, 9,788 adults, and 1,954 chil-
dren. I examine generational differences only in urban areas (there are 3,360
individuals in urban sites) because rural Chinese and urban Chinese are two
separate populations due to the household registration system (Wu and
Treiman 2007). Departing from the 2,703 married people in urban areas, I
limit the analysis to married coresident couples and generate a sample of
1,291 couples. I further draw on a subset of married couples of working
age (20–60) (N ¼ 1,026) (see Sayer, Casper, and Cohen 2004 for a similar
approach) as people are most likely to combine paid work and family
responsibilities during this age range. This age range is appropriate in the
Chinese context because the minimum legal age for marriage has been 20
for Chinese women (22 for Chinese men) since 1980; 60 has been the legal
retirement age for Chinese men since 1978 (Bian and Logan 1996).2 Drop-
ping those who have missing values on their housework participation yields
a final sample of 937 couples.
Independent Variables
I construct the generations according to the pivotal historical moments and

the critical time periods in which individuals were raised. Women’s birth
year is used to divide generations (see Presser 1994 for a similar approach)
because the spousal age gap has been small from 1960 to 2005 (Zhang and
Gu 2007).3 In the analytical sample, on average the husband is 1.84 years
older than his wife, and the gender gap in spousal age deviates from the
mean by 2.88 years. Specifically, the PreR contains individuals born between
1946 and 1959 who experienced the Cultural Revolution (1966–1979) in
their twenties (age range 47–60 by 2006). The EarlyR contains individuals
born between 1960 and 1974, who experienced the early-reform period
(1980 to 1994) in their twenties (age range 32–46 by 2006). The LateR is
composed of individuals born between 1975 and 1986, who experienced
the late-reform period (1995–2006), with an age range of 20–31 by 2006.
Dependent Variables
The housework tasks in CHNS include “buy food for your household,”
“prepare and cook food for your household,” “wash and iron clothes,”
and “clean the house.” Four continuous variables capture the time spent
on each housework task. Time spent on all housework tasks is also calcu-
lated. Although these four tasks do not include all housework tasks, they
constitute the most fundamental household work that maintains household

members’ daily life (Coltrane 2000). Measures of childcare and eldercare are
not included in the study for two main reasons. First, such measures are very
limited in CHNS.4 Second, the study of care work, especially childcare,
requires different analytical frameworks from that of housework (Chesley
and Flood 2016).
The study also includes a construction of gender gap in time spent on
housework by subtracting husband’s time spent on housework from wife’s
time spent on housework. Although some prior work uses the housework
ratio of one spouse against the time spent on housework of another spouse
or the couples’ total time spent on housework (e.g., Greenstein 2000),5
the source of the change in the ratio variable remains unclear––it either
originates from the numerator or denominator, or even both. Results of
the gender gap measure used in this study show a clearer and more complete
picture of the housework division especially when presented with the time
spent on housework for husbands as well as wives.
Control Variables
The study controls for three sets of control variables. First, time availability
theory argues that married people’s time spent on housework is restricted by
other primary responsibilities including labor force participation and caring
for the family members (Davis, Greenstein, and Marks 2007). In line with
prior research (Bianchi et al. 2000), this study includes employment hours
(of primary and secondary jobs), presence of young children under the
age of 6, and parents’ presence (at least one coresidential parent in the
household) to measure time availability.6 Chinese parents are shown to help
their (married) adult children with childcare and housework by moving in
the same household (Chang 2015).
Second, the relative resource perspective suggests that housework
division is connected with power dynamics within marriage because house-
work is not usually considered a pleasant task, and those with more marital
power are able to bargain out of housework responsibilities, especially
routine housework (Knudsen and Wærness 2008). Following prior research
(Bianchi et al. 2000), this study includes couples’ relative education (whether
the wife has a similar or higher educational level than the husband) and
husband’s educational status as covariates.
Third, this study controls for age-related covariates because housework
demands and participation differ by age. Three main aspects of life are most
relevant to the relationship between age and housework: family structure,
labor force participation, and health (Artis and Pavalko 2003). Young
children in the household increase the sheer amount of housework to be
done (Coltrane 2000). Presence of coresidential parents alleviates housework
burden for young couples but increases the housework for the older couples
because of caring responsibilities. People adjust their labor force partici-

pation as the family demands change across the life course, which affects
the time available for housework (Spain and Bianchi 1996). Older people
tend to be in poorer health, which can limit their ability to perform house-
work (Clark et al. 1997). To account for these age-related factors, this study
includes variables of family structure (i.e., presence of young children and
residence of parents), labor force participation (i.e., employment hours),
and self-rated health in the analysis.7
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for these control
variables. Results show that people in successive generations tend to work
more hours, have young children and coresidential parents in the household,
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Control Variables Used in Analysis
Pre-reform Early-reform Late-reform
n ¼ 398 n ¼ 432 n ¼ 107
Mean/ Mean/ Mean/

percentage SD percentage SD percentage SD
Husband’s age 53.66 3.72 41.64 5.13 30.43 3.4

Wife’s age 52.39 3.44 39.43 4.08 27.86 2.44
Husband’s weekly hours of 26.58 37.48 37.49
employmenta
Wife’s weekly hours of 15.34 29.31 33.97
employment
Presence of children under age 6 11.31 8.56 66.36
Parents live in the same/adjacent 8.04 38.43 71.57
household
Husband’s education: college or 24.37 21.52 34.58
beyond
Wife has higher or similar 54.19 67.84 66.36
education
Husband has higher education
(ref)
Husband has good health 59.39 66.67 74.29
Bad health (ref)
Wife has good health 51.78 60.14 74.29
Bad health (ref)
Note: aStandard deviation (SD) of husband and wife’s weekly hours of employment are
not reported because they are multiply imputed.
have higher and more similar educational attainment within the couple, and
are in better health. The hours of housework of LateR couples should be
examined with particular caution because the majority of them have young
children in the household. Parents tend to spend less time on housework and
allocate more time to childcare with the presence of young children in the
household (Yavorsky, Kamp Dush, and Schoppe-Sullivan 2015).
Analytical Strategy
This study recognizes the comingling relationship among generational

