COVID-19 lockdown: Women did more chores & had less satisfaction; men who were the primary caregiver or were not working fulltime had negative relationship outcomes when they did more housework & parenting

Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Nina Waddell et al. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, March 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476

Abstract: COVID-19 lockdowns have required many working parents to balance domestic and paid labor while confined at home. Are women and men equally sharing the workload? Are inequities in the division of labor compromising relationships? Leveraging a pre-pandemic longitudinal study of couples with young children, we examine gender differences in the division and impact of domestic and paid labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown (N = 157 dyads). Women did more of the parenting and housework, whereas men engaged in more paid work and personal time, during the lockdown. Couple members agreed that women’s share of parenting, housework and personal time was unfair, but this did not protect women from the detrimental relationship outcomes associated with an inequitable share of domestic labor. A greater, and more unfair, share of parenting, housework and personal time predicted residual increases in relationship problems and decreases in relationship satisfaction for women. Exploratory analyses indicated that men who were the primary caregiver or were not working fulltime also experienced negative relationship outcomes when they did more housework and parenting. These results substantiate concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may undermine advances toward gender equality by reinforcing inequitable divisions of labor, thereby damaging women’s relationship wellbeing.

Keywords: COVID-19 lockdown, division of labor, housework, parenting, relationship problems

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic poses considerable challenges to couples, including lockdowns forcing working parents to coordinate an increase in domestic and paid labor. We leveraged an existing study of mixed-gender couples with young children assessed prior to the pandemic and conducted pre-registered tests of gender differences in the division and impact of domestic and paid labor as families endured a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Although lockdowns offer opportunities for couples to more equally share the domestic load, women did more of the parenting and housework, whereas men generally engaged in more paid work and personal time. Couple members agreed that the balance of labor was unfair on women, but this did not protect women from the detrimental outcomes of a greater domestic burden. Women who were unfairly doing a greater share of housework and parenting, and having less personal time, experienced residual increases in relationship problems and residual decreases in satisfaction.

The inequities in domestic labor and detrimental effects on women’s relationship outcomes occurred irrespective of caregiver or employment status. These results substantiate concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may have greater risks for women, including quarantine efforts reinforcing gender inequality and placing greater strains on women’s health and wellbeing. Interestingly, exploratory analyses provided tentative evidence that men who were the primary caregiver or not working fulltime also experienced poorer relationship outcomes when they did more of the domestic labor. Thus, generating an equitable division of labor is an important target to protect the health and wellbeing of women (and men) who are shouldering more of the home demands exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns.

Couples agree: Women are doing more labor and this division is perceived as unfair

Both women and men reported that women did more housework and parenting, whereas men engaged in more paid work and personal time. The overall pattern of division of housework and parenting is consistent with established gender differences (Bianchi et al., 2000; Kamp Dush et al., 2018; Newkirk et al., 2017) and those reported during the pandemic (Carlson et al., 2020; Craig & Churchill, 2020). Gathering reports from couples, however, clarified that the gender differences typically shown by between-group comparisons of individual reports are evident when comparing women’s and men’s reports within the same relationship. The overall pattern illustrated that, despite home confinement potentially reducing structural barriers to men sharing housework and parenting, both women and men agree that women are shouldering the increased burden of domestic labor arising from COVID-19 lockdowns.

Yet, despite agreeing that gender differences existed, women and men disagreed about the extent of the inequity. Although men reported that women were doing more housework and having less personal time, women reported doing more housework and having less personal time than men’s reports acknowledged. These discrepancies could emerge because housework is less valued than other domains and thus not as visible or fully appreciated. Men may also tend to underestimate the time and energy housework involves due to their lower contribution to this domain, and consequently overestimate the personal time women are afforded or perhaps misinterpret some activities as personal time (e.g., planning, playing with children). It is also possible that women’s greater share of housework and men’s greater share of personal time result in women viewing these inequities as even greater than they are. Importantly, regardless of why disagreement across couples emerged, such disagreement may contribute to the persistence of gender discrepancies in domestic labor. For example, if women’s share of the housework or lack of personal time is not fully appreciated by partners then there is likely less chance that couples will work together to rectify these inequities.

