the%20role%20of%20househusband%20and%20housewife%20as%20perceived%20by%20college%20population

8/7/2019 The%20Role%20of%20Househusband%20and%20Housewife%20as%20perceived%20by%20college%20population

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the20role20of20househusband20and20housewife20as20perceived20by20college20population 1/12

The Role of Househusband and Housewifeas Perceived by a College Population

DIANE KEYSER WENTWORTHROBERT M. CHELL

Department of PsychologyFairleigh Dickinson University

ABSTRACT. The research literature frequently conveys the notion that gender roles arebecoming less stereotypical. In this study the authors explored the question of how a col-lege population views the role of househusband and housewife and if there are significantdifferences in role expectations. A 51-item questionnaire was constructed and adminis-tered to 526 college students. This sample was chosen because college students are likelyto be assuming these roles in the near future. As predicted, the role expectations for house-husbands and housewives are not the same. Women tended to question the current struc-

ture of household roles more than did men, and the role of househusband was generallymore negatively perceived. Reasons for these findings are discussed.

Key words: gender role reversal, househusbands, housespouse, housewives

GENDER ROLES and their etiology have been heavily researched but few defin-

itive conclusions have been reached. What is agreed upon is the differentiation of

the terms sex (a biologically based distinction) from gender (personality traits,

activities, interests, and behavior; Beere, 1990). Thus, gender is a socially based

distinction and lends itself to myriad interpretations.Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman (1991) and West and Zimmerman

(1987) suggested that one “does gender.” They distinguished gender from both

sex (determined by biological criteria) and sex category (adhering to socially

required displays of the appropriate sex). Gender affects most, if not all, phases

of life. Activities are viewed as either feminine or masculine in nature. Thus,

when one assumes a particular role it invariably has a gender cast attached to it.

If individuals challenge these roles by assuming a cross-gender activity, it is like-

ly they will be viewed negatively, and attempts will be made to enforce gender

appropriate activities.

The Journal of Psychology, 2001, 135(6), 639–650

Address correspondence to Diane Keyser Wentworth, Department of Psychology—

M-AB1-01, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ 07940; [email protected](e-mail).

639



Several studies have explored what happens when people experience a gen-

der role reversal. A study by Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, and Pascale

(1975), in which students evaluated men and women who behaved either in linewith gender role stereotypes or counter to them, found penalties for gender role

reversal behavior. Both popularity ratings and perceived psychological adjust-

ment were negatively affected when either a man or a woman performed behav-

iors antithetical to his or her traditional gender role stereotyped behavior.

A more recent study by Fitzgerald and Cherpas (1985) demonstrated the

continuing strength of gender stereotypes. They enlisted practicing or in-training

vocational counselors in their examination of gender role reversals. Counselors

were asked about the appropriateness of certain careers for men and women. As

expected, feminine-dominated careers, such as nursing, were viewed as muchmore appropriate for female than for male clients. What is encouraging, though,

is that they found that women who aspired to traditionally male occupations,

such as becoming a physician, did not evoke a negative reaction.

Robertson and Fitzgerald (1990) conducted similar research. Practicing coun-

selors and therapists viewed videotaped simulations of a depressed male client.

When the client was nontraditional (described as a househusband) as opposed to

having a traditional occupation (engineer), the therapists assigned more severe

pathology to the client, behaved differently toward the client, and were more like-

ly to “attribute his depression to his life situation” (p. 6). Some even focused theirtherapy on the nontraditional behavior as a remedy for the symptoms presented.

Martin (1990) explored the attitudes of current undergraduate students

toward “tomboys” and “sissies.” As she expected, the sissies were evaluated

more negatively than were the tomboys. The students were concerned about the

long-term outcomes of the sissies and felt that sissies could be expected to con-

tinue their behavior into adulthood, whereas this was not true for tomboys.

McCreary (1994) attempted to explain why male cross-gender behavior is

treated more harshly than female cross-gender behavior. He suggested that there

is a stronger link between gender roles and perceived sexuality for men than forwomen. Thus, when men assume more traditionally feminine roles they are more

likely to be viewed as homosexual. His research with a group of student partici-

pants supported this theory.

Pleck, Sonenstein, and Ku (1994) argued that male roles are “conceptually

distinct from other gender-related attitudes.” They used the Male Role Attitude

Scale and discovered that it is not related to attitudes toward the female role.

Their argument supports the idea that the househusband role and the housewife

role are distinct.