effects (cohort effects), age effects, and period effects in housework. Up until
the present day, disentangling the individual effects of age, period, and
cohort (APC) remains a highly contested terrain among methodologists
(e.g., Land et al. 2016; Luo et al. 2016). Without an optimal statistical sol-
ution, this study tries to distinguish generational differences from period and
age effects in housework division by relying on prior research. Previous
research reported prominent period effect in housework participation: time
spent on housework (mainly cooking, cleaning, laundry) has drastically
decreased from the 1920s to 2000s partly due to the improved productivity
in domestic labor and (disappearance and) outsourcing of various house-
hold tasks (e.g., clothes making, repairing) (Bianchi et al. 2012). This study
addresses the issue of period effect by examining the housework partici-
pation of people across generations in a single survey year.
The main challenge in this study is to identify age effects and generational
effects in housework participation. This study offers insights into this issue
for the following reasons. First, differences in housework demand as well as
the allocated time for housework at varying life course stages can be miti-
gated by the inclusion of age-specific indicators such as presence of young
children and paid labor participation (Artis and Pavalko 2003), which are
included in the analysis. Second, the generational difference in housework
participation comingling with an age effect is likely to be small, especially
for men. Recent studies report considerable stability in men’s time spent
on housework across most life course transitions, especially in the transition
to parenthood, which mostly increases mother’s unpaid work (Baxter,
Hewitt, and Haynes 2008; Yavorsky, Kamp Dush, and Schoppe‐Sullivan
2015). Although the transition to retirement may increase men’s time spent
on housework (Szinovacz 2000), only a small proportion of the sample is
composed of retired men; sensitivity analysis with retired men excluded in
the sample also report similar results as the one presented in the text.
The aim of the analysis is to examine time spent on each household task
and the total time spent on all tasks across generations of husbands and
wives. Whereas the historical transitions and Chinese family system has been
well-documented, patterns of housework participation among couples
socialized in different historical epochs have not been examined. Ordinary

least squares (OLS) regression analysis is used by regressing the time spent
on each household task, and the combined time spent on housework on all
tasks on the control variables.
To maximize the sample usage, single imputation is applied to the depen-
dent variables of time spent on housework on each task.8 Before imputation,
each task has around 4 percent missing except the task of grocery shopping
(men have 10 percent missing and women have 13 percent missing), because
those who bought food on the way home are not asked for exact time spent
on housework. Sensitivity analysis reports that models using the imputed
variables and models using unimputed variables produce similar results.
To minimize measurement error, the study also corrects for the extreme
values in time spent on housework by substituting values that exceed 95
percent of the distribution with the value of 95 percent (see Bianchi et al.
2000 for a similar approach).
The multivariate normal approach of multiple imputation is also used to
account for the missing values in the control variables (Acock 2005).
Although all control variables have less than 5 percent missing values,
evidence from the patterns of missing data suggests that the data are not
missing completely at random which renders typical approaches such as
listwise deletion inappropriate (Allison 2002). Missing values on any of these
control variables were imputed (five imputations). The estimated values in
the five data sets include a random, component. The random component
was based on draws from the posterior predictive distribution of the missing
data, which is under a posited Bayesian model and the missing-at-random
assumption. The missing-at-random assumption is not only a more plausible
assumption than the missing-completely-at-random assumption, but it also
provides unbiased estimates of variance (Allison 2002).
Results
Descriptive Results
Table 2 reports the weekly averages of hours of housework for married men
and women, the wife-husband housework ratio, and within-couple gender
gap in time spent on housework in the sample. Consistent with past research
(Attané 2012), descriptive results show that women do the majority of
housework in urban China: on average, wives spend 4.6 times as many hours
as husbands on all the housework tasks combined; the gender gap in total
time spent on housework is more than 15 hours per week. The wife-husband
housework ratio is larger than those reported in other studies (e.g., it is 2.8
times in Yang 2006) likely because this study only includes routine house-
work tasks in the housework measure. Among the specific housework tasks,
Table 2
Weekly Hours of Housework for Married Men and Women
Husband Wife Ratioa Gapb
Whole sample
Total housework 4.23 19.41 4.59 15.18
Specific housework
Grocery shopping 1.35 3.96 2.93 2.61
Preparing food 1.85 7.94 4.29 6.09
Washing clothes 0.51 4.13 8.10 3.62
Cleaning house 0.63 3.38 5.37 2.75
Pre-reform
Total housework 5.49 20.32 3.70 14.83
Specific housework
Preparing food 2.38 8.76 3.68 6.38
Cleaning house 0.80 3.61 4.51 2.81
Early-reform
Total housework 3.64 19.17 5.27 15.53
Specific housework
Preparing food 1.58 7.82 4.95 6.24
Cleaning house 0.51 3.28 6.43 2.77
Late-reform
Total housework 2.85 15.12 5.31 12.27
Specific housework
Preparing food 0.96 5.36 5.58 4.40
Cleaning house 0.49 2.93 5.98 2.44
a
Notes: The mean hours of married women’s housework divided by that of married men.
b
Within-couple gender gap: wife’s hours minus husband’s hours.
husbands are more likely to participate in grocery shopping9; thus the wife-
husband housework ratio and the gender gap in food buying is smallest
among all tasks. Food preparing is the most time consuming task and the
gender gap is also the largest. Husbands spend the least amount of time
washing clothes, and the wife-husband housework ratio is thus the largest
among all tasks.
In addition to displaying prominent gender differences, the descriptive
results indicate prominent generational differences. Figure 1, reports hus-
band’s and wife’s average amount of time spent on each housework task
across generations. Both husbands and wives in the more recent gener-
ation(s) spend less time on most of the household chores than the previous
generation(s). Moreover, the decline in time spent preparing food across
generations is prominent for both men and women. Table 2 also reports
prominent generational differences in the wife-husband housework ratio:
wives of EarlyR and LateR spend 5.27 and 5.31 times, respectively, as many
Figure 1. (A) Husband’s time spent on specific household tasks by

generation. (B) Wife’s time spent on specific household tasks by generation.
Table 3
Ordinary Least Squares Regression Coefficients of Husband’s/Wife’s Time (Hours/Week) Spent on Each Housework Task, All
Tasks Combined, and the Gender Gap in the Time Spent on Housework
Model 1 Model 2b Model 3 Model 4b Model 5 Model 6b
Husband’s time spent Wife’s time spent Gender gap in

grocery shopping grocery shopping grocery shopping
Late-reform (LateR)a −0.677** −0.533* −1.242*** −0.406 −0.565 0.127