Despite disagreeing about how much more housework and how much less personal time women were engaging compared to men, women and men equally perceived that the relative labor in these domains was unfair. Couples may have more insights into each other’s perceived fairness, perhaps because people are more likely to directly or indirectly communicate their discontent with unfairness. Couples also may consider relative fairness, rather than amount of time and energy spent, when considering each other’s contributions. The prominence of perceived fairness in the evaluation and effects of equity is why perceived fairness tends to have relatively stronger effects on relationship outcomes (Greenstein, 1996). Nonetheless, men’s recognition that the division of domestic labor was more unfair on women did not protect women from the detrimental relationship outcomes associated with a greater domestic burden.

Perceiving inequities as unfair create relationship problems and dissatisfaction for women

Leveraging an existing dyadic study enabled us to uniquely assess how couples’ division of labor predicted residual changes in relationship problems and satisfaction. The pattern of results confirmed that women are more at risk of the negative relationship outcomes associated with perceiving an unfair share of housework, parenting and personal time. With regard to housework, women who reported a more inequitable and unfair division experienced greater problems and lower satisfaction. Applying an equity perspective, tests of the interaction between the relative division and perceived fairness of housework revealed that women who did more housework than their partner and perceived their larger share as unfair experienced the greatest residual increases in relationship problems and reductions in satisfaction.

Perceived unfairness of parenting was also central to how couples’ division of parenting shaped women’s relationship outcomes. Prior cross-sectional studies indicate that inequity and unfairness in the division of parenting is associated with greater conflict and lower satisfaction (Newkirk et al., 2017; Schieman et al., 2018). In the current study, only perceived unfairness in parenting predicted residual changes in problem and satisfaction. A significant interaction also revealed that women who did more parenting than their partner only experienced greater relationship problems when they perceived their share of parenting to be unfair on them. Compared to the onerous necessity of housework, parenting may often be personally fulfilling (Tully et al., 1999) in ways that compensate for a greater burden of the parenting workload. Any compensation of personal fulfilment, however, may not be enough to counter dissatisfaction and problems in the marital relationship when mothers feel their greater contribution is unfair.

Our investigation also extended insight into the relative impact of an unfair division in both domestic and personal activities. First, the impact of gender inequities in domestic labor were not balanced by counter inequities in other domains. Although men on average did more paid work, neither women or men experienced poorer relationship outcomes as a function of a greater or more unfair share of paid work. Instead, women experienced greater problems when their partner perceived their work was unfair, perhaps due to men’s feelings of unfairness creating more relationship difficulties managing expectations around housework, parenting and personal domains. Second, couples agreed that men (on average) had more personal time than women, and men who had relatively more personal time reported lower problems and greater satisfaction. However, couples agreed that women’s lower share of personal time was unfair, and women (but not men) who had less personal time relative to their partner and perceived the share of personal time to be unfair experienced greater relationship problems and lower satisfaction.

Detrimental effects of inequities in domestic labor occur for women regardless of family role, but men who occupy domestic roles may experience similar outcomes as women

More women (50.3%) than men (16.6%) were the primary caregiver, and more men (64.3%) than women (29.9%) worked fulltime. Nonetheless, the gender differences in the division and perceived fairness of parenting, housework and personal time, and the effects of the relative division and fairness of parenting, housework and personal time on women’s relationship outcomes, did not vary across women and men’s caregiver and employment status. Thus, the gendered pattern of the division of labor, and the detrimental effects of the division and perceived fairness of housework and parenting on women’s relationship outcomes, occurred for women in traditional and non-traditional family roles.

