Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Combining parenting and paid work: sharing child care in dual income families. Presented at the Seventh Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Sydney, 24-26 July, 2000



Download PDFDownload PDF

1

Combining Parenting and Paid Work: Sharing child care in dual income families.

Suzanne Higgins, Doctoral Candidate, School of Nursing, Victoria University e-mail: shiggins@australia.edu

Professor Carol Morse, Dean, Faculty of Human Development Victoria University, Melbourne.

Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Family Futures:

Issues in Research and Policy, Sydney, July 2000

Abstract

First time parent couples are more likely to be a dual income family now than ever before. 65% of employed women in couple families have dependant children, and in couple families with children under 5 years of age, 52% of mothers are in paid employment. These employment rates have risen dramatically since the end of the Second World War when 22% of the workforce was female compared to 43% in 1996. The research consistently shows women still carry a larger load of the family tasks as well. This longitudinal study compares the experiences of single and two income, first-time parent couples in the division of family tasks related to children. The findings support other studies that women continue to carry a larger task load but in couples where the mother has been back in the paid workforce for longer than the target couples and single income families, the men appear to be doing more. Participants in the study also reported high levels of satisfaction with how the couple divides the work outside the family, how they divide the family tasks related to children and their own personal involvement with their child.

Introduction

The roles men and women may undertake are expected to be more similar than different.

Whereas once men were considered 'good fathers' if they provided well for their families,

now there are greater expectations concerning their family commitments. Women likewise

were considered to be psychologically healthy if they were good wives and mothers earlier last

century, now they are increasingly combining paid work outside the home with family

commitments. Interest in the roles of men and women since the 50's continues with various

theories and studies attempting to understand the negotiations regarding family labour.

Despite many studies, varied methodologies and a myriad of areas of interest, one finding

seems to remain consistent. Despite women increasingly taking up the option of combining

parenting and paid work, despite fathers seemingly more involved in family life and

notwithstanding apparent attitudinal change, women continue to take on major responsibility

for the household.

Family roles and Australian history.

Early accounts of Australian history (Baxter, 1998b; Gilding, 1997; Reiger, 1991; Reiger,

1985) suggest that sex role stereotyping occurred more rigidly due to the 1907 family wage

concept. This concept embraced the notion that married men had dependants in the form of

2

a wife and children and, therefore, required a wage that could support a family, (often referred

to as a living wage or basic wage). The original concept arose out of union struggles but was

endorsed by Justice Higgins in the Harvester judgement of 1907 which related to ‘the family

wage case (Gilding, 1997; Reiger, 1991).

The counter argument was that women did not have any dependants. The decision was

considered by some historians to have been responsible for validating lower wages for

employed women (because they have no dependants) and for defining men's roles as the

family income earner and women's roles to be predominately focussed on the home and

family. Prior to this landmark decision families were considered to work together in

generating income for the family and it tended to occur in and around the home (Reiger,

1991; Sarantakos, 1996).

The acceptance that women take on primary responsibility for the home and family has been

thoroughly researched from a variety of viewpoints particularly since the 1950's. More

recent movement of women into the paid workforce whilst having dependant children at

home (Wolcott, 1997) has caused particular debate regarding a sharing of family roles with

emphasis on division of household labour. Household labour consists of all those activities

required to keep a family functioning on a daily basis. This includes food purchase and

preparation, cleaning and socialising, caring for each member physically, emotionally and

socially and facilitating those activities which occur outside the home but are also necessary

for the well-being of the family such as providing transport, supporting training and education,

child bearing and child rearing.

The reality is that in 1995, 65% of employed women in couple families have dependant

children. In couples with children under 5 years of age, 52% of mothers are in paid

employment. These employment rates have risen dramatically since the end of the Second

World War when 22% of the workforce was female compared to 43% in 1996 (Sarantakos,

1996; Wolcott, 1997). Whilst women are considered to have always worked or contributed to

the family economics, it was during the latter part of the nineteenth and early in the

twentieth century that the contribution they made was devalued. Statistics were used to

compute economic ‘contributions’ and it was assumed that women did not contribute in this

way and nor did the household work they toiled at (Reiger, 1991).

Review of the literature.

A review the literature regarding division of household labour in Australian families in the

previous 30-40 years by Bryson (1983) found only minor changes in how men and women

3

shared the workload over that time frame. The minor changes identified indicated that task

division still occurred along gender lines and women continued to take on major responsibility

for household work. In addition, it appeared that women had a greater role in family decision-making. There was some evidence to suggest that men were taking on slightly more child

related care than previously. The author conceded that men appeared to take on more home-related tasks especially in families where the mother was in the paid workforce. Not a lot

appears to have changed.