Deutsch and Saxon (1998) found that there is a double standard in both thepraise and criticism working parents receive. As expected, mothers are criticized

more than fathers are for too little involvement at home or too much involvement

in paid work. Fathers experienced just the opposite, criticism for too much

involvement at home and too little involvement at work.

640 The Journal of Psychology



The roles people play based on their gender are both complex and multilay-

ered. One of these roles, that of housewife, has become well established over the

past century. Only recently has the male version of housewife, labeled househus-band, come into existence as an alternative for men. Many would question whether

it truly is a viable alternative or merely something highlighted in the media. The

academic literature seems to support the latter. A recent literature search of Psych-

Lit (the computerized abstracts of psychology-related journals), covering the past

23 years, revealed hundreds of separate entries for the term housewives, but fewer

than 10 were found when househusband(s) was entered as the key term.

Hayghe (1990) cited Bureau of Labor statistics that reveal a slight increase

over a 13-year period in married couples with children (under 18 years old) with

only the mother in the labor force. These statistics show that in 1975, 1.6% of families fit that model. By 1988, it had increased to 2.2%. Tang (1999), using

more recent Bureau of Labor statistics, reported that there has been an 82.6%

increase in men aged 25 to 54 years who did not work or look for work due to

home responsibilities, when the numbers from 1991 (4.6%) were compared with

those from 1996 (8.4%). Additionally, a front page article in The New York Times

(Marin, 2000) profiled a group of men attending a convention for at-home fathers

and examined the larger issue of men staying home to care for their children.

Because of the current media interest in this topic and its impact on dual-

career and single-parent families, we conducted a search of Internet sites duringthe summer of 1999. Our search confirmed that there is a small but growing core

of men who have decided to stay at home with their children while their wives

work. One of the largest sites serving this community is slowlane.com. Robert

Frank (1998a, 1998b), a psychologist, has posted his research on stay-at-home

fathers there. In both 1994 and 1996 he conducted questionnaire research involv-

ing subscribers to an on-line newsletter (“At-Home Dad”). The average respon-

dent was a 38-year-old, married, suburbanite with two children, had been a

househusband for just less than 3 years, and was staying home because he did not

want daycare for his children and his wife made more money in the workplacethan he did. The majority were either extremely or somewhat satisfied with

being at home, as were their wives. However, they did report a sense of isolation

associated with their situation. A majority stated that their decision to stay home

had hurt their career either a lot or somewhat.

Frank’s survey also examined gender roles to determine if they had changed

as a result of the father being at home. In several core areas, the answer was no.

Men were still the primary drivers of the family vehicle and responsible for per-

forming mechanical tasks at home. Frank suggested that househusbands are not

looking for complete role reversals but are looking for more “equal balance inparenting . . . with the result of less stereotypical attitudes” on the part of their

children (Frank 1998b).

Frank conducted another study involving 423 primary caregiving fathers and

602 primary caregiving mothers and their perception of workforce reentry prob-

Wentworth & Chell 641



lems, career progress concerns, and estimated lost income associated with stay-

ing home. All were solicited from Internet newsletter subscribers for at-home

fathers and at-home mothers clubs. As expected, the men and women differed intheir perceptions, with the men generally more concerned about career issues

(Frank, 1998a).

Using a subsample of this larger group, Frank (1998a) also examined the

“contribution of gender compared to role in determining the division of family

labor.” He found that there has not been a role reversal, but rather a melding of

traditional and contemporary behaviors. Certain child-care activities such as

bathing of children remain tasks performed primarily by women, home repair

remains a task performed mainly by men, and other tasks such as shopping and

bill paying are not tied to a certain sex.Lutwin and Siperstein (1985) also explored the househusband role. Their def-

inition of a househusband was “those husbands who actively are engaged in a role

reversal with their wives. Consequently, the husbands are responsible for the pri-

mary care of the children and home while their wives are the principal wage earn-

ers” (p. 273). Their study was based on the results of interviewing and question-

naire completion by 56 househusbands who met the following criteria: (a)

currently engaged in the full-time role of househusband, (b) married with at least

one minor child, (c) involved in the househusband role for at least 6 months. Their

sample proved to be fairly homogeneous and closely paralleled the 1996 Internetsurvey discussed previously. The respondents were mainly White, well educated,

in their mid-30s, and married for at least 8 years. The vast majority had arrived at

their present role initially through an involuntary process; they had been either fired

from a job, laid off, or disabled while working. The level of adjustment to the new

role varied, and most found little societal support for their role. In a number of

cases there was active rejection of the husband in the housewife role.