Interestingly, however, additional analyses provided some tentative evidence that men may experience poorer relationship outcomes when their family role or situation forces them to pick up more domestic labor. In general, men did not report greater relationship problems or lower relationship satisfaction when they reported doing more housework or parenting or perceived their contributions in these domains were unfair. However, when exploring the moderating role of caregiver and employment status, a small number of consistent effects emerged. Men who were primary caregivers and reported an inequitable division of parenting, and men who were not working fulltime and reported that the division of housework was inequitable or unfair, experienced greater problems and lower satisfaction. This pattern of results indicates that men who take on more of the domestic work and perceive their contribution as unfair experience the same negative relationship outcomes as women.

These novel findings indicate a promising direction for future research by highlighting that the constraints of social roles, in addition to gender, are important for understanding the division and impact of domestic labor (Eagly & Wood, 2016). In particular, the pattern of expected and unexpected effects indicates that prescriptive pressures regarding women’s and men’s social roles result in women experiencing poor outcomes from carrying the burden of domestic labor across social contexts as well as men experiencing negative outcomes when men occupy women’s traditional social role. However, given these unexpected findings for men involved 4 out of 16 interaction effects tested, and the sample composition (16.6% men primary caregivers, 35.7% men not working fulltime) did not provide optimal conditions for these comparisons, future research is needed to more reliably test this intriguing pattern by gathering samples that more evenly represent different family role configurations. Such efforts may also emphasize the primary findings from the current study. Specifically, although these additional findings indicate that poor outcomes may emerge for both women and men who are shouldering more of the domestic labor, women experience more relationship difficulties arising from an unfair division of labor across contexts regardless of family roles.

Caveats and conclusions

Compared to typical large cross-sectional surveys of individuals, our dyadic and longitudinal design provides stronger evidence that an unequal and unfair division labor is likely to increase relationship problems and reduce relationship satisfaction when couples need to be working together to manage the challenges of COVID-19 lockdowns. Dyadic longitudinal designs, however, necessarily restrict sample size and thus statistical power to test for gender differences and interactions. The majority of the effects shown for women were significantly different from the null effects for men, supporting our general conclusions. We also focused on sets of theoretically relevant interactions, but some interaction patterns for relationship problems were relatively weak, likely because problems involve difficulties arising from both individuals’ and partners’ discontent. Finally, our sample involved relatively satisfied couples who agreed that the division was unfair on women. The detrimental outcomes shown here are likely to be magnified in couples who are facing more challenges, report greater discrepancies in the relative division and perceived fairness of labor, and who enter the pandemic and lockdowns with greater relationship difficulties.

Despite these caveats, the results indicate that key challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic are more likely to have detrimental effects on women. Women were more unfairly burdened with domestic labor, and as a consequence were more likely to experience increased relationship problems and dissatisfaction. Accounting for caregiver and employment status revealed that women experienced these poor outcomes across family roles and contexts. The detrimental impact of these inequities is unlikely to be fleeting and may grow as the pandemic and related economic and family disruptions continue across time. Couples who learn to share the load more equitably, however, may protect women from relationship difficulties at a time when satisfying, supportive relationships are crucial for health and wellbeing.

We provide strong evidence for greater male variability in preferences; men are more likely to have extreme time, risk, and social preferences, while women are more likely to have moderate preferences

Converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. Christian Thöni and Stefan Volk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June 8, 2021 118 (23) e2026112118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026112118

Significance: There is continuing interest in the study of gender differences in economic and social outcomes. An important factor underlying gender differences in outcomes are gender differences in fundamental economic preferences, which are at the core of many differential choices of women and men. We provide strong evidence for greater male variability in preferences. We find that men are more likely to have extreme time, risk, and social preferences, while women are more likely to have moderate preferences. With the focus on mean differences, the current literature underestimates the importance of gender differences and their effects on differential choices and outcomes between women and men.

Abstract: Gender differences in time, risk, and social preferences are important determinants of differential choices of men and women, with broad implications for gender-specific social and economic outcomes. To better understand the shape and form of gender differences in preferences, researchers have traditionally examined the mean differences between the two genders. We present an alternative perspective of greater male variability in preferences. In a meta-analysis of experimental economics studies with more than 50,000 individuals in 97 samples, we find converging evidence for greater male variability in time, risk, and social preferences. In some cases, we find greater male variability in addition to mean differences; in some cases, we only find greater male variability. Our findings suggest that theories of gender differences are incomplete if they fail to consider how the complex interaction of between-gender differences and within-gender variability determines differential choices and outcomes between women and men.