A later literature review (Hoffman, 1989) of studies published in the previous ten years found

much the same sorts of results. This American article describes the participation of fathers in

household and child related tasks as showing a 'modest increase'. The author goes on to

identify specific parameters where this 'modest increase' is most demonstrated; when the

mother is employed full time, when there is more than one child, and where the mother's

income more closely matches the father's. This author also holds out hope for more change

in future generations as studies consistently show children of employed mothers demonstrate

less stereotypical sex role attitudes than children whose mothers are not employed (p. 286).

Literature reviews looking specifically at the involvement of fathers with their infants (Parke

& Tinsley, 1981) found that the way men interacted with their infant was qualitatively more

similar to the way women interacted with their child. Any focus on quantitative involvement

between fathers and infants found that men spent considerably less time than mothers but this

did not mean that fathers cared less, were less nurturing or were deliberately avoiding contact

with their babies. The author suggests that men cared differently but in a way that should be

considered important to children and for children. Parke (1981) found that men were more

likely to spend a larger proportion of their infant caring time in play related activities and this

'play' tended to be more energetic than the way women played with infants. Women spent

overall more time playing with their infants but it tended to be more verbal and comprise a

smaller proportion of time spent caring for infants.

More recent studies find that women do contribute more time to caring for children (Baxter &

Western, 1997; DeMeis & Perkins, 1996; Dempsey, 1998; Fagot & Leinback, 1995; Russell,

1996; Sarantakos, 1996). Some studies measure contribution in hours, some separate child

care tasks from general household tasks and some consider whether families are single or dual

income families. An interesting aspect, which is being studied more in recent times, is the

level of satisfaction participants feel about the division of family work. It appears that

despite inequitable division in almost all studies, both men and women record a high level of

satisfaction in how they share the family work (Baxter & Western, 1998a).

4

Australian Time Use

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 1997 Time Use Survey (ABS, 1999b) looks at how

Australians spend their time. Time is divided into four main activities; necessary time which

are activities essential for survival such as sleeping, eating. Contracted time involves those

activities related to employment and education where there is an explicit commitment of

time. Committed time includes social and community obligations as well as setting up a

household (household work and care of children fall into this category). Free time is that

time left after all the other categories

The result of time committed to care of children is further divided into direct care and other

child care activities that included playing, reading and talking. The findings are congruent

with other literature reported above that women do spend more time in total care with

children than men do. Women spent 45 minutes per day while men spent, on average, 16

minutes each day in total care of children in 1997. In playing, reading and talking with

children men spend 5 minutes per day while women spend 6 minutes per day. In the general

care of children, women were spending 21 minutes per day and men 4 minutes per day (ABS,

1999b).

The time spent in care of children recorded in 1997 was compared to time use in 1992. Forty

nine minutes were spent in total child care by women in 1992 with men spending 14 minutes.

Playing, reading and talking were 7 minutes for women and 4 minutes for men in 1992. So

whilst the amount of time spent in total child care, by both parents, varied only by one

minute overall (32 minutes in 1992, 31 minutes in 1997 overall), men increased their time

spent in total child care by 2 minutes in 1997, which was due to an extra daily minute spent

playing/talking or reading, 2 extra minutes in minding children and one less minute in general

care of children. Women spent 4 minutes per day less in total child care in 1997 which was

due to 9 less minutes spent in general care, one less minute in playing/ reading or talking, 2

extra minutes minding children, and an extra minute in travel related child care. The gap

between the time spent by men and women has lessened due to women reducing their time

spent with children and men increasing their time (ABS, 1999b).

Previous research has tended to be cross sectional, narrow in focus, restrict data collection

from only one member of the household and focus on select groups. In addition it is difficult

to identify valid and reliable instruments which accurately measure the participation of men

and women at different times of the day or week and be encompassing enough to ensure all

contributions to establishing and maintaining a family home are taken into account.

5

The study.

This paper describes part of a larger, doctoral study into parenting and paid work which looks

at the experiences of first time parent couples when the mother returns to the paid workforce.

The data reported here refers to the division of child care related tasks and compares the

child care participation of both dual income and single income first time parent couples. In

addition levels of satisfaction with the division of child care will be presented.

The sample.