Radin (1994) reviewed five studies plus her own research on primary care-

giving fathers within two-parent families. These studies were conducted interna-

tionally (Australia, Sweden, Israel, and two in the United States). The studiestook place in the 1970s or 1980s. One of the most interesting findings, across cul-

tures, was that there were two major determinants of fathers’assuming the house-

husband role: (a) their perceptions of the fathering they had experienced as chil-

dren, and (b) the difficulty their fathers had in obtaining employment and

whether their mother worked and her career aspirations (Radin). These findings

suggest that it is a combination of forces that may determine whether a man

assumes the househusband role.

Rosenwasser, Gonzales, and Adams (1985) examined the effects of gender

on college students’ perceptions of housespouses. As hypothesized, househus-bands were perceived less positively and homemakers of either gender were

viewed more positively when their role included paid work in addition to their

childcare and housekeeping activities.

Because there has been so little research in this area, we decided to direct-




ly explore college students’ conceptions of the housewife and househusband

role. This sample was particularly appropriate to the topic because the majori-

ty of college students historically begin establishing long-term relationshipsand family after completing their undergraduate education. Thus, they may

assume the housewife or househusband role in the near future. The literature,

although not extensive, suggests that the roles are conceptually distinct and that

U.S. culture currently does not fully support those men who choose to assume

the househusband role.

Hypotheses

We hypothesized that although there would be overlap between the two rolesand their concomitant role expectations, there would be greater differences than

similarities in the perceived role expectations. Also, we proposed that women

would view the househusband role in a more positive light than would men. This

hypothesis stems from previous research that has found that women, on the

whole, are more likely to hold egalitarian views than are men (Hochschild, 1989;

Mason & Lu, 1988).

Method

Participants

The sample comprised undergraduate and graduate psychology students. All

were attending a private university in the northeastern United States. A total of

526 students participated in the study during the 1995–1997 academic years.

The sample included 328 women (62%) and 196 men (37%). Two participants

did not indicate their sex. The students ranged in age from 17 to 55 years old, with

a mean age of 22 and a median age of between 19 and 20. Four participants did not

indicate their age. Thirty-five percent of the sample identified themselves as fresh-men, 20% as sophomores, 18% as juniors, 11% as seniors, and 16% as graduate

students. Six people did not indicate their standing at the university.

Slightly more than half (51%) of the participants worked part-time, with

29% indicating they were not currently employed and 14% indicating full-time

employment. Six percent of the participants did not indicate their level of

employment.

The great majority (82%) was single, with 9% married or living with a sig-

nificant other, and 2% divorced or widowed. Seven percent did not indicate their

marital status. Because so many participants were single, it is not surprising that88% indicated they had no children at home requiring care, with 5% indicating

they had children requiring care; 7% did not answer this question. Of those who

did have children needing care, 3% took care of them themselves, with the rest

indicating some other form of care (e.g., spouse, family member). These other




types of care were indicated by fewer than 2% of the participants, because so few

of the participants in total had children needing care.

The great majority (88%) of participants identified themselves as neither ahousewife nor a househusband. Three percent indicated they were housewives,

and 2% indicated they were househusbands. Eight percent did not answer this

question. However, 30% of the participants indicated they knew someone who

was a househusband, and 63% indicated they did not know any househusbands.

Seven percent did not answer this item.

Instrument

The questionnaire (a gender roles questionnaire constructed by the authors)

consisted of 51 items. On the basis of a review of the literature, we designed the

questions to assess participants’ perceptions of the househusband and housewife

roles and to determine if there were differences in role expectations. Thus, the

majority of questions, 32 (63%), were paired: The stem was the same but the

word housewife or househusband served to differentiate the questions (e.g.,

“Men who are househusbands are to be admired,” “Women who are housewives

are to be admired”). The items were scaled with a Likert-type response scale

ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Twenty-two items

(43%) were reverse-scored so that response set problems would be avoided. The

questionnaire was scored in the direction of traditional conceptions of gender

roles; that is, women are more suited for the domestic role and men are more suit-

ed for the breadwinning role. Participants with high scores agreed with the tradi-

tional gender role concepts, and those with lower scores did not agree or agreed

less with these concepts.

Nine demographic questions were included at the end of the questionnaire.

These included standard demographic questions (sex, age, year in college,

employment status, and marital status) as well as child-care and househusband

questions (children needing care; type of child-care used; know any househus-

bands; and how the respondent classified himself or herself—housewife,

househusband, neither).