Keywords: gendergreater male variabilitypreferencesmeta-analysis

From 2019... Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy

From 2019... Urban spatial order: street network orientation, configuration, and entropy. Geoff Boeing. Applied Network Science volume 4, Article number: 67. Aug 23 2019. https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-019-0189-1

Abstract: Street networks may be planned according to clear organizing principles or they may evolve organically through accretion, but their configurations and orientations help define a city’s spatial logic and order. Measures of entropy reveal a city’s streets’ order and disorder. Past studies have explored individual cases of orientation and entropy, but little is known about broader patterns and trends worldwide. This study examines street network orientation, configuration, and entropy in 100 cities around the world using OpenStreetMap data and OSMnx. It measures the entropy of street bearings in weighted and unweighted network models, along with each city’s typical street segment length, average circuity, average node degree, and the network’s proportions of four-way intersections and dead-ends. It also develops a new indicator of orientation-order that quantifies how a city’s street network follows the geometric ordering logic of a single grid. A cluster analysis is performed to explore similarities and differences among these study sites in multiple dimensions. Significant statistical relationships exist between city orientation-order and other indicators of spatial order, including street circuity and measures of connectedness. On average, US/Canadian study sites are far more grid-like than those elsewhere, exhibiting less entropy and circuity. These indicators, taken in concert, help reveal the extent and nuance of the grid. These methods demonstrate automatic, scalable, reproducible tools to empirically measure and visualize city spatial order, illustrating complex urban transportation system patterns and configurations around the world.

Discussion

The urban design historian Spiro Kostof once said: “We ‘read’ form correctly only to the extent that we are familiar with the precise cultural conditions that generated it… The more we know about cultures, about the structure of society in various periods of history in different parts of the world, the better we are able to read their built environment” (Kostof 1991, p. 10). This study does not identify whether or how a city is planned or not. Specific spatial logics cannot be conflated with planning itself, which takes diverse forms and embodies innumerable patterns and complex structures, as do informal settlements and organic urban fabrics. In many cities, centrally planned and self-organized spatial patterns coexist, as the urban form evolves over time or as a city expands to accrete new heterogeneous urban forms through synoecism.

Yet these findings do, in concert, illustrate different urban spatial ordering principles and help explain some nuances of griddedness. For example, gridded Buenos Aires has a φ value suggesting it only follows a single grid to a 15% extent. However, its low circuity and high average node degree values demonstrate how it actually comprises multiple competing grids—which can indeed be seen in Figs. 4 and 5—and it clusters accordingly in Figs. 6 and 7 with gridded American cities. Jointly considered, the φ indicator, average circuity, average node degree, and median street segment length tell us about the extent of griddedness and its character (curvilinear, straight-line, monolithic, heterogeneous, coarse-grained, etc.). Charlotte further illustrates the importance of taking these indicators together. Although its φ and orientation entropy are more similar to European cities’ than American cities’, it is of course an oversimplification to claim that Charlotte is therefore the US city with the most “European” street network—in fact, its median street segment length is about 50% longer than that of the average European city, and among European cities, Charlotte clusters primarily with those of the Communist Bloc. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, sits alone in a small sub-cluster with Munich and Vienna.

We find that cities with higher φ values also tend to have higher node degrees, more four-way intersections, fewer dead-ends, and less-winding street patterns. That is, cities that are more consistently organized according to a grid tend to exhibit greater connectedness and less circuity. Interestingly, the Ηo and Ηw orientation entropies are extremely similar and strongly correlated: the weighted curvatures (versus straight-line orientation) of individual street segments have little impact on citywide orientation entropy, but the average circuity of the city network as a whole positively correlates with orientation entropy. This finding deserves further exploration.