A community-based sample of 141 participants was recruited via Maternal & Child Health

Centres (MCHC’s) and paid advertising in parenting newspapers from the Melbourne

metropolitan area. Sixty-nine couples and three women, a total of 141 participants, took

part. Three groups emerged; a 2 income group which was made up of 27 couples and a married

woman whose partner chose not to participate (n'55), a single income group comprising 23

couples and 2 women whose partners chose not to participate (n'48) and a third group

consisting of couples who were 2 income but enrolled in the study after the mother had

returned to the paid workforce. There were also 2 couples in this group where the mother was

employed but the father was not employed (but seeking work). Nineteen couples were in this

group (n'38) and they are called the established employment group.

Selection criteria for the study included couples with their first born infant aged between 3 and

15 months on entry to the study, ability to read and write English, infants must be healthy

with no chronic health problems or disabilities and couples must live together in the same

household in the Melbourne Metropolitan area.

Data collection.

Data was collected by mail on 4 occasions over a 10 month period of time. A questionnaire

booklet was compiled from validated measures and a demographic questionnaire. For 2

income families, time 1 occurred 4-6 weeks prior to the mother's return to the paid

workforce, time 2 was one month after her return, time 3 was 4 months after her return and

time 4 was 10 months after her return to work. For the other 2 groups time 1 was on entry to

the study, time 2 was one month later, time 3 was 4 months after enrolment and the final data

collection time occurred 10 months after enrolment. Data collection occurred during the

years 1998 ‐ 2000.

The instrument:

The 'Who Does What?' (Cowan & Cowan, 1988) is a 49 item, self-report questionnaire that

measures spouses' perceptions of family responsibilities and household task as well as

6

satisfaction with current arrangements. There are three domains; decision-making, household

and family tasks, and child related tasks. The items are measured on a 9 point scale ranging

from 'she does it all to he does it all'. A score of 1 indicates that the participant believes the

woman does it all whilst a score of 5 indicates they each do it equally. Subjects also have the

opportunity to identify how she/he would prefer responsibilities to be divided. An additional

11 items enable respondents to indicate their level of satisfaction with labour division and

identify their level of responsibility in the care of their child making a total of 60 items.

Psychometric properties are very good with _' .92-.99. Details on where to find a microfiche

copy of the instrument are contained in a text on Family Measurement Tools (Touliatos,

Perlmutter, & Straus, 1990).

This paper presents preliminary data from one domain of the ‘Who Does What’ instrument,

the child related tasks. This domain includes 12 items, which have been collectively called

‘general child care tasks’, and 12 items called ‘specific child care tasks’. In addition, one item

refers to the level of satisfaction with division of child related tasks, another item refers to

satisfaction with how the couple divide family work outside the home and a final item relates

to satisfaction with personal involvement with their child.

Current status of the study.

59 participants have completed all data collection whilst 28 have dropped out at various

stages. 54 participants are in progress and the completion goal for all data collection is

November 2000. The thesis completion date is early 2001.

Results:

The mean age of all participants in the study was 32.76 years with men being slightly older at

33.82 years compared to the mean age of women being 31.75 years. When the mean age is

looked at for each of the three groups, the ‘established employment’ group were slightly older

with a mean age of 34.85, p< .05. The mean age of babies on enrolment to the study was

7.14 months with those babies in the ‘established employment’ group being slightly older at

9.65 months, p< .05.

Income for the couple was combined and 42.5% earn less than $60,000, 38.1% earn between

$60,001 and $115,000 and 19.4% earn more than $115,000. Seventy percent of the

participants have tertiary qualifications and 51.8% describe themselves as professional for

their occupation.

The average hours of paid work for all participants at time 2 was 34.75 hours per week. Time

2 was selected to determine mean working hours in order to take the two-income families into

7

account after the mothers’ return to paid work. In the two-income family, the mean hours of

paid work was 34.36 with a standard deviation of 15.94. Women worked, on average, 24.82

hours in this group compared to men who worked an average of 44.44 hours. In the single-income group men worked an average of 41.24 hours while 4 women had entered the

workforce and worked a mean of 6.88 hours per week. In the ‘established employment’

group, women worked a mean of 30.22 hours while men worked a mean of 40.79 hours per

week. This latter group had women working more hours when compared to mothers in the

two-income group. Men in the two-income group worked more hours than men in the single-income group or ‘established employment’ group.