Procedure

The questionnaire was completed during a class period or at home and

returned to class. Students were solicited by us or by graduate assistants. A vari-

ety of both undergraduate and graduate psychology classes were included. Par-ticipation was totally voluntary and anonymous. In some classes, extra credit

points were awarded if students participated, but their names were separated

from the questionnaires to ensure anonymity for the data. Those participants

desiring feedback on the results received it after the analyses were completed.




Results

Factor Analysis

Data from all 526 participants were subjected to a principal-components fac-

tor analysis. There was a clear break in the scree plot between Factor 4 and Factor

5. This analysis produced four factors. Additionally, each of the four factors had an

eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Varimax and oblique rotations were carried out and the

results were compared. Both types of rotation produced the same four factors.

Only questions loading at the .399 level or higher were retained (see Table 1


TABLE 1

Factor Loadings by Question

FactorQuestion loading

Factor 1: Negative Perceptions of Househusbands

1. Men who are househusbands are to be admired. (reverse coded) .452. In general, I think children prefer women to be their caregivers rather

than men. .51

3. Being a househusband is not really the same role as being a housewife. .494. Men are not really domestic and cannot care for a house or children as

well as a woman. .525. Women who are married to househusbands experience a loss of

self-esteem. .496. Men who are househusbands are typically individuals who were not

successful in their careers. .537. Men should stay home and raise their children if they are going to have

children. (reverse coded) .438. Women are better temperamentally suited to being housewives than men

are to being househusbands. .62

9. Being a househusband is an acceptable occupation for a man. (reversecoded) .57

10. Men who are househusbands are not “real” men. .4911. Women should stay home and raise their children if they are going to

have children. .4112. Women who are married to househusbands may be embarrassed when

their husbands are introduced at parties. .4113. Men who are househusbands typically experience a loss of self-esteem. .4214. I believe men should make more money than women should in a family. .6615. Being a househusband puts a strain on a marriage. .4216. I would prefer a child be raised by a “nanny” as opposed to a

househusband. .4817. Househusbands should be responsible for “heavy duty chores,” i.e., lawn

mowing, snow shoveling, etc., and not responsible for clothes washing,housecleaning, etc. .49

(table continues)




Factor 2: Negative Effect on Spousal Relationship

1. I believe men may begin to resent their housewives because they get tospend more time with the children. (reverse coded) –.46

2. Men may resent their housewives because they do not have the stressesof a career. (reverse coded) –.55

3. Women who are housewives typically experience a loss of self-esteem.(reverse coded) –.58

4. I think women who are married to househusbands feel guilty that they

are not the one staying home with their children. .545. Being a housewife puts a strain on a marriage. (reverse coded) –.446. I think women who are housewives might be embarrassed when they

meet new people to tell them that their occupation is a housewife.(reverse coded) –.59

7. Women who are married to househusbands may be embarrassed whentheir husbands are introduced at parties. .41

8. I believe women may begin to resent their househusbands because theyget to spend more time with the children. .63

9. Women may resent their househusbands because they do not have thestresses of a career. .58

10. Men who are househusbands typically experience a loss of self-esteem. .43

11. Being a househusband puts a strain on a marriage. .49

Factor 3: Negative Perception of Housewives

1. Women who are housewives are not “real” women. (reverse coded) .422. Men who are married to housewives as opposed to career women are

viewed negatively in our society. (reverse coded) .403. I believe it is important for women to have a career if they are going to

experience self-pride. (reverse coded) .474. I would be able to go to work and not worry about my children if my

wife were taking care of them instead of someone else. .51

5. Being a housewife is an acceptable occupation for a woman. .616. Women are not really domestic and cannot care for a house or children

as well as a man. (reverse coded) .407. Women who are housewives are typically individuals who were not

successful in their careers. (reverse coded) .42

Factor 4: Psychological Effects

1. Men should stay home and raise their children if they are going to havechildren. (reverse coded) .45

2. I believe it is important for women to have a career if they are going to

experience self-pride. (reverse coded) .523. I believe a woman has to have a strong “ego” to be a housewife. –.504. I believe a man has to have a strong “ego” to be a househusband. –.43

Note. Four questions loaded on more than one factor; thus, 39 items are listed for the four factors butonly 35 items are unique. N = 52; loadings > .3999.