These results also demonstrate substantial regional differences around the world. Across these study sites, US/Canadian cities have an average φ value nearly thirteen-times greater than that of European cities, alongside nearly double the average proportion of four-way intersections. Meanwhile, these European cities’ streets on average are 42% more circuitous than those of the US/Canadian cities. These findings illustrate the differences between North American and European urban patterns. However, likely due to such regional heterogeneity, this study finds statistical relationships somewhat weaker (though still significant) than prior findings examining cities in the UK exclusively.

Accordingly, given the heterogeneity of these world regions, future research can estimate separate statistical models for individual regions or countries—or even the neighborhoods of a single city to draw these findings closer to the scale of planning/design practice. The methods and indicators developed here offer planners and designers a toolbox to quantify urban form patterns and compare their own cities to those elsewhere in the world. Our preliminary results suggest trends and patterns, but future work should introduce additional controls to clarify relationships and make these findings more actionable for researchers and practitioners. For instance, topography likely constrains griddedness and influences circuity and orientation entropy: a study of urban elevation change and hilliness in conjunction with entropy and circuity would help clarify these relationships. Additionally, further research can unpack the relationship between development era, design paradigm, city size, transportation planning objectives, and street network entropy to explore how network growth and evolution affect spatial order. Finally, given the importance of taking multiple indicators in concert, future work can develop a grid-index to unify them and eventually include streetscape and width attributes as further enrichment to explore walkability and travel behavior.

We present the results of a pilot study conducted in Bangladesh which suggests that heightened mortality arising from mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflict may be a two-way street

In-Law Relationships in Evolutionary Perspective: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Martin Daly, Gretchen Perry. Front. Sociol., June 4 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.683501

Abstract: In-laws (relatives by marriage) are true kin because the descendants that they have in common make them “vehicles” of one another’s inclusive fitness. From this shared interest flows cooperation and mutual valuation: the good side of in-law relationships. But there is also a bad side. Recent theoretical models err when they equate the inclusive fitness value of corresponding pairs of genetic and affinal (marital) relatives-brother and brother-in-law, daughter and daughter-in-law-partly because a genetic relative’s reproduction always replicates ego’s genes whereas reproduction by an affine may not, and partly because of distinct avenues for nepotism. Close genetic relatives compete, often fiercely, over familial property, but the main issues in conflict among marital relatives are different and diverse: fidelity and paternity, divorce and autonomy, and inclinations to invest in distinct natal kindreds. These conflicts can get ugly, even lethal. We present the results of a pilot study conducted in Bangladesh which suggests that heightened mortality arising from mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflict may be a two-way street, and we urge others to replicate and extend these analyses.

Conclusion

Dow (1984) and Hughes (1988) proposed that affinal “kinship” is no mere metaphor. The commonality of interest among persons related by marriage derives from the same ultimate source as the commonality of interest among persons related by blood. In both cases, the protagonists are “related” by virtue of the fact that they can expect to derive fitness from the same particular reproductive events.

We show, however, that recent theoretical arguments that treat daughters and daughters-in-law (for example) as equivalent contributors to ego’s fitness go too far. “Parallel” pairs of genetic and affinal relationships such as these are importantly different, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Any child of my daughter will be my grandchild, but that is not necessarily true of my daughter-in-law, and even if the latter were to reproduce only with my son, she would retain an interest in natal relatives who are of no relevance to me. The “brute fact” of genetic relatedness (Haig, 2011) favors forgiveness and reconciliation among blood kin, even after betrayals, but a daughter-in-law, unlike a daughter, is replaceable (Voland and Beise, 2005; Mace, 2013). Bride-burnings are committed by mothers-in-law, not by mothers. The oppressive mistreatment of young women by their mothers-in-law, especially in the Indian subcontinent, has been much remarked upon, but we show, in addition, that the destructive effects of this relationship can be a two-way street.