The instrument ‘Who Does What’ as described above measured child care. Participants scored

each item (particular task) on a 9 point scale with 1 indicating she does it all, to 9 which

indicated he does it all. A score of 5 indicates they both do it equally (see fig. 1 below). The

general child care scores for each item were added and averaged thus giving an overall score for

the dimension. Some examples for items in the general child care dimension include; deciding

about our child’s meals, responding to our child’s crying in the middle of the night, doing our

child’s laundry and dealing with the doctor regarding our child’s health. The same procedure

was undertaken for the ‘specific child care’ dimension. Items in the specific child care

dimension include different scoring for weekdays and weekends with different time allocations

to indicate who cares for the child during that time frame thus the overall score enables an

average of weekend and weekday contributions. A copy of the two dimensions reported in

this study is included in Appendix 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

She We both do this He

does it all about equally does it all

Figure 1: 9 point Likert scale for recording division of family tasks related to child

care.

A mean of 3.13 for general child care at Time 1 indicates that women do more of the general

child care tasks. The standard deviation was .93, which indicates 68% of participants fall

between a score of 2.2 and 4.06. The minimum score was 1.17 and the maximum score was

5.17. Participant preference for general child care task division was slightly higher with a

mean of 4.13 for time 1. Time 2 general child care results were very similar with a mean

score of 3.23 and a standard deviation of .82 (range 1.17-5.92). Preferred task division at

Time 2 showed a desire for men to do a little more at Time 2 with a mean of 4.12 (range 1.5-5.75) and a standard deviation of .86.

8

General Child Care Mean (std dev) Range N'

Time 1 general child care: How it is now 3.16 (.93) 1.17-5.17 141

Time 1 general child care: prefer it to be 4.13 (.82) 2-7.33 140

Time 2 general child care: How it is now 3.23 (.97) 1.17-5.92 115

Time 2 general child care: prefer it to be 4.12 (.86) 1.5-5.75 115

Table 1: General Child Care; task division and preferred task division

When general child care task division is looked at by groups at Time 1, all groups reported

women doing slightly more than the men; the two income group had a mean of 2.98 which

was the same for the single income group. Remember that at Time 1 the mothers in the 2-income group had not yet returned to work. For the ‘established employment’ group, the

mean task division was 3.59 indicating that the men in this group were doing a little more

than the men in the other groups. Both parents were employed in this group at this data

collection time for varying lengths of time but certainly for in excess of 1 month. For Time

2, the two-income group had men doing a little more with a mean of 3.14 whilst the men in

the single income group had actually decreased their contribution slightly with a mean of

2.88, down from 2.98. The men in the ‘established employment’ group did contribute

more than the men in the other groups.

9

General Child Care Time 1 Mean (sd) N' Time 2 Mean (sd) N'

Entire population 3.16 (.93) 141 3.23 (.97) 141

2 income group 2.98 (.89) 55 3.14 (.86) 40

Single income group 2.98 (.84) 48 2.88 (.85) 44

Established employment grp 3.59 (.92)* 34 3.71 (.91)* 27

Table 2: General child care: task division, how it is now, by group. *p'.05

Specific child care really refers to the time allocations when the participants could identify

who usually cared for the child. It included weekday and weekend time allotments that have

not been analysed for this paper (but will in future). The results indicate that again women are

reported to contribute more to the family tasks related to children with the overall mean at

Time 1 being 3.49 (sd' 1.16). The preferred task division indicated a mean of 4.30 (sd' .93)

for Time 1. The Time 2 reported means of 3.71 indicate men doing a little more than at

Time 1 although still less than the preferred task division for Time 2 at 4.25.

Specific Child Care Mean (sd) Range N'

Time 1 Specific child care; how it is now 3.49 (1.16) 1- 5.75 141

Time 1 Specific child care; prefer it to be 4.30 (.93) 1.16- 7.58 141

Time 2 Specific child care; how it is now 3.71 (1.12) 1- 5.67 115

Time 2 Specific child care; prefer it to be 4.25 (.93) 1- 5.67 115

Table 3: Specific Child Care; task division and preferred task division

When specific child care task division is looked at, there is little difference reported between

the 2 income and single income groups at Time 1. The mean was 3.21 versus 3.16. However

at Time 2 the difference between these groups widened with the 2-income group increasing the

work done by men with a mean of 3.71. The single income group mean was 3.19. For those

couples in the established employment group, Time 1 mean of 4.23 increased to 4.44 at Time

2. While women do more in all groups at both data collection times, the division of child care

tasks is more closely approaching an equal task division in the established employment group.