TABLE 1 (continued)

FactorQuestion loading



for questions by factor with their factor loadings). Factor 1, labeled Negative Per-

ceptions of Househusbands, included a total of 17 questions, 3 of which were

reverse-coded. Factor 2, labeled Negative Effect on Spousal Relationship, includ-ed a total of 11 questions, 5 of which were reverse coded. Factor 3, labeled Neg-

ative Perception of Housewives, contained 7 questions, 5 of which were reverse-

coded. Factor 4 contained 5 questions, 3 of which were reverse-coded. This

factor was labeled Psychological Effects.

Four questions loaded on more than one factor, with the result that only 35

separate questions were included in the factors. Thus, 16 of the total 51 questions

were eliminated because of their low factor loadings.

Of those questions that were paired (i.e., when househusband or housewife

was substituted using the same question stem), 1 question (11%) and its pairdid load on Factor 1, whereas 8 questions (89%) and their pairs did not load on

Factor 1. Factor 2 displayed a different picture. Four (57%) of the questions

that were paired loaded on Factor 2, and 3 (43%) did not. For Factor 3, all 5

questions (100%) and their pairs loaded on this factor. In Factor 4, only 2 ques-

tions were paired; of these, 1 loaded on the factor, and the other did not. Over

all four factors, 52% of the pairs did not load on a factor (or the same factor),

and 48% did. Thus, it seems that in some areas the roles overlapped greatly,

whereas in other areas they were viewed as distinct, giving support to our first

hypothesis.

Gender Differences

When scores for the women were compared with scores for the men for all

35 of the retained questions combined, a significant difference was obtained,

t (522) = –6.75, p < .01. Women’s mean scores ( M = 2.98) were slightly lower

than men’s mean scores ( M = 3.17), indicating a greater disagreement with the

traditional role structure on the part of the women. We also conducted t tests by

factor. Similar results were found for Factor 1 (Negative Perception of House-husbands), t (522) = –8.27, p < .015, women— M = 2.37, men— M = 2.77; Factor

2 (Negative Effect on Spousal Relationship), t (522) = –3.95, p < .01, women—

M = 3.11, men— M = 3.24; and Factor 3 (Negative Perception of Housewives),

t (522) = 2.98, p < .01, women— M = 4.17, men— M = 4.03. Factor 4, Psycho-

logical Effects, did not reveal a significant difference between the male and

female participants, t (522) = –.70, ns, women— M = 3.11, men— M = 3.15 (see

Table 2).

These results demonstrate that the women and men differed in their percep-

tions of the househusband role, the negative effect on the spousal relationship,and the negative perception of the role of housewives. The only areas in which

they agreed were the psychological effects of these roles. However, women

always had lower levels of endorsement of the traditional gender role, a finding

that supports our second hypothesis.




Type of Employment

When type of employment (full-time, part-time, or unemployed) was

examined, there were no significant differences found, F (2, 490) = .02, ns.

There were also no differences found between college class levels: Freshmen,

sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students were compared, F (4, 515) =.97, ns.

Age Differences

Differences in responses for various age ranges were also explored. When

participants’ responses were placed into four age categories (under 22, 22–30,

31–40, over 40) and compared using analyses of variance, no significant differ-

ences were found, F (3, 522) = 1.25, ns.

Knowing Househusbands

There appeared to be a slight trend in that those participants who knew a

househusband had less traditional views than did those who did not know any

househusbands, t (487) = 1.67, p < .10, if the more liberal significance level of .10

was used. Almost one third (30%) of the respondents reported knowing at least

one househusband, and 63% did not know any. The large number who knew at

least one househusband was surprising in itself.

Discussion

As hypothesized, women indicated greater disagreement with traditional

role structures than men did. However, although the differences between the


TABLE 2Gender Differences by Factor

n M SD

Variable Women Men Women Men Women Men df t

Factor 1 328 196 2.37 2.77 .52 .53 522 –8.27*Factor 2 328 196 3.11 3.24 .36 .35 522 –3.95*Factor 3 328 196 4.17 4.03 .48 .56 522 2.98*Factor 4 328 196 3.12 3.15 .55 .48 522 –.70

Total 328 196 2.98 3.17 .30 .31 522 –6.75*

*p < .01.



men’s and women’s perceptions were significantly different statistically overall

and for three of the four factors, the actual numerical differences were quite

small. What is more interesting is the difference in perceptions of both men andwomen on their ratings of househusbands and housewives. Factor 1 (Negative

Perceptions of Househusbands) received the lowest mean scores from both men

and women, whereas Factor 3 (Negative Perceptions of Housewives) received

scores much higher, indicating greater agreement with this traditional role. This

finding supports (a) our hypothesis that people view the two roles distinctly and

(b) the research that has shown negative consequences of cross-gender behavior

(Costrich et al., 1975; Fitzgerald & Cherpas, 1985; Martin, 1990; Robertson &

Fitzgerald, 1990). We believe women are perceived as having greater flexibility

in career choice and are able to venture into nontraditional career directions withless difficulty than men are.

Perhaps, as McCreary (1994) suggested, househusbands are seen as hav-

ing their sexuality questioned because their sexuality is so closely tied to their

gender role. One could also argue that West and Zimmerman’s (1987) notion

that all activities are gender typed caused respondents to be highly uncom-

fortable with those men who were clearly venturing into a feminized activity.

Their punishment for violating gender rules is a negative rating of the house-

husband role.

Our results indicate that not only is the role of househusband not posi-tively viewed but also the role of housewife is not positively viewed. It is

viewed as acceptable if it is associated with child rearing. However, our results

indicate that once child-rearing responsibilities are over, the role of housewife

is not highly valued. The research conducted by Frank (1998a, 1998b) sup-

ports this view because a majority of the househusbands he sampled planned

to return to work and career once their primary child-rearing responsibilities

were over.

The concept of the dual-career family is now viewed as commonplace in our

society. Decisions about careers are made not only with regard to the positionholder but also with regard to the impact they would have on both careers as well

as finances. Issues regarding salary, relocation, time allocation, and child care are

indicative of those constraints that must be addressed. For those families who do

not want to use daycare facilities, and in which the wife makes more money than

the husband, or the wife has a greater desire for a career, the concept of house-

husband would have great appeal.

Our results indicate that women and men differ in their rating of the house-

husband role as well as the guilt expressed about children. Women have lower

levels of endorsement of the traditional gender roles than men do. Thus, womenseem to be more comfortable with the concept of househusband than are men.

Although women sometimes joke that it would be nice to come home to a “wife”

and all the accouterments associated with this concept, this is not likely to be the

case. The househusband is not the mirror image of the housewife.




REFERENCES

Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Green-

wood Press.Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereo-

types hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex role reversals. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 11, 520–530.Deutsch, F. M., & Saxon, S. E. (1998). The double standard of praise and criticism for

mothers and fathers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 665–683.Fenstermaker, S., West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Gender inequality: New con-

ceptual terrain. In R. L. Blumberg (Ed.), Gender, family and economy (pp. 289–307).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fitzgerald, L. D., & Cherpas, C. C. (1985). On the reciprocal relationship between genderand occupation: Rethinking the assumptions concerning masculine career development.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 109–122.Frank, R. A. (1998a). Primary caregiving father families: Do they differ in division of

childcare and housework? (On-line). Available: www:slowlane.com/research.Frank, R. A. (1998b). Research on at-home dads. (On-line). Available: www:

slowlane.com/research.Hayghe, H. V. (1990). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, 113,

14–19.Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking Press.Lutwin, D. R., & Siperstein, G. N. (1985). Househusband fathers. In S. M. H. Hanson &

F. W. Bozett (Eds.), Dimensions of fatherhood . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Marin, R. (2000, January 2). At-home fathers step out to find they are not alone. The NewYork Times, pp. A1, A18.Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and

traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22(3/4), 151–165.Mason, K. O., & Lu, Y. (1988). Attitudes toward women’s familial roles: Changes in the

United States, 1977–1985. Gender & Society, 2, 39–57.McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31(9/10),

517–531.Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles among

adolescent males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30(7/8), 481–501.Radin, N. (1994). Primary-caregiving fathers in intact families. In A. Gottfried & A. W.

Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families: Implications for children’s development . NewYork: Plenum.

Robertson, J., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990). The (mis)treatment of men: Effects of client gen-der role and life-style on diagnosis and attribution of pathology. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 17 (1), 3–9.

Rosenwasser, S. M., Gonzales, M. H., & Adams, V. (1985). Perceptions of a housespouse:The effects of sex, economic productivity, and subject background variables. Psychol-ogy of Women Quarterly, 9(2), 258–264.

Tang, A. (1999, October 20). Fewer men are working, as home duties beckon. The NewYork Times, p. G1.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.

Received June 2, 2000


the%20role%20of%20househusband%20and%20housewife%20as%20perceived%20by%20college%20population

Documents