According to Leonetti et al. (2007) “We can speak of “in-law conflict” as an extension of sexual conflict, with parents on both sides joining the fray. Cooperation may also be part of these relationships when the interests of both sides are enhanced. This game, of course, becomes vastly more complicated than the simple struggle between the sexes but is likely to be ancient and of critical importance to human reproductive success.” We concur.

Awareness of lateral posing asymmetries: Although people do not have an acute awareness of their lateral posing preference, they reliably show one side of their faces to express or hide emotions

Do you know your best side? Awareness of lateral posing asymmetries. Matia Okubo & Takato Oyama. Asymmetries of Brain, Behaviour, and Cognition, Jun 4 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2021.1938105

Abstract: People tend to show the left cheek to broadly express emotions while they tend to show the right cheek to hide emotions because emotions were expressed more on the left than on the right side of the face. The present study investigated the level of awareness on the left- and right-cheek poses using the method of structural knowledge attributions. When asked to broadly express emotions for a family portrait, right-handed participants were more likely to show the left cheek than the right. On the other hand, when asked to conceal emotions to show a calm and reassuring attitude as a scientist, they were more likely to show the right cheek. After the posing session, participants selected the conscious level of their knowledge about posing from five categories: Random, intuition, familiarity, recollection, and rules. Most participants rated their knowledge as unconscious (i.e., either as random, intuition, or familiarity). The choice of the conscious level did not differ across posing orientations and posing instructions. These results suggest that although people do not have an acute awareness of their lateral posing preference, they reliably show one side of their faces to express or hide emotions.

KEYWORDS: Lateral posing asymmetryemotional expressionsawareness

Among liberal countries, inequality was negatively related to subjective well-being for men & women; there was some evidence that the relation was stronger for women; in conservative countries, the relation was not significant

Culture Moderates the Relation Between Gender Inequality and Well-Being. Chen Li, Miron Zuckerman, Ed Diener. Psychological Science, June 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620972492

Abstract: Research on the relation of gender inequality and subjective well-being (SWB) has produced inconsistent results. We suggest that culture moderates this relation such that inequality has a greater adverse effect in liberal than in conservative societies. The present studies, using aggregate data from 86 countries (Study 1) and 145,975 individuals’ data from 69 countries (Study 2), support this notion. Among liberal countries, inequality was negatively related to SWB for both men and women; there was some evidence that this relation was stronger for women. In conservative countries, the relation was not significant. Previously, the same liberal–conservative continuum moderated the relation between income inequality and SWB for groups with both high and low socioeconomic status (SES) but particularly for the low-SES group. The similarity in results across two different studies strongly supports the notion that the relation between inequality and SWB is contingent on where specific cultures are located on the liberal–conservative continuum.

Keywords: culture, gender inequality, subjective well-being

Breeding season length (bsl) & mating system are the strongest predictors of testosterone concentrations; bsl, environmental temperature, & variability in precipitation are the strongest predictors of within-population variation in test.

Life history and environment predict variation in testosterone across vertebrates. Jerry F. Husak et al. Evolution, March 23 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14216

Abstract: Endocrine systems act as key intermediaries between organisms and their environments. This interaction leads to high variability in hormone levels, but we know little about the ecological factors that influence this variation within and across major vertebrate groups. We study this topic by assessing how various social and environmental dynamics influence testosterone levels across the entire vertebrate tree of life. Our analyses show that breeding season length and mating system are the strongest predictors of average testosterone concentrations, whereas breeding season length, environmental temperature, and variability in precipitation are the strongest predictors of within-population variation in testosterone. Principles from small-scale comparative studies that stress the importance of mating opportunity and competition on the evolution of species differences in testosterone levels, therefore, likely apply to the entire vertebrate lineage. Meanwhile, climatic factors associated with rainfall and ambient temperature appear to influence variability in plasma testosterone, within a given species. These results, therefore, reveal how unique suites of ecological factors differentially explain scales of variation in circulating testosterone across mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes.

Breeding season length (bsl) & mating system are the strongest predictors of testosterone concentrations; bsl, environmental temperature, & variability in precipitation are the strongest predictors of within-population variation in test.