Early-reform (EarlyR)a −0.578*** −0.472** −0.328 0.070 0.250 0.542*
Diff (between EarlyR and LateR) −0.099 −0.061 −0.913** −0.476 −0.814* 0.415
Husband’s time Wife’s time spent Gender gap in food
spent preparing food preparing food preparing
Late-reform (LateR)a −1.418*** −1.340*** −3.400*** −1.220 −1.982** 0.120
Early-reform (EarlyR)a −0.795*** −0.753** −0.940* −0.058 −0.145 0.695
Diff (between EarlyR and LateR) −0.624þ −0.587 −2.461*** −1.162þ −1.837* −0.575
Husband’s time spent Wife’s time spent Gender gap in washing clothes
washing clothes washing clothes
Late-reform (LateR)a −0.237þ −0.214 −0.388 −0.252 −0.151 −0.038
a
Early-reform (EarlyR) −0.191* −0.177* −0.066 0.187 0.125 0.363þ
Diff (between EarlyR and LateR) −0.047 −0.037 −0.322 −0.439 −0.276 −0.401
(Continued )
277
278
Table 3 Continued
Model 1 Model 2b Model 3 Model 4b Model 5 Model 6b
Husband’s time spent Wife’s time spent Gender gap in house cleaning
cleaning house cleaning house
Late-reform (LateR)a −0.312* −0.290þ −0.686** −0.280 −0.373 0.009
a
Early-reform (EarlyR) −0.290*** −0.275** −0.332* −0.109 −0.042 0.166
Diff (between EarlyR and LateR) −0.023 −0.015 −0.394 −0.171 −0.331 −0.157
Husband’s time spent on all tasks Wife’s time spent on all tasks Gender gap in time on all tasks
Late-reform (LateR)a −2.645*** −2.376** −5.716*** −2.158þ −3.070* 0.218
a
Early-reform (EarlyR) −1.853*** −1.676*** −1.665* 0.090 0.188 1.766*
Diff (between EarlyR and LateR) −0.792 −0.7 −4.050*** −2.248þ −3.258* −1.548
a b
Notes: Reference group is pre-reform generation. Models 2, 4, and 6 include all the covariates listed in the method section.
þp < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
hours on housework as their husbands on all housework tasks combined; in

contrast, wives of PreR spend 3.7 times as many hours as their husbands on
housework. Correspondingly, the gender gap in time spent on housework is
bigger among EarlyR than PreR. Gender gap in time spent on housework is
the smallest among LateR because both wives and husbands in that gener-
ation spend much less time on housework than their counterparts in the two
other generations.
Multivariate Regression Results
Table 3 presents the OLS regression coefficients of husband’s/wife’s time