10

Specific Child Care Time 1 mean (sd) N' Time 2 Mean (sd) N'

Entire population 3.49 (1.16) 141 3.71 (1.12) 115

2 income group 3.21 (1.21) 55 3.71(1.07) 40

Single income group 3.16 (.94) 48 3.19 (.93) 44

Established employment group 4.23 (.95)* 34 4.44 (1.07)* 27

Table 4: Specific child care task division by group. *p'.05

Interestingly 72.1% of participants reported being ‘very’ or ‘pretty satisfied’ with the

division of work outside the family at Time 1 and increasing to 77.3% at Time 2. Levels of

satisfaction with the participant’s personal involvement with their child was also high with

just over 80% reporting being very or pretty satisfied at both Time 1 and Time 2. More than

70% of participants reported being very or pretty satisfied with the division of family tasks

related to children at Time 1 and increasing to 79.8% at Time 2.

11

Very or pretty satisfied

Neutral Somewhat or very

dissatisfied

In general, how satisfied are you with the way you and your partner divide the work outside the family? Time 1

72.1% 22.9% 5%

In general, how satisfied are you with the way you and your partner divide the work outside the family? Time 2

77.3% 12.7% 10%

Overall, how do you feel about your level of involvement with your child? Time 1

81.6% 7.1% 11.3%

Overall, how do you feel about your level of involvement with your child? Time 2

80.9% 7.8% 11.3%

In general, how satisfied are you with the way you and your partner divide the family tasks related to children? Time 1

71.6% 14.9% 13.5%

In general, how satisfied are you with the way you and your partner divide the family tasks related to children? Time 2

79.8% 10.5% 9.7%

Table 5: Levels of satisfaction with division of outside work, child care task division and personal involvement with child.

Conclusions.

Summary of results.

The findings reported here support previous studies conducted over the past 50 years in that

women continue to take on major responsibility for family tasks related to children. This is

regardless of whether the family is a dual income or single income family. The data from this

study suggests that when the family has been engaged in dual incomes for longer than one

month, the men appear to contribute to more of the tasks related to care of the children.

Further data analysis is necessary to determine if this is accurate or if there are predictors for

more equitable task division in this arena.

The participants in this study also indicate high levels of satisfaction with family task division

related to care of children as well as satisfaction with their personal involvement with their

child. In addition there is a high level of satisfaction with the way work outside the family is

divided although more data analysis needs to be conducted to determine if there is a variation

12

in satisfaction levels related to which group the participants belong to. It would appear that

despite inequitable child related task division, both men and women are happy that women

continue to take on major responsibility for caring for children.

The data presented here is interim data only and as such should be treated with caution.

Further data analysis will be carried out when the study has been completed. The voluntary

sample self selected to participate in the study. The fact that the participant group earns

above average (Australian) incomes, 50% describe themselves as professionally employed and

70% have tertiary education means the results are generalisable only to similar groups of first

time parent couples. Ideally a larger, randomly selected sample could be recruited to replicate

the study and determine if the results would hold true for all first time parents.

Important points

It is difficult to measure contribution from each partner in couple relationships as well as

determining what is fair and equitable. It appears women are satisfied with some sharing of

household duties even if they (the women) are doing a greater share. It is essential to measure

not only the contribution but to look at the context. For single income families the women

may appear to be shouldering the majority of the household responsibility but an instrument

which enables contribution from both parents at different times of the week may illustrate,

when fathers are not working, they are contributing a significant amount of time and energy

also to family related tasks. The ‘Who Does What’ offers an opportunity to measure not

only different dimensions of family work but, in the area of child care, at weekends and

weekdays independently. Item analysis may also reveal change more accurately than global

scores for a tool so this factor is important to keep in mind when entering data and analyzing

the results.

Bibliography

ABS. (1999b). How Australians Use their time, 1997 (Catalogue No.4153.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Baxter, J. (1998b). Moving toward equality? Questions of change and equality in household work patterns. In M. Gatens & A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Gender and Institutions. Welfare, Work and Citizenship . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baxter, J., & Western, M. (1997). Women's Satisfaction with the Domestic Division of Labour. Family Matters, Winter(47), 16-20.

13

Baxter, J., & Western, M. (1998a). Satisfaction with housework: examining the paradox. Sociology, 32(1), 101-120.

Bryson, L. (1983). Thirty years of research on the division of labour in Australian families. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage & Family, 4(3), 125-132.

Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1988). Who does what when partners become parents: Implications for men, women and marriage. Marriage and Family Review, 12(3/4), 105- 131.

DeMeis, D. K., & Perkins, H. W. (1996). "Supermoms" of the nineties: Homemaker and employed mothers' performance and perceptions of the motherhood role. Journal of Family Issues, 17(6), 777-792.

