Household Labor, Gender Roles, and Family Satisfaction: A Cross-National Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the 2002 International Social Survey Program: Family and Changing Gender Roles (III) are analyzed for 25,750 married or cohabiting adults from 31 countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the United States. We examine the associations between gender role attitudes, household labor, and family satisfaction. In addition, we include a measure of incongruence between ideology and behavior. We estimate individual, couple, and country factors and their association with family satisfaction in regression models, as well as variation within and between countries based on multi-level models. Overall, we find that involvement in housework and childcare is positively associated with family satisfaction. Family satisfaction is higher among those in more traditional relationships (man breadwinner, woman homemaker) relative to other family forms; yet interaction terms indicate that men report higher family satisfaction the more involved they are in housework and childcare, and the more they agree they ought to share housework and childcare. Although those in traditional partnerships report higher family satisfaction, nontraditional partners experience less incongruence between their attitudes regarding the division of labor in the home and actual behavior. Multi-level models indicate that only about 4 percent of the variation in family satisfaction is between countries, and satisfaction is associated with increased country development. Development and family policies that encourage and support father involvement in household responsibilities are likely to increase family satisfaction, even among couples in more traditional family roles; and this relationship appears to be consistent cross-nationally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".