spent on each housework task, all tasks combined, and the corresponding
gender gaps in time spent on housework. Models 1 and 2 are results for
husbands, Models 3 and 4 are results for wives, and Models 5 and 6 are
for gender gaps. Models with odd numbers (i.e., Model 1, Model 3, and
Model 5) report generational differences in time spent on housework with-
out any control added. Models with even numbers contain all of the control
variables.
Three main findings can be drawn from Table 3. First, the main genera-
tional differences are found between PreR and the two reform generations.
For example, for the most time-consuming task––food preparing, Model 2
shows that among husbands, PreR spend about 1.3 more hours a week on
the task than LateR (p < .001) and 45 minutes more a week than EarlyR
(p < .01), controlling for the covariates. For the housework task of washing
clothes (highest wife-husband ratio in Table 2), Model 2 also reports a sig-
nificant time difference between EarlyR and PreR. Table 3 shows that most
of the generational differences in husbands’ time spent on housework are
partially explained but still sustain after the inclusion of control variables,
whereas all of the generational differences in wives’ time spent on house-
work are explained by the covariates. For example, Model 1 shows that
husbands of PreR spend more time on food buying than husbands in the
two reform generations (b ¼ − 0.677, p < .01; b ¼ − 0.578, p < .001); with
covariates included in Model 2, both magnitude and significance level of
the coefficients (b ¼ − 0.533, p < .05; b ¼ − 0.472, p < .01) in husbands’ gen-
erational differences in food buying decrease. On the other hand, for wives,
the generational differences in food buying found in Model 3 disappear after
the inclusion of covariates in Model 4. Third, in accordance with the pre-
vious two findings, Table 3 shows the generational differences in gender
gaps of time spent on housework that emerges between PreR and EarlyR;
this difference is mainly due to differences in husbands’ time spent on house-
work than wives’. For example, the gender gap in time spent on food buying
is about half an hour smaller among PreR couples than EarlyR couples
(Model 6), mainly because of generational differences in husbands’ time
spent on housework (Model 2) rather than that of wives’ (Model 4).
280
Table 4
Ordinary Least Squares Coefficients for Determinants of Weekly Hours of Housework and the Gender Gap for Married
Couples
Husband’s time spent on Wife’s time spent on Gender gap in time spent on
housework housework housework
b SE b SE b SE
Generation
Late-reform −2.376** 0.748 −2.158þ 1.273 0.218 1.564
Early-reform −1.676*** 0.427 0.090 0.729 1.766* 0.894
Pre-reform (ref)
Husband’s weekly employment hours −0.035*** 0.008 0.030* 0.015 0.064*** 0.018
Wife’s weekly employment hours 0.037*** 0.008 −0.108*** 0.014 −0.145*** 0.018
Presence of children under age 6 −0.132 0.566 −1.413 0.964 −1.281 1.184
No children under age 6 in the
household (ref)
Parents live in same/adjacent −1.106* 0.452 −2.028** 0.770 −0.922 0.945
household
Other residence (ref)
Husband’s education: college or more 0.999* 0.435 0.614 0.741 −0.385 0.910
Other level of education (ref)
Wife has higher or similar education 0.184 0.386 −0.478 0.656 −0.662 0.807
Husband has higher education (ref)
Husband has good health 0.052 0.401 0.673 0.683 0.621 0.839
Husband has bad health (ref)
Wife has good health 0.291 0.390 0.325 0.665 0.034 0.816
Wife has bad health (ref)
Intercept 5.431*** 0.504 21.564*** 0.860 16.133*** 1.055
Adjusted R2 0.063 0.092 0.072
N 937 937 937
þ
Note: p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
281
Table 4 presents the OLS regression results of husband’s and wife’s time
spent on all housework tasks, as well as the within-couple housework gender
gap. Controlling for all the covariates, among husbands, PreR spend about
2.4 more hours a week on housework than LateR (p < .01), and 1.7 more
hours a week than EarlyR (p < .001). Similar to the results on specific time
spent on housework, basically no generational difference in total housework
is found among wives. Due to the prominent difference in husband’s time
spent on housework, the gender gap in total housework is 1.77 hours less
among PreR than that of EarlyR.
According to Table 4, the age-related covariates and factors associated
with time availability are found to be most influential for housework division
and thus help explain the generational differences in housework division
within Chinese couples. Among the overlapping time-availability and age-
related factors, couples’ employment hours and parental residence are impor-
tant determinants for housework division. Husband’s employment hours
decrease his time spent on housework, increase her time spent, and expand
the gender gap in time spent. Wife’s employment hours, on the other hand,
increase men’s time spent on housework, decrease women’s time spent, and
narrow the gender gap in time spent. Also note that women’s employment
hours have a bigger coefficient magnitude and higher significance level than
that of husband’s. Compared to other parental residences, coresidence with
parents in the same or adjacent household reduces husband’s total time spent
on housework by 1.1 hours (p < .05) and reduces wife’s total time spent by
about 2 hours (p < .01). Results on specific housework tasks show that par-
ental coresidence significantly reduces husband’s time spent preparing food
(b ¼ − 0.508, p < .05) and washing clothes (b ¼ − 0.192, p < .05), and reduces
wife’s time spent preparing food (b ¼ − 1.422, p < .01).
The other age-related covariates, presence of young children and couples’
health status, have less consistent and important explanatory power on the cou-
ples’ housework division than employment hours and parental residence.
Results on specific housework tasks show that presence of young children in
the household has a marginally significant effect in reducing women’s time spent
grocery shopping and preparing food, and increasing women’s time washing
clothes. The indicator of relative resource, measured by couples’ educational
difference (i.e., wife has higher or similar educational level as husband) is not
significant in the model predicting total time spent on housework (Table 4)
but has a marginally significant effect in reducing husband’s time spent washing
clothes. Lastly, husbands with college or higher educational attainment spend
about one hour more (p < .05) on housework than those with less education.
Discussion
The division of household labor has become more gender egalitarian in the
United States and Europe; in these contexts, women are becoming more
economically active in the paid labor force, and thus spend less time
doing housework, while men have increased their share of domestic work
(Bianchi et al. 2012). However, Chinese women, especially employed
wives, still shoulder a much heavier load of housework than their Western
counterparts (Attané 2012). It is thus necessary to examine the division of
housework in China, as it displays a different path of development
from most Western countries. In light of China’s recent social changes
including the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), the early Economic
Reform (1980–1994), and the late Economic Reform (1995–present time),
this study uses gender socialization theory to examine the division of
housework among married couples in the successive generations. Results
suggest that husbands of PreR spend more time on housework than
husbands from the two reform generations, while wives regardless of gen-
eration undertake the majority of the housework. Three main contribu-
tions of the study are outlined below.
In line with Hypothesis 1, results reveal significant generational differ-
ences in housework among Chinese husbands. Husbands of the PreR spend
more time on almost all housework tasks than husbands in the two reform
generations, net of the effects of potential confounders such as employment
hours, coresidence with parents or in-laws, and within-couple educational
differences. On the other hand, there is no difference reported in housework
participation between husbands from the two reform generations. These
results correspond to gender socialization theory in that the experience of
political emphasis on gender equity during individuals’ young adulthood
appears to have an impact on later life gendered behaviors (Fan and Marini
2000; Pimentel 2006). These findings add to recent scholarship in that the
political efforts in improving gender equality not only contribute to a more
equal division of labor within couples (Yu and Xie 2011), but the exposure
time to these political efforts is also critical. Additionally, the lack of
differences between the two reform generations of husbands suggest that
early life experiences of these two historical transitions––the early Economic
Reform and the late Economic Reform, have similar influence on men’s
later life gendered behaviors, at least compared with the Cultural Revol-
ution, which differs from the two reforms in both political/economic
agendas and influence on people’s family life.
Findings reveal no significant generational differences in the time devoted
to housework for married women, net of the effect of potential confounders.
This contradicts Hypothesis 2, which predicted increasing time spent on
housework in successive generations for urban Chinese women. There has
been a progression of Chinese economic reform alongside the state’s
withdrawal of control in individual lives, which increasingly push Chinese
women out of the male-dominated work world and toward the female-
centered home in successive generations (Zuo and Bian 2001; Pimentel
2006; Attané 2012). Given this, it is reasonable to expect that Chinese
women do no less housework in successive generations. The lack of genera-

tional differences in housework participation among Chinese wives suggests
that housework has been, and remains, women’s responsibility since the pre-
reform era. In fact, descriptive results show that women spend much more
time on housework than men in every generation, thus it is harder to reach
statistical significance in the multivariate models for women relative to men.
In addition, multivariate analysis shows that women’s employment hours
have a bigger effect size and a higher significance level in predicting all
the dependent variables (i.e., wife’s time spent on housework, husband’s
time spent on housework, and the gender gap in time spent on housework)
than men’s employment hours; this suggests women are primarily respon-
sible for housework within the couple. This study thus extends previous
research done in the 1980s and 1990s to a more recent era, and is a testament
to the entrenchment of gender division of housework in urban China (Croll
1983; Zhang and Farley 1995).
Results partially support Hypothesis 3, which suggests a couple of gender
gap differences in time spent on housework across generations, mostly
between EarlyR and PreR. The smaller gender gap among pre-reform cou-
ples compared to that of early-reform couples is most likely due to the
prominent generational differences in time spent on housework among hus-
bands. There is no gender gap difference between the pre-reform couples
and the late-reform couples, likely because both husbands and wives in
the latter group do much less housework to begin with (due to their long
employment hours and responsibility of caring for small children). Another
notable finding is that regardless of generation, most husbands seem to pre-
fer the task of grocery shopping; the gender gap in this task is also smaller.
This is because grocery shopping has been reported by previous research as a
gender-neutral task (Coltrane 2000). The gender-neutral status of grocery
shopping may be particularly salient in China because there are fewer out-
door chores (e.g., no cars to fix, no lawn to mow). As Chinese men are sup-
posed to “dominate the outside” while women “dominate the inside,”
grocery shopping is one of the few tasks they can do outside of the home
(Lu, Maume, and Bellas 2000). Also, it is possible that grocery shopping
is more convenient for men to accomplish because they can do it on their
way to or from work, which happens to be one of the answer options for
the food-buying question in the survey.
Taken together, although the political endeavor in promoting gender
equality during the Cultural Revolution era is not able to overhaul the gen-
der division of housework in urban China, it does have some non-negligible
effects on men’s housework behaviors. After all, the patriarchal structures
and values embedded in the family life have been prevalent throughout Chi-
na’s long history (Parish and Whyte 1980). If given a longer time frame
instead of a 13-year socialist experiment that happens to have an emphasis
on gender equality, we may be able to witness more substantial changes in

housework division or in other parts of social life.
Limitations
Despite the insightful findings in the gender division of household labor in

urban China, this study has several limitations that merit further research.
First, a cross-sectional design is not ideally positioned to examine the
generational differences of individuals who are at different life course stages
in the study. In addition to the rationales illustrated in the Method section
above, some findings of the study also mitigate this concern. For example,
the most consistent generational differences found in the analysis are
between husbands of reform generations and husbands of PreR. Although
husbands of EarlyR and LateR were also in different life course stages at
the time of the survey, virtually no difference is found in their housework
participation. Previous studies generally show that housework division
becomes more gendered over the course of marriage: husbands usually
reduce their time spent on housework as the duration of the marriage
increases (Grunow, Shulz, and Blossfeld 2012). In this study, pre-reform
couples have the longest marital duration among the three generations,
yet husbands of PreR spend much more time on housework than husbands
in the reform generations, net of age-related confounders. Therefore, such
generational differences in housework performance likely suggest effects
of different experiences of historical transition during young adulthood
rather than a mere age effect. Using this study as a first step, future research
should revisit this issue when more appropriate methods and data are
available.
Second, omitted variables can bias the results. For example, relative
income of the spouses is shown to be related to housework division, yet
massive missing values (more than 20 percent) prevent it from being
included in the study. Third, time diary data, which requires respondents
to record all activities they do and the time spent on each activity through-
out the whole day, is more accurate than survey data at capturing time use
activities (Bianchi et al. 2000; Yavorsky, Kamp Dush, and Schoppe‐Sullivan
2015). However, this data is currently unavailable in China. Moreover, both
survey questions and time diary data report similar conclusions about the
gender gap in housework (Bianchi et al. 2012). Fourth, four measures of
housework are included in the analysis, and thus the couples’ housework
participation, especially the husband’s, could be biased because the tasks
of paying bills and heavy manual work are not included. However, these
four housework tasks capture the “back bone of household life” (Gupta
1999) and they constitute the most occurring household tasks in the context
of urban China. Only when men spend substantially more time on these
tasks can it lead to an improvement in the gender equity in housework
division (Coltrane 2000; Chesley and Flood 2016). A close examination of

these four tasks is thus able to shed light onto the family dynamics in house-
work division (Baxter, Hewitt, and Haynes 2008). Finally, the study include
a variable of the presence of children under the age of 6 in the household but
does not include specific childcare tasks because gendered division of child-
care requires a different theoretical framework from the theories for the gen-
dered division of housework (Bianchi et al. 2012; Chesley and Flood 2016).
However, future studies should incorporate and examine housework and
childcare in the Chinese context.
In order to minimize biases, this study considers other generational differ-
ences that could have an impact on division of household labor. For
instance, pre-reform couples on average have larger educational (husband
has more education than wife) and hours of work differences (husband’s
work hours minus wife’s) than couples of the two reform generations, yet
the husbands in PreR still do more housework than husbands of the two
reform generations. This bolsters the study’s findings as the exposure to
gender equity during young adulthood is indeed associated with an increase
in husband’s time spent on housework, even when husbands of PreR have
more marital power such as more education and labor force participation
to bargain out of housework (Bianchi et al. 2000). Another potential genera-
tional difference is the possession of housework-related electronic appliances
(i.e., washing machine, microwave oven, rice cooker, and pressure cooker),
but no difference is found in the present study.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the importance of national contexts and policies

on the gender division of housework by demonstrating how a historical
regime that promotes gender equality, facilitated by multiple work-family
policies and political campaigns, is associated with an increase in men’s
housework participation. This study has implication beyond the Chinese
context, as the stalling increase in men’s housework is found in many
Western countries. For example, in the United States, men’s time spent
on housework has stopped increasing since the 1980s whereas women’s
time spent on housework has continued to decrease into the 2010s (Bianchi
et al. 2012). A cross-national study also finds the convergence in men’s and
women’s work patterns (paid work hours and unpaid work hours) to be
slowing down among the majority of the Western countries over the past
four decades (Kan, Sullivan, and Gershuny 2011). It may be that gender
equality in the division of housework can continue on a path toward
gender equity only when the work-family and broader public policies are
designed to reduce gendered workplace disadvantage and encourage men
to be more involved with family responsibilities (Hook 2006).
Alternatively, findings report no generational difference in time spent on

housework among Chinese women. Housework has been considered as
women’s domain and connected to feminine identity even during a histori-
cal period when the unusual political endeavor for gender equality was
present. This may be alarming for scholars and policy makers in China
as state control over citizen’s lives declined, and policies aimed to alleviate
women’s childcare burden was no longer enforceable during the reform era
(Attané 2012). Future research should examine the consequences of the
gender division of housework on women’s economic opportunities and
well-being, and further delve into the possibility of the detachment of
housework and femininity toward gender equality.
Notes
1. Check the following website for a detailed description of research design: http://
www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/china.
2. The legal retirement age for Chinese women is 55; sensitivity analysis on a
sample of 20-to-55-year-old couples reports similar results.
3. Sensitivity analysis using husband’s birth year to construct generations reports
similar results.
4. China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) contains one question about the
time spent taking care of each parent only among married women under the age of
52 and one question about the time spent caring for children under 6 years old.
5. Sensitivity analysis on housework ratio reports similar results.
6. Presence of young children and coresidential parents are dummy variables.
7. Sensitivity analysis finds no differential effects of these variables (i.e., young
children in the household and coresidence with parents) on couples’ housework
division by generation.
8. Missing values are substituted with the corresponding mean for the specific
housework task; see Greenstein (2000) for a similar approach.
9. Sensitivity analysis finds a bigger proportion of men to participate in grocery
shopping than any other housework task.
References
Acock, A. C. 2005. “Working with Missing Values.” Journal of Marriage and Family
67(4): 1012–28. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x
Allison, P. D. 2002. “Missing Data: Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 55(1):
193–96. doi:10.1348/000711002159653
Artis, J. E., and E. K. Pavalko. 2003. “Explaining the Decline in Women’s House-
hold Labor: Individual Change and Cohort Differences.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 65: 746–61. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00746.x
Attané, I. 2012. “Being a Woman in China Today: A Demography of Gender.”
China Perspectives 4: 5–15.
Barnett, R. C., and Y.-C. Shen. 1997. “Gender, High-and Low-Schedule-Control
Housework Tasks, and Psychological Distress a Study of Dual-Earner Couples.”
Journal of Family Issues 18(4): 403–28. doi:10.1177/019251397018004003
Baxter, J., B. Hewitt, and M. Haynes. 2008. “Life Course Transitions and House-
work: Marriage, Parenthood, and Time on Housework.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 70(2): 259–72. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00479.x
Bernhardt, E., T. Noack, and T. H. Lyngstad. 2008. “Shared Housework in Norway
and Sweden: Advancing the Gender Revolution.” Journal of European Social
Policy 18(3): 275–88. doi:10.1177/0958928708091060
Bian, Y., and J. R. Logan. 1996. “Market Transition and the Persistence of Power:
The Changing Stratification System in Urban China.” American Sociological
Review 61(5): 739–58. doi:10.2307/2096451
Bian, Y., J. R. Logan, and X. Shu. 2000. “Wage and Job Inequalities in the
Working Lives of Men and Women in Tianjin.” Pp. 111–33 in Re-drawing
Boundaries: Work, Households and Gender in China, edited by B. Entwisle and
G. E. Henderson. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bianchi, S. M., M. A. Milkie, L. C. Sayer, and J. P. Robinson. 2000. “Is Anyone
Doing the Housework?. Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.”
Social Forces 79(1): 191–228. doi:10.1093/sf/79.1.191
Bianchi, S. M., L. C. Sayer, M. A. Milkie, and J. P. Robinson. 2012. “Housework:
Who Did, Does Or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter?.” Social Forces
91(1): 55–63. doi:10.1093/sf/sos120
Cao, Y., and C.-Y. Hu. 2007. “Gender and Job Mobility in Postsocialist China: A
Longitudinal Study of Job Changes in Six Coastal Cities.” Social Forces 85(4):
1535–60. doi:10.1353/sof.2007.0065
Chang, Y.-H. 2015. “Childcare Needs and Household Composition: Is Household
Extension a Way of Seeking Childcare Support?.” Chinese Sociological Review
47(4): 343–66. doi:10.1080/21620555.2015.1062345
Chen, F. 2005. “Residential Patterns of Parents and their Married Children in Con-
temporary China: A Life Course Approach.” Population Research and Policy
Review 24: 125–48. doi:10.1007/s11113-004-6371-9
Chesley, N., and S. Flood. 2016. “Signs of Change? At‐Home and Breadwinner
Parents’ Housework and Child‐Care Time.” Journal of Marriage and Family
79(2): 511–34. doi:10.1111/jomf.12376
Clark, D. O., S. M. Mungai, T. E. Stump, and F. D. Wolinsky. 1997. “Prevalence and
Impact of Risk Factors for Lower Body Difficulty among Mexican Americans,
African Americans, and Whites.” The Journals of Gerontology Series A, Biological
Sciences and Medical Sciences 52A(2): M97–105. doi:10.1093/gerona/52A.2.M97
Coltrane, S. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the
Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work.” Journal of Marriage and Family
62: 1208–33. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x
Cook, S., and X.-Y. Dong. 2011. “Harsh Choices: Chinese Women’s Paid Work and
Unpaid Care Responsibilities Under Economic Reform.” Development and
Change 42(4): 947–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01721.x
Croll, E. 1983. Chinese Women since Mao. London: Zed Books; Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Crompton, R., M. Brockmann, and C. Lyonette. 2005. “Attitudes, Women’s
Employment and the Domestic Division of Labour a Cross-National Analysis
in Two Waves.” Work, Employment & Society 19(2): 213–33. doi:10.1177/
0950017005053168
Cunningham, M. 2001. “Parental Influences on the Gendered Division of House-
work.” American Sociological Review 66(2): 184–203. doi:10.2307/2657414
Davis, S. N., T. N. Greenstein, and J. P. G. Marks. 2007. “Effects of Union Type on
Division of Household Labor: Do Cohabiting Men really Perform More House-
work?.” Journal of Family Issues 28(9): 1246–72. doi:10.1177/0192513X07300968
Ding, S., X.-Y. Dong, and S. Li. 2009. “Women’s Employment and Family
Income Inequality During China’s Economic Transition.” Feminist Economics
15(3): 163–90. doi:10.1080/13545700802526541
Fan, P.-L., and M. M. Marini. 2000. “Influences on Gender-Role Attitudes During
the Transition to Adulthood.” Social Science Research 29: 258–83. doi:10.1006/
ssre.1999.0669
Firebaugh, G., and K. Chen. 1995. “Vote Turnout of Nineteenth Amendment
Women: The Enduring Effect of Disenfranchisement.” American Journal of
Sociology 100(4): 972–96. doi:10.1086/230606
Fuwa, M., and P. N. Cohen. 2007. “Housework and Social Policy.” Social Science
Research 36: 512–30. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.04.005
Geist, C. 2005. “The Welfare State and the Home: Regime Differences in the
Domestic Division of Labour.” European Sociological Review 21(1): 23–41.
doi:10.1093/esr/jci002
Gershuny, J., M. Godwin, and S. Jones. 1994. “The Domestic Labour Revolution: A
Process of Lagged Adaptation.” Pp. 151–97 in The Social and Political Economy
of the Household, edited by M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer, and J. Gershuny. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Greenstein, T. N. 2000. “Economic Dependence, Gender, and the Division of Labor
in the Home: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Marriage and Family
62(2): 322–35.
Grunow, D., F. Schulz, and H.-P. Blossfeld. 2012. “What Determines Change in the
Division of Housework Over the Course of Marriage?.” International Sociology
27(3): 289–307. doi:10.1177/0268580911423056
Gupta, S. 1999. “The Effects of Transitions in Marital Status on Men’s Performance
of Housework.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(3): 700–11. doi:10.2307/
353571
He, G., and X. Wu. 2016. “Marketization, Occupational Segregation, and Gender
Earnings Inequality in Urban China.” Social Science Research. doi:10.1016/j.
ssresearch.2016.12.001
Honig, E., and G. Hershatter. 1988. Personal Voices: Chinese Women in the 1980’s.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hook, J. L. 2006. “Care in Context: Men’s Unpaid Work in 20 Countries, 1965–2003.”
American Sociological Review 71: 639–60. doi:10.1177/000312240607100406
Hu, Y., and J. Scott. 2014. “Family and Gender Values in China Generational,
Geographic, and Gender Differences.” Journal of Family Issues 37(9): 1267–93.
doi:10.1177/0192513X14528710
Iversen, T., and F. Rosenbluth. 2006. “The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining
Cross‐National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting
Gap.” American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5907.2006.00166.x
Jacobsen, J. P. 1998. The Economics of Gender. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kan, M. Y., O. Sullivan, and J. Gershuny. 2011. “Gender Convergence in Domestic
Work: Discerning the Effects of Interactional and Institutional Barriers from
Large-Scale Data.” Sociology 45(2): 234–51. doi:10.1177/0038038510394014
Knudsen, K., and K. Wærness. 2008. “National Context and Spouses’ Housework
in 34 Countries.” European Sociological Review 24(1): 97–113. doi:10.1093/esr/
jcm037
Lachance-Grzela, M., and G. Bouchard. 2010. “Why Do Women Do the Lion’s
Share of Housework?. A Decade of Research.” Sex Roles 63: 767–80.
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z
Land, K. C., E. Zang, Q. Fu, X. Guo, S. Y. Jeon, and E. N. Reither. 2016. “Playing
with the Rules and Making Misleading Statements: A Response to Luo, Hodges,
Winship, and Powers.” American Journal of Sociology 122(3): 962–73.

doi:10.1086/689853
Lu, Z. Z., D. J. Maume, and M. L. Bellas. 2000. “Chinese Husbands’ Participation in
Household Labor.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 31: 191–215.
Luo, L., and J. S. Hodges. 2016. “Block Constraints in Age-Period-Cohort Models
with Unequal-Width Intervals.” Sociological Methods & Research 45(4): 700–26.
doi:10.1177/0049124115585359
Luo, L., J. S. Hodges, C. Winship, and D. Powers. 2016. “The Sensitivity of the Intrin-
sic Estimator to Coding Schemes: Comment on Yang, Schulhofer-Wohl, Fu, and
Land 1.” American Journal of Sociology 122(3): 930–61. doi:10.1086/689830
Parish, W. L., and M. K. Whyte. 1980. Village and Family in Contemporary China.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pimentel, E. E. 2006. “Gender Ideology, Household Behavior, and Backlash in Urban
China.” Journal of Family Issues 27(3): 341–65. doi:10.1177/0192513X05283507
Presser, H. B. 1994. “Employment Schedules Among Dual-Earner Spouses and the
Division of Household Labor by Gender.” American Sociological Review 59(3):
348–64.
Sayer, L. C., L. M. Casper, and P. N. Cohen. 2004. Women, Men, and Work. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Shu, X., and Y. Bian. 2003. “Market Transition and Gender Gap in Earnings in
Urban China.” Social Forces 81(4): 1107–45. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0070
Song, S. 2012. “From Visible to Invisible: Domestic Labor in the Collective Period
(1949–1966).” Jiangsu Social Sciences 1: 116–25.
Spain, D., and S. Bianchi. 1996. Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and
Employment among American Women. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Stockman, N. 1994. “Gender Inequality and Social Structure in Urban China.”
Sociology 28: 759–77. doi:10.1177/0038038594028003007
Sun, S., and F. Chen. 2015. “Reprivatized Womanhood: Changes in Mainstream
Media’s Framing of Urban Women’s Issues in China, 1995–2012.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 77: 1091–107. doi:10.1111/jomf.12219
Szinovacz, M. E. 2000. “Changes in Housework After Retirement: A Panel Analysis.”
Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 78–92. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00078.x
Tang, W., and W. L. Parish. 2000. Chinese Urban Life Under Reform: The Changing
Social Contract. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
United Nations Development Program. 2004. Human development report. New
York, NY: Oxford University.
Windebank, J. 2001. “Dual-Earner Couples in Britain and France: Gender Divisions
of Domestic Labour and Parenting Work in Different Welfare States.” Work,
Employment & Society 15(2): 269–90. doi:10.1177/09500170122118959
Wu, X., and D. J. Treiman. 2007. “Inequality and Equality Under Chinese Social-
ism: The Hukou System and Intergenerational Occupational Mobility.” American
Journal of Sociology 113: 415–45. doi:10.1086/518905
Wu, Y., and D. Zhou. 2015. “Women’s Labor Force Participation in Urban China,
1990–2010.” Chinese Sociological Review 47(4): 314–42. doi:10.1080/
21620555.2015.1036234
Yang, J.-H. 2006. “Identifying Gender Division of Private Space from the Division
of Domestic Work.” Collection of Women’s Studies 5: 16–22.
Yavorsky, J. E., C. M. Kamp Dush, and S. J. Schoppe-Sullivan. 2015. “The Pro-
duction of Inequality: The Gender Division of Labor Across the Transition to
Parenthood.” Journal of Marriage and Family 77: 662–79. doi:10.1111/jomf.12189
Yu, J., and Y. Xie. 2011. “‘The Varying Display of Gender Display’ A Comparative
Study of Mainland China and Taiwan.” Chinese Sociological Review 44(2): 5–30.
doi:10.2753/csa2162-0555440201
Zhang, C.-X., and J. E. Farley. 1995. “Gender and the Distribution of Household
Work: A Comparison of Self-Reports by Female College Faculty in the United
States and China.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 26(2): 195–205.
Zhang, G., and B. Gu. 2007. “Recent Changes in Marriage Patterns.” Pp. 125–39 in
Transition and Challenge: China’s Population at the Beginning of the 21st Century,
edited by Z. Zhao and F. Guo. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Zhang, Y., E. Hannum, and M. Wang. 2008. “Gender-Based Employment and
Income Differences in Urban China: Considering the Contributions of Marriage
and Parenthood.” Social Forces 86: 1529–60. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0035
Zhou, X., P. Moen, and N. B. Tuma. 1998. “Educational Stratification in Urban
China: 1949–94.” Sociology of Education 71(3): 199–222.
Zuo, J., and Y. Bian. 2001. “Gendered Resources, Division of Housework, and
Perceived Fairness—A Case in Urban China.” Journal of Marriage and Family
63: 1122–33. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01122.x
About the Author
Zhe Zhang is a PhD candidate in the department of sociology at the Ohio

State University. Her research interests include family, health, life course,
gender, social stratification, and statistical methodology.

Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chinese Sociological Review

ISSN: 2162-0555 (Print) 2162-0563 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mcsa20

Division of Housework in Transitional Urban China

Published online: 21 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 751

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Division of Housework in Transitional

Despite China’s history of sociopolitical movement toward gender equity in

Address correspondence to Zhe Zhang, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State

more hours to domestic tasks compared to employed men (Attané 2012).

Gender Socialization, Structural Changes, and the Division of Housework

Gender socialization theory claims that individuals are socialized to enact

Despite the insights of these studies, at least two inconsistencies remain to

Recent Historical Transitions and Housework Division in Urban China

Changes in Gender Ideology

Changes in Women’s Labor Force Participation

A greater proportion of country-level economically autonomous women

Chinese historical transitions such as the declining influence of former socio-

Data, Variables, and Methods

Age-Period-Cohort conundrum, this study follows prior research by

I construct the generations according to the pivotal historical moments and

constitute the most fundamental household work that maintains household

because of caring responsibilities. People adjust their labor force partici-

Means and Standard Deviations of the Control Variables Used in Analysis

Pre-reform Early-reform Late-reform

n ¼ 398 n ¼ 432 n ¼ 107

Mean/ Mean/ Mean/

Husband’s age 53.66 3.72 41.64 5.13 30.43 3.4

This study recognizes the comingling relationship among generational

socialized in different historical epochs have not been examined. Ordinary

Weekly Hours of Housework for Married Men and Women

Husband Wife Ratioa Gapb

Figure 1. (A) Husband’s time spent on specific household tasks by

Model 1 Model 2b Model 3 Model 4b Model 5 Model 6b

Husband’s time spent Wife’s time spent Gender gap in

Late-reform (LateR)a −0.677** −0.533* −1.242*** −0.406 −0.565 0.127

hours on housework as their husbands on all housework tasks combined; in

Multivariate Regression Results

Table 3 presents the OLS regression coefficients of husband’s/wife’s time

women do no less housework in successive generations. The lack of genera-

on gender equality, we may be able to witness more substantial changes in

Despite the insightful findings in the gender division of household labor in

division (Coltrane 2000; Chesley and Flood 2016). A close examination of

This study demonstrates the importance of national contexts and policies

Alternatively, findings report no generational difference in time spent on

Winship, and Powers.” American Journal of Sociology 122(3): 962–73.

About the Author

Zhe Zhang is a PhD candidate in the department of sociology at the Ohio

You might also like