Dempsey, K. (1998, 25-27 November 1998). Men and Women's Power Relationships and the Persisting Inequitable Division of Housework. Paper presented at the Changing families, challenging futures 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne.

Fagot, B. I., & Leinback, M. D. (1995). Gender Knowledge in Egalitarian and Traditional Families. Sex Roles, 32(7/8), 513-526.

Gilding, M. (1997). Australian Families; a comparative perspective. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.

Hoffman, L. W. (1989). Effects of Maternal Employment in the Two-Parent Family. American Psychologist, 44(2), 283-292.

Parke, R. D., & Tinsley, B. R. (1981). The father's role in infancy: determinants of involvement in caregiving and play. In M. E. Lamp (Ed.), The role of the father in child development. (second ed., ). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Reiger, K. (1991). Family Economy. Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia Ltd.

Reiger, K. M. (1985). The Disenchantment of the Home. Modernising the Australian Family 1880-1940. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Russell, G. R. (1996, 27-29 November 1996). Changing meanings- family household work involvement. Paper presented at the The Australian Family Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Sarantakos, S. (1996). Modern families: An Australian Text. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

14

Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Straus, M. A. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Wolcott, I. (1997). Work and Family. In D. de Vaus & I. Wolcott (Eds.), Australian Family Profiles: Social and Demographic Patterns (pp. 82-90). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

15

APPENDIX 1 Child care dimension ‘Who Does What’. (Cowan & Cowan, 1988) Here are two ways to show how you and your partner divide the family tasks related to children. Using the numbers on the scale below, show HOW IT IS NOW down the left side and HOW I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE down the right side.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

She We both do this He

does it all about equally does it all

HOW IT IS HOW I

WOULD

NOW LIKE IT

TO BE

A. Deciding about our child's meals.

B. Mealtimes with our child.

C. Changing our child's nappies; dressing our child.

D. Bath time with our child.

E. Deciding whether to respond to our child's cries.

F. Responding to our child's crying in the middle of the night.

G. Taking our child out: walking, driving, visiting.

H. Choosing toys for our child.

I. Playtime with our child.

J. Doing our child's laundry.

K. Arranging for baby sitters or child care.

L. Dealing with the doctor regarding our child's health.

16

HOW IT HOW I

WOULD

IS NOW LIKE IT

TO BE

WEEKDAYS a. Getting up/breakfast/dressing child

b. Daytime: 9 am. To 1 pm.

c. Daytime: 1 pm to 5 pm

d. dinner/playtime/bedtime.

e. evenings to midnight.

f. middle of the night needs.

WEEKENDS g. getting up/breakfast/dressing baby

h. daytime: 9 am to 1 pm

i. daytime 1 pm to 5 pm

j. dinner/playtime/bedtime

k. evenings to midnight

l. middle of the night needs

17

M. In general, how satisfied are you with the way you and your partner divide the family tasks related to children?

[ ] very [ ] pretty [ ] neutral [ ]somewhat [ ] very

satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied

Now that we've asked about specific tasks, think about your overall impression of how you and your partner care for your child. Using the definitions that follow, check your answers to the following.

SOLE: You have absolute responsibility for your child's care. You plan it, do it- without assistance from your partner and whether your partner is present or not.

PRIMARY: You are the 'bottom line' of responsibility for your child. You may enlist your partner's help or your mate may volunteer at times, but you are the 'supervisor'. It's up to you to make sure your child's needs get met, no matter who does it.

SHARED: You and your partner have about equal responsibility for your child's care.

SECONDARY/SUPPORTIVE: Your partner is primarily responsible for your child's care. You may assist or do some care yourself, but in essence you are the 'helper'.

NONE: You have virtually no involvement in your child's care. You don't take responsibility for your child's care and do almost none of it.

1. Overall, how would you rate your involvement with your child? [ ] Sole[ ] Primary [ ] Shared [ ] Secondary [ ] None.

2. Overall, how do you rate your partner's involvement with your child? [ ] Sole[ ] Primary [ ] Shared [ ] Secondary [ ] None.

3. Overall, how do you feel about your level of involvement with your child? [ ] very [ ] pretty [ ] neutral [ ]somewhat [ ] very

satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied

18

4. Overall, how do you feel about your partner's level of involvement with your child? [ ] very [ ] pretty [ ] neutral [ ]somewhat [ ] very

satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied

5. Overall, how do you think your partner feels about your involvement with your child? [ ] very [ ] pretty [ ] neutral [ ]somewhat [ ] very

satisfied satisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied