Have Changes in Gender Relations Affected Marital Quality?

*
STACY
PAUL

J.

ROGERS,

R.

AMATO,

Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University

Abstract We used national data from two samples reflecting different marriage cohorts toexamine long-term changes in gender relations withinmarriage, long-term changes in marital quality, and the association between the two. Thefirst marriage cohort consisted of individuals married between 1964 and 1980 (N = 1,119) and interviewed in 1980, whereas thesecond marriage cohort consisted ofindividuals married between 1981 and 1997 (N = 312) andinterviewed in 1997. Compared with theearlier cohort, themore recent cohort reported larger contributions to household income amongwives, more employment ofwives withpreschool-age children, less traditional gender-role attitudes, a greater share of housework on the part of husbands, less husband influence in marriage, andgreater wife influence in marriage. Members ofthe more recent marriage cohort also reported significantly more marital discord. This difference in discord was explained partly bygreater work-family conflict in themore recent cohort. Other changes in gender relations, however, were not related to increases in marital discord.

Recent decades have brought fundamental changes to gender relations and marriage. The intersection of these domains is of interest to scholarsconcerned with social change and the adaptability of marriage as a social institution. Since the 1960s, both women and men havebecome less traditional in their gender-role attitudes. For example, women and men in the 1980s were more likely than in the 1960s to agree that it isappropriate forwives to have their owncareers, that employed women
'I- This research was supported by Grant 5 R01 AG04146 from the National Institute on Aging and the Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute, with core support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant 1 HD282663. We thank David Johnson and Alan Booth for helpful comments on drafts of this article. Direct correspondence to Stacy Rogers, Pennsylvania State University, 211 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802.

The University of North Carolina Press

Social Forces, December 2000, 79(2):731-753

732 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

can be good mothers, and that men should do more housework and child care (Thornton 1989). Changes in gender relations also are evident as the economic lives of men and women increasingly converge. In the late 1990s, women, like men, demonstrated commitment to employment over the life course - regardless of marital or parenthood status - and made important contributions to family economic resources (Spain & Bianchi 1996). And although less dramatic, there has been some confluence in the home, as men have become more active participants in household work and child care (Coltrane 1996; Robinson & Godbey 1997). At the same time, the nature of marriage has changed. Satisfying marital relationships have beneficial effects on individual well-being, and the majority of individuals continue to marry (Nock 1998; Ross 1995; Umberson et al. 1996). However, increases in age at first marriage, the current high divorce rate, and the declining remarriage rate suggest that marriage is a more voluntary and less permanent part of adult life now than it was in the recent past (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992). Changes in public attitudes also reflect a decline in the centrality of marriage, involving more positive evaluations of permanent singlehood, more negative attitudes toward marriage, and a greater emphasis on the restrictivenature of marital bonds (Thornton 1989). Furthermore, research provides some evidence that marital quality has declined in recent decades (Glenn 1991;Rogers & Amato 1997). In the research presented here, we are interested in the manner in which changes in gender relations in marriage may have affected marital quality. Have recent changes in husbands' and wives' roles helped to strengthen marriage by increasing equity and flexibility? Or have changes in spouses' behavior further undermined an already fragile arrangement by increasing normative ambiguity and strain? To address these questions, we use a national longitudinal study of marriage to compare indicators of gender relations within marriage and levels of marital quality for two marriage cohorts: those married between 1964 and 1980 (and assessed in 1980) and those married between 1981 and 1997 (and assessed in 1997).

Changing Gender Relations in Marriage In recent decades, gender relations within marriage have changed in important ways. A number of theoretical perspectives, such as life course theory (Elder 1994) and ecological systems theory (Doherty, Kouneski & Erickson 1998), emphasize that structural characteristics of communities and societies can affect the quality of people's intimate relationships. According to these perspectives, social-historical change has the potential to create new opportunities as well as undermine necessary supports for intimate relationships. For example, changes

Gender Relationsand Marital Quality / 733 in gender relations within marriage that have occurred since the 1960s may have contributed to improvements in marital quality by increasing the extent to which marital relationships are flexible, egalitarian, and responsive to changing individual preferences. Alternatively, these changes may have eroded marital quality by elevating normative ambiguity within marriage, increasing the importance of negotiation, and raising the potential for conflict. Important changes have occurred in several gendered domains of marriage, including spouses' economic roles, work-family conflict (especially for wives), the division of household labor, perceptions of fairness regarding the household division of labor, gender-role attitudes, and the balance of marital power. We discuss each of these in turn.
SPOUSES' ECONOMIC ROLES

In recent decades, husbands and wives have become more similar in their rates of labor-force participation. In the early 1960s,approximately 30% of wives and 90% of husbands were in the labor force; by 1994 those figures were approximately 600/0 and 78%, respectively (Spain & Bianchi 1996; U.S.Bureau of the Census 1998). In addition, regardless of marital status, women are increasingly likely to remain employed through the prime childbearing and child-rearing years, a pattern that was relatively rare as recently as 1980 (Moen 1992; Spain & Bianchi 1996; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1998). Husbands' and wives' financial contributions also have converged. Women, especially the well educated, have benefited from the burgeoning service sector of the economy. In contrast, men, especially those with relatively little education, have experienced deteriorating work opportunities due to declines in the manufacturing, mining, and construction sectors (Farley 1996; Hernandez 1993; Zill & Nord 1994). Also, after a period of stagnation, the gender gap in income continued to close during the 1980s. As a result, married women's economic contributions during the 1980s substantially decreased the likelihood that their families would be in poverty (Hernandez 1993). On average, working wives contributed 30-400/0 of their family's income by 1990 (Spain & Bianchi 1996). This trend toward greater sharing of economic roles may have increased marital quality by enhancing equity in marriage (Blumstein & Schwartz 1983; Scanzoni 1972, 1978). It also may have improved marital quality by increasing the level of economic resources available to the family, which may alleviate economic hardship (Voydanoff 1990). In contrast, marital quality may be lowered by a decline in husbands' economic resources, which has been linked to marital discord and more problematic family relationships (Conger et al. 1990;Hernandez 1993; Voydanoff 1990). An increase in wives' economic contributions also may increase marital discord to the extent that it challengesconventional power relations based on husbands' prerogative as the primary breadwinner (Hood 1983; Thompson & Walker 1989).

734 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

Alongwith married women's labor-forceparticipation, the potential for work-family conflict has grown in recent decades,particularly among wiveswith young children. A role strain perspective draws attention to the potential difficulty of performing multiple roles that make demands on individuals' resources, especiallytheir time (Glass & Fujimoto 1994; Goode 1960). Married mothers of preschool children may be particularly vulnerable to role strain if they work full-time, given the conflicting time demands of work and family roles. In 1970 approximately 100/0 of married mothers with preschool children were employed full-time, year round, with 440/0 having some employment. By 1990, these figures had increased to 28% and 68 %, respectively (Spain & Bianchi 1996). Numerous observershave documented the potential for the conflictingdemands of work and family to create stress for mothers - stress that often spills over and affects the quality of marital relations (Booth et al. 1984; Hochschild 1997; Spain & Bianchi 1996; Voydanoff 1988). Time shortages reported by married mothers affect marital quality by decreasing couples' time together (Kingston & Nock 1987), increasing wives' feelings of role overload and role conflict (Voydanoff 1988), and raising wives' awareness of inequity in the household division of labor (Booth et al. 1984).
DIVISION OF HOUSEHOLD LABOR

Research on the household division of labor draws attention to two domains through which household work may influence marital quality: spouses' actual contributions and spouses' perceptions of equity in the division of labor (Hawkins, Marshall & Meiners 1995; John, Shelton & Luschen 1995; Thompson 1991). With regard to actual household work, research suggests a convergence as men's time in household work has increased and women's time has decreased, regardless of employment status. For example, among adults aged 18 to 64, approximately 40 hours per week were spent by women in household work and child care in 1965, compared to 11 hours spent by men. By 1985 these figures had shifted to 30 hours for women and 15 hours for men (Robinson & Godbey 1997). Nevertheless, research consistently documents a tendency for husbands to perform less housework and child care than wives, even when wives are employed full-time (Hochschild 1989; Robinson & Godbey 1997; Thompson & Walker 1989). Perceptions of fairness in the household division of labor also have become increasingly salient for marriage. The distributive justice perspective suggests that spouses' satisfaction with the household division of labor depends not only on task completion but also on the subjective meanings attached to household work and employment (John, Shelton & Luschen 1995; Thompson 1991). Research

Gender Relationsand Marital Quality / 735 indicates that perceptions of unfairness in the division of household labor contribute to clashes in many marriages (Hochschild 1989;Pina & Bengtson 1993), especiallywhen wives hold nontraditional gender attitudes (Greenstein 1996). On the other hand, it is possible that husbands' increased contributions to household work, and the positive subjective meanings attached to sharing such work, have contributed to increases in marital quality over time - especially among wives. This possibility is especially likely when viewed within a context of increases in wives' employment, greater potential for work-family conflict, and growing support for egalitarian gender roles. GENDER-RoLE ATTITUDES AND MARITAL POWER Both women and men have become less traditional in their gender-role attitudes since the late 1960s (Thornton 1989). Traditional gender-role attitudes stress the distinct nature of the husband-breadwinner and the wife-homemaker-mother roles, their interdependence, and the differential power relations implied by these specialized roles. In contrast, nontraditional roles emphasize shared capacities for both economic productivity and nurturance, as well as egalitarian power relations. Previous research suggests that increasing support for nontraditional gender-role attitudes and greater support for egalitarian power relations may have positive as well as negative consequences for marital quality. Several scholars suggest that this shift in attitudes (combined with greater sharing of work and family roles) should contribute to improvements in marital quality at the aggregate level (Blumstein & Schwartz 1983; Coltrane 1996; Scanzoni 1972, 1978). Scanzoni (1972) has argued that wives' access to employment and economic resources, and the resulting increase in equity in spouses' marital power, is an essential foundation for positive marital quality. He emphasizes the importance of marital negotiation and conflict as productive forces that, when conducted between equal partners, increase marital satisfaction and stability by enhancing the flexibility of the marital relationship. In addition, to the extent that nontraditional gender-role attitudes and more equitable power arrangements are associated with greater sharing of economic and domestic roles, marriages not only may be more satisfying (Coltrane 1996) but also may be more adaptable to an economic climate that has changed dramatically in recent decades (Danziger & Gottschalk 1995). Oppenheimer (1997) notes that marriage based on a sharing model, in which both spouses can perform economic and household work competently, is more flexible and therefore better equipped to respond to the loss or incapacitation of a partner than a marriage based on strict gender specialization. This is a particularly salient issue at a time when many husbands' economic fortunes have declined. Spouses in dual-earner families have fared better financially in recent years (Levy 1995) and may have enjoyed greater marital happiness as a result.

736 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

The growing support for egalitarian power relations and nontraditional genderrole attitudes in recent decades also may have negatively affected marital quality because it challenges the traditional gender-based division of labor and power that continues to underpin many marriages (Thompson & Walker 1989).Thornton (1989) has indicated that wivesmay more readily embrace nontraditional attitudes than husbands, increasing the likelihood of conflict as new norms are negotiated. In a longitudinal study, Amato and Booth (1995) found that wives who adopted less traditional (and more egalitarian) attitudes became less satisfied with their marriages and reported greater discord. Presumably, wives who adopt nontraditional views must negotiate work and family responsibilities with their husbands that previous generations took for granted, thus raising the potential for discord in the relationship.

Contributions of the Present Study

Previous conceptual perspectivesand research findings regarding the links between gender relations and marital quality are equivocal. Although some changesin gender relations may have improved marital quality, other changes may have undermined it. The net result of these changes on marriage is unclear. Furthermore, most previous research has involved analyses based on a single cross-sectional data set. There are virtually no studies of long-term changes in gender relations and their impact on marriage. A small number of studies suggest that marital quality has declined in the last few decades. Glenn (1991) reported a gradual decline from 1973 to 1988 in the percentage of people in the General Social Survey who reported that their marriages were "very happy:' This decline occurred despite the tendency for divorce to remove the most unhappy couples from the pool of married individuals. In another analysis based on the General Social Survey, Glenn (1998) found that the apparent increase in marital quality in the later years of marriage - often observed in studies based on a single cross-section - appeared to be due to a decline in average marital happiness across successive marriage cohorts. Similarly, Rogers and Amato (1997) found shifts in several dimensions of marital quality across two groups representing marriages initiated in the 1970s and the 1980s. Although identical in terms of age at the time of data collection and duration of marriage, members of the more recent cohort reported less marital interaction, more marital conflict, and more problems in their marriages. In the research presented here, we extend previous work on this topic by investigating the associations between changes in gender relations and changes in marital quality. We focus on three central issues. First, how have gender relations in marriage changed in recent decades? Based on our review of prior literature, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Gender Relationsand Marital Quality /737

Hypothesis 1: In more recent marriage cohorts, compared with earlier

marriage cohorts, (1) wives earn more income, (2) there is greater potential for work-family conflict, (3) gender-role attitudes are less traditional, (4) husbands do a greater share of housework, (5) wives are more likely to feel that the household division of labor is unfair, and (6) wives have greater decision-making power. Second, we are concerned with how marital quality has changed in recent decades. Prior work (albeit limited) leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Individuals in more recent marriage cohorts report lower

marital quality than individuals in earlier marriage cohorts. And third, can changes in gender relations account for the presumed decline in marital quality in recent decades? Specifically, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: Differences in marital quality between cohorts decline or

disappear when controls are added for changes in gender relations. Of course, to the extent that changes in gender relations have benefited marriage (or have yielded mixed effects), we would not expect changes in gender relations to account for declines in marital quality.

Methods
THE SAMPLE

Our analysis is based on the Marital Instability over the Life Course Study (Booth et al. 1993). Telephone interviewers used a clustered random-digit-dialing procedure to locate a national sample of2,033 married persons (not couples) 55 years of age and under in 1980. Of targeted telephone numbers, 17% could not be reached after ten callbacks. Of those individuals contacted, 780/0 provided complete interviews. This response rate compares favorablywith other studies that use random digit dialing (Booth & Johnson 1985). The 1980 sample, when compared with U.S. census data, was representative of the U.S. population with respect to age, race, household size, presence of children, homeownership, and region. Of the original respondents, we were able to reinterview 1,592 (780/0) in 1983, 1,341 (66%) in 1988, 1,189 (580/0) in 1992, and 1,047 (52%) in 1997. Due to sample attrition, subsequent waveswere slightly lessrepresentative with respect to AfricanAmericans, Hispanics, younger respondents, renters, and those without a college education. In 1992 and 1997 we also interviewed a random sample of adult offspring (19 years of age or older) of the original respondents. We were able to obtain interviews with 471 adult offspring in 1992. In 1997 we carried out a second interview with 424 of these adult offspring. We also carried out interviews with an additional 220 adult offspring who had reached the age of 19 between 1992 and 1997. This

738 / Social Forces 79:2, December 2000 represents an overall response rate of 800/0 across all eligible offspring in 1997. Note that only one offspring per family was interviewed. In the present research, we constructed two samples: 1,119married individuals from the original sample who were between 19 and 35 years of age in 1980 (mean age = 29.0), and 312 married individuals from the offspring sample who were between 19 and 35 years of age in 1997 (mean age = 29.6). The two groups represent distinct marriage cohorts: Those in the earlier group were married between 1964 and 1980, whereas those in the more recent group were married between 1981 and 1997. The two cohort groups were coded 0 (early marriage cohort) and 1 (recent marriage cohort) in analyses. For the early cohort group, allvariables were measured in 1980;for the more recent cohort group, allvariables were measured in 1997. Individuals with missing data on marital quality were excluded from these samples. We constructed the samples so that no individuals in the first marriage cohort were parents of individuals in the second marriage cohort. Some of the offspring (N = 151) had parents eligible to be in the first cohort. To determine if omitting these parents biased our results, we carried out all analyses twice, once excluding and once including these 151 parents. All the results were virtually the same. Consequently, to avoid problems with dependencies in the data, we present the results of analyses based on the sample that excludes the 151 parents.
VARIABLES

Gender Relations
The wife's proportion of income was calculated by dividing the wife's income by the sum of the husband's and wife's income. Work-family demands were assessed with an index based on wives' employment and the number of preschool-age children in the household. The index was scored in the following manner: 1 = wife not employed; 2 = wife employed part-time, one preschool child; 3 = wife employed part-time, two or more preschool children; 4 = wife employed full-time, one preschool child; and 5 = wife employed full-time, two or more preschool children. Gender-role attitudes were measured with a seven-item scale. People responded to items such as"Awoman's most important task in lifeshould be taking care of her children" and "If jobs are scarce, a woman whose husband can support her ought not to have a job" (l = disagree strongly, 4 = agree strongly). Items were recoded in the direction of nontraditional attitudes, and the mean response served as the scale score (a = .67). The husband's contribution to household work was assessed with a single item asking whether the husband usually does none (0), less than half (.25), about half (.5), more than half (.75), or all (1) of the household work, including cleaning, doing laundry, and cooking. Perceptions of an unfair household division of labor were measured with two items. The first dealt with husbands (1 = household

Gender Relationsand Marital Quality I 739 division of labor is unfair to the husband, 0 = not unfair), and the second dealt with wives (1 = household division of labor is unfair to the wife, 0 = not unfair). Marital power was based on a single item: "Overall, considering all the kinds of decisions you two make, does your spouse more often have the final word or do you?" Responses were coded into two categories: (1) husband has the final word, and (2) wife has the final word. These two categories were contrasted with the omitted category, in which equal influence was reported. Although researchers disagree about how marital power should be measured (Mizan 1994), "final word" measures continue to be one of the most commonly used methods of assessing this construct.

Marital Quality
We used five scales to measure marital quality. Marital happiness was an elevenitem scale that assessed the extent to which the respondent was happy with different aspects of the relationship. For example, respondents were asked, "How happy are you with the amount of love and affection you receive from your spouse?" (l = not very happy, 2 = pretty happy, 3 = very happy). This scale reflected a subjective evaluation of the marriage by the respondent (a = .87). We also included four scales that measured dyadic characteristics of the marriage, that is, people's perceptions of their own and their spouse's behavior in the relationship. (We assume that these measures contained both an objective and a subjective component.) The marital-interaction scale (a = .67) assessed the frequency with which couples engaged in five activities together: eating the main meal, shopping, visiting friends, working on projects around the house, and going out for recreation (1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = usually, 4 = almost always).The marital-conflict scale assessedthe amount and severity of conflict between spouses. Items dealt with the frequency of disagreements in general, the frequency of serious quarrels in the preceding two months, and whether spouses were so angry that they slapped, hit, punched, kicked, or threw things at one another during the previous three years (a = .45). For example, respondents were asked, "How often do you disagree with your spouse? Would you say (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) often, or (5) very often?" The marital-problems scaleinvolved reports offourteen problems in the relationship (someone - either the respondent or the spouse gets angry easily,is jealous, is moody, is not horne enough, is domineering, etc.), and the sum of the "yes" responses served as the measure of relationship problems (a = .72). For example, respondents were asked, "Have you had a problem in your marriage because one of you gets angry easily?" (0 = no, 1 = yes). Divorce proneness is the propensity to divorce and includes both a cognitive component (thinking the marriage is in trouble) and actions (talking to friends or spouse about the possibility of divorce). The scale consisted of twelve items, with half referring to the respondent and half referring to the spouse. For example, respondents were

740 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

asked, "Have you ever talked with family members) friends) clergy) counselors) or social workers about problems in your marriage?" and "As far as you know) has your spouse talked with relatives) friends) or a counselor about problems either of you were having with the marriage?" (0 = no) 1 =yes). High scores indicated greater instability (alpha = .92). To facilitate analysis) all scales were standardized to have means of 0 and standard deviations of 1.

Control Variables
We controlled for several individual and relationship characteristics that might have been related to marital quality and that differed across groups. These included current age) duration of marriage in years) years of education) gender (0 = male) 1 = female) race (0 = white) 1 = nonwhite) marriage order (0 = first marriage) 1 = second or third marriage) and age at first marriage.

Attrition
To assess the possible effect of panel attrition) we relied on a procedure first described by Heckman (1979). We identified cases in the 1980 sample that had a child eligible to be interviewed in 1997 (N = 1,438). Among this group) we used a probit analysis to predict whether a completed offspring interview was obtained in 1997 (1 = yes) 0 = no). Five 1980 variables were found to be good predictors: the respondent was male) was under age 26) was nonwhite) had less than a college education) and lived in rented accommodations. (Indicators of parents' marital quality in 1980 were not associated with obtaining an interview.) We used the equation based on these five variables to calculate lambda - a value for each case that reflected the probability of yielding an offspring interview in 1997.

Results
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for all variables. The first four columns show the means (and standard deviations) for husbands and wives in the earlier and more recent marriage cohorts. The last three columns show probability values (derived from regression models) that test for cohort differences) gender differences) and cohort-gender interactions with respect to the variables in each row. We turn first to the control variables. With regard to current age) the ages of husbands were similar in the two marriage cohorts) but wives tended to be younger in the earlier cohort. (This trend was reflected in a marginally significant cohort-

Gender Relations and Marital Quality /741

gender interaction in the last column.) Compared with the more recent cohort, husbands and wives in the earlier cohort were married slightly longer, on average. With regard to education, the more recent cohort was better educated, although this difference was especially pronounced for wives. The more recent cohort contained fewer nonwhites and a lower proportion of second or higher-order marriages. This latter difference may be related to the fact that members of the earlier cohort married at earlier ages, thus allowing more time to divorce and remarry prior to being interviewed. Finally, age at first marriage was higher in the more recent cohort, especially for women. In most respects, these differences are consistent with national trends. For example, between 1980 and the mid-1990s, the educational levels of young adults increased, especially among women (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). Similarly,age at first marriage increased during this period (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). Moreover, the lower proportion of nonwhites in 1997 is consistent with the fact that marriage (and remarriage) rates have declined more quickly among African Americans than among whites (Cherlin 1992). Some of these differences, however, also may reflect differential sample attrition - a point to which we return later.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLES IN GENDER RELATIONS

The gender relations variables differed between the two marriage cohorts in expected ways. Consistent with national trends (Spain & Bianchi 1996), wives' proportion of total family income increased significantly between 1980 and 1997. Scores on the work-family demands index also increased significantly between 1980 and 1997, suggesting that members of the more recent marriage cohort were more susceptible to conflicting work-family demands than were members of the earlier marriage cohort. Thornton (1989), using national data, found that gender-role attitudes have become less traditional in recent decades - a trend also reflected in our data. Furthermore, Table 1 shows that the increase was nearly identical for husbands and wives.To the extent that nontraditional attitudes create uncertainty about gender roles within marriage, this change has the potential to create tension between wives and husbands. Husbands' contributions to household labor were significantly higher in the more recent cohort than in the earlier cohort - another finding consistent with previous work (Pleck 1997; Robinson & Godbey 1997). Although wives reported lower contributions by their husbands than husbands claimed, increases across cohorts were similar for wives and husbands. An interesting result was that perceptions that the household division oflabor is unfair to husbands were higher among women than among men, although the difference between cohorts was not significant. Similarly, perceptions that the household division of labor is unfair to wives were higher among women than men, although the difference between cohorts was not significant. These results suggest that wives are more likely than

742/ Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

TABLE 1: Comparison of Two Marriage Cohorts on All Variables Used in the Analysis
Husbands" Married Married
1964-80 1981-97

Wivesa Married Married

1964-80 1981-97

Probability Cohort X Cohort Gender Gender

Control Variables Currentage

Years married Years of education Nonwhite Remarriage Age firstmarried

29.86 (5.22) 6.29 (4.62) 14.11 (2.63) .12 .12 22.43 (3.20) .20 (.21) 1.96 (1.25) 2.54 (.55) .31 (.16) .02 .20 .46 .08

29.72 (4.39) 5.51 (4.37) 14.63 (2.11) .05 .08 23.93 (3.36) .33 (.19) 2.53 (l.45) 2.63 (.47) .43 (.16) .05 .18 .35 .16

28.38 (5.00) 6.50 (4.48) 13.30 (2.38) .15 .15 20.63 (3.20) .25 (.24) 2.03 (1.19) 2.54 (.57) .23 (.19) .06 .28 .34 .16

29.43 (4.54) 5.92 (4.54) 14.77 (2.37) .09 .09 23.06 (3.80) .39 (.21) 2.69 (1.68) 2.62 (.50) .32 (.17) .06 .32 .18 .34

.12 .02 .00 .03 .01 .00

.00 .29 .00 .08 .14 .00

.06 .73 .00 .99 .74 .03

Gender Relations Wife's percent ofincome Work-family demands Nontraditional genderattitudes Husband'sshare of housework Division of labor Unfairto husbands Unfair to wives Marital power Husbandhasmore Wifehasmore

.00 .00 .04 .00

.00 .37 .81 .00

.60 .59 .68 .70

.20 .64 .00 .00

.01 .00 .00 .00

.18 .35 .15 .78

husbands to acknowledge unfairness in general. With respect to marital power, husbands were more likely than wives to report greater husband influence, and this was true in both cohorts. Similarly, wives were.more likely than husbands to report greater wife influence, and this was true in both cohorts. Nevertheless, both husbands and wives acknowledged a decline in husband influence and an increase in wife influence between 1980 and 1997. Although not directly shown in the table (but obtainable through simple subtraction) about half of the respondents, regardless of cohort or gender, reported equal decision-making influence. These results indicate that in spite of a decline in people's willingness to nominate husbands as the more influential partner, egalitarian marriages were

Gender Relations and Marital Quality I 743 TABLE 1: Comparison of Two Marriage Cohorts on All Variables Used in the Analysis (Continued)
Husbands" Married Married
1964-80 1981-97

Wivesa Married
1964-80

Probability Cohortx Cohort Gender Gender

Married
1981-97

Marital Quality Happiness

Interaction Conflict Problems Divorceproneness

.10 (.92) .08 (.94) -.07 (.99) -.09 (.97) -.07 (.97)

.09 (.99) -.07 (.98) .07 (1.02) .00 (.96) -.07 (1.04)

-.09 (1.06) .03 (1.02) -.09 (1.03) .05 (1.05) .04 (1.05)

.04 (.95) -.26 (1.03) .18 (1.00) .06 (.89) .10 (.89)

.29 .00 .01 .46 .95

.00 .14 .16 .02 .08

.28 .28 .73 .51 .63

Note: Standarddeviations arenot shownfor dichotomousvariables. The maximumsamplesizeis 1)119 for the 1964-80 marriage cohort (671 wives and 448 husbands) and 312 for the 1981-97 marriagecohort (159 wives and 153 husbands). Samplesizes varyslightly due to missingdata on some variables. Probability values are based on regression analyses with cohort) gender) and cohort x gender as predictors.Allsignificance testsare two-tailed.
a

The top number isthe mean)and the number in parenthesesisthe standard deviation.

no more common in the 1997 sample than in the 1980 sample, at least as measured by this variable. In general) the gender relations reported by members of our two marriage cohorts are consistent with the broader social changes described earlier.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLES IN MARITAL QUALITY

Table 1 also shows reports of marital quality in the two marriage cohorts. Consistent with the notion of declines in marital quality (Glenn 1991; Rogers & Amato 1997), members of the more recent cohort reported significantly lower levels of marital interaction and significantly higher levels of marital conflict than did members of the earlier cohort. In addition, wives reported significantly less marital happiness and significantly more marital problems than did husbands. To further investigate cohort differences in marital quality, we compared the two groups after controlling for the demographic variables in Table 1. Table 2 shows the results of ordinary least-squares regression analyses with each of the marital-quality variables serving as a dependent variable. In addition to the control variables, the equations included lambda - the correction for attenuation. Column 1 reveals that the cohort difference in marital happiness was small and not significant, even after adjusting for the control variables. Marital interaction

744/ Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

TABLE 2: Marriage Cohort Differences in Five Dimensions of Marital Quality
Divorce Proneness

Predictors Marriage cohort (recent=1) Currentage Years married Years of education Female Nonwhite Remarriage Age firstmarried Lambda Constant R2

Happiness Interaction
.02 -.01 -.02 .01 -.16** -.16* -.04 .00 .11 .14 .03*** -.27*** -.01 -.03 .01 -.07 -.02 -.05 .01 .07 .19 .03***

Conflict
.20** .00 -.01 .01 .06 .08 -.01 -.02

Problems
.15* .00 .00 -.02

.1O t
.02 .01 .00 .11* .14 -.01 -.02 -.12 -.12 .02**

.10
.19* .22 -.01 -.24 .72** .02**

-.10
.24 .01*

Note: Coefficients are unstandardizedOLS regression coefficients. Allsignificance testsare twotailed.N = 1,431.

t P = .15

* P < .05

** P < .01

*** P < .001

(column 2), however,was significantlylower in the more recent cohort, and marital conflict (column 3) and reports of marital problems (column 4) were significantly higher. And although the coefficient for divorce proneness was not significant, it approached significance. Overall,the trends for interaction, conflict, problems, and divorce proneness were consistent in suggesting that marital quality was lower in the recent cohort than in the earlier cohort. Table 2 also shows that the lambda coefficient was not significant for any outcome, suggesting that variables that predicted staying in the sample were not associated with marital quality. Because the cohort differences were in the same direction for interaction, conflict, problems, and divorce proneness (but not for happiness), and because these four dimensions all reflected behavioral aspects of the marriage (as opposed to a subjective evaluation), we decided to combine these four variables into a more parsimonious outcome. We used the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) program (Arbuckle 1997) with maximum likelihood estimation to create a single latent variable. The measurement model for the latent variable, which we refer to as marital discord, is presented in Figure 1. For ease of interpretation, standardized coefficients are presented. Figure 1 indicates that the measurement model fit the data well, as reflected in the nonsignificant chi-square statistic and the high goodness-of-fit indices. We used a multigroup method to estimate the measurement model separately for individuals in the earlier and more recent marriage cohorts. In one model,

Gender Relations and Marital Quality / 745

FIGURE 1

Chi-square df= 2 p =.78 GFI = 1.00 AFGI = .99

=.50
-.39
Interaction

Conflict

Problems

Divorce proneness

paths between the observed indicators and the latent marital discord variable were constrained to be the same in both groups; in a second model, the paths were allowed to differ. The difference in chi-square values between the two models was not significant (1.75, df = 3, P > .1), indicating that the same measurement model was appropriate for members of both groups. We carried out a similar procedure for wives and husbands. Once again, the difference in chi-square values was not significant (1.46, df = 3, P > .1), suggesting that the model was appropriate for both genders. Table 3 reports the results of structural equation models dealing with marriage cohort differences in marital discord. To facilitate the interpretation of results, the latent discord variable was set to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. This procedure means that the coefficients in the table can be interpreted as effect sizes, or adjusted differences between groups expressed in standard deviation units. Because the pattern of missing data in the control variables appeared to be random, we used AMOS to provide full information, maximum-likelihood estimates in the presence of missing data (Arbuckle 1997). The amount of missing data was small for all variables, with the largest being 2% for income.

746/ Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

TABLE 3: Gender Relations and Cohort Differences in Marital Discord

Model 1 Cohortgroup (1 = recent) Wife's percent of income Work-family demands Nontraditional genderattitudes Husband'sshareof housework Division oflabor Unfairto husbands Unfair to wives Marital power Husbandhasmoreinfluence Wifehasmore influence
R2

Model 2 .18* .09

Model 3 .14+ .07*

Model 4 .18*

.18*

.14*

.02*

.02*

.03**

.03*

Modell shows the difference in discord with the two marriage groups equated on all demographic characteristics (that is, with all demographic controls in the equation). The difference between 1980 and 1997 was significant, with marital discord being .18 of a standard deviation higher in the more recently married group. Because AMOS does not calculate fit indices when missing data exist, we ran a comparable model using a listwise deletion of missing cases.The adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) index for model I, based on listwise deletion, was .97, indicating a very good fit to the data. Parameter estimates were very similar (and all significant effects were replicated) regardless of whether we included or excluded cases with some missing data. We also checked to see whether the increase in marital discord across marriage cohorts was stronger for wives or husbands (not shown). Although the difference was somewhat larger for wives than husbands, the interaction between gender and cohort was not significant (p> .1). The apparent increase in marital discord held for both genders. Although the group difference in discord was statistically significant, the R2 values for the equations were low. This finding might suggest that the group difference, although significant, was trivial. However, as Glenn and Shelton (1983) have pointed out, explained variance is not a good indicator of importance, especiallywhen working with skewed dichotomous predictors, such as our marriage cohort variable. A better indicator is the effect size, or the adjusted difference between groups expressed in standard deviation units. Table 3 reveals an effect size of .18. Glenn and Shelton (1983) argue that an effect size of one-tenth of a standard deviation is large enough to be considered nontrivial in survey research. By this criterion, this difference is large enough to be substantively important.

Gender Relations and Marital Quality /747 TABLE 3: Gender Relations and Cohort Differences in Marital Discord (Continued)
Model 5 Cohortgroup (1 = recent) Wife's percent of income Work-family demands Nontraditional genderattitudes Husband'sshareof housework Division of labor Unfairto husbands Unfair to wives Marital power Husbandhasmoreinfluence Wifehasmore influence
.23**

Model
6 .17*

Model 7
.18*

Model
8
.15* -.15 .05* .15** -.13 .73*** .76***

-.51 ** .76*** .80*** .30*** .46*** .03* .17*** .06***

.28*** .36*** .22***

Note: Thedependentvariable, maritaldiscord,isa latentvariable estimatedwithAMOS.Coefficientsare unstandardized maximum-likelihood estimates. Allmodelscontrolfor age, yearsmarried,education,gender,race,marriageorder, and ageat firstmarriage. Allsignificance testsare two-tailed. N = 1,431.
+ P

< .10

* P < .05

** P < .01

*** P

< .001

GENDER RELATIONS AND MARITAL DISCORD

In the next phase of our analyses, we investigated whether differences in gender relations could explain the differences in marital discord between the 1980 and 1997 samples. Beginning with model 2 in Table 3, we entered the explanatory variables into structural equation models (one at a time) to see how they affected the original association between the marriage cohort and marital discord. Paths between observed indicators and the latent variable were constrained to be the same in each analysis to ensure that the latent variable did not change across models. Model 2 indicates that the wife's proportion of income was positively but not significantly associated with discord (~ = .09). Furthermore, adding this variable to the model did not affect the cohort coefficient, which remained at ~ = .18. Consequently, we see no evidence that the change in the share of income earned by wives accounted for the cohort difference in marital discord. In model 3, higher scores on the index of work-family demands (based on the combination of wives' employment and preschool-age children) were associated with higher levels of marital discord. Each step on the five-point index increased marital discord by .07 of a standard deviation. Furthermore, the cohort coefficient dropped from .18 to .14 (model 1 versus model 3), indicating that work-family demands accounted for 22% of the cohort difference in marital discord. The

748/ Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

remaining cohort difference was no longer fully significant, although it continued to be marginally significant (t = 1.87, P < .07). Model 4 reveals that the measure of nontraditional gender-role attitudes was associated with greater marital discord. Each step on the four-point scale increased marital discord by about one-seventh of a standard deviation. Adding this variable to the equation, however, did not affect the cohort coefficient, indicating that increasing support for nontraditional gender roles did not explain the difference in marital discord between the two groups. The husband's proportion of housework (modelS) was negatively associated with discord. The coefficient suggests that the difference between doing none (.00) and about half (.50) of the housework was associated with a decline of about one-fourth of a standard deviation in marital discord. It is interesting that, because more recently married couples reported greater husband participation in housework, controlling for this variable increased the cohort gap in discord from .18 to .23. This finding suggests that if husbands had not increased their share of housework in recent years, the increase in marital discord across cohorts would have been even greater. Model 6 indicates that respondents who believed that the household division oflabor was unfair to husbands scored .76 of a standard deviation higher on the discord variable than did other respondents. Similarly, those who believed that the household division of labor was unfair to wives scored .80 of a standard deviation higher on the discord variable. The addition of these variables to the equation, however, had little effect on the difference between cohorts. Both indicators of marital power (husband has more influence and wife has more influence) in model 7 were associated with higher levels of marital discord. It appears that inequality favoring either partner was linked to lower marital quality. Recall, however, that the earlier cohort reported greater husband influence, whereas the more recent cohort group reported greater wife influence. Presumably, these two deviations from equality canceled one another, resulting in little change in the cohort coefficient between model 1 and model 7. Model 8 reveals that the full set of explanatory variables, considered simultaneously, accounted for 22% of the variance in marital discord. In this final model, work-family demands, nontraditional attitudes, perceptions of unfairness in the division of labor, and inequalities in power all were associated positively and significantly with marital discord. It is clear from previous models, however, that increased work-family demands was the only variable that helped to explain the higher levelof marital discord in the more recent marriage cohort. These results suggest that most of the changes in gender relations between the two samples did not contribute significantly to the higher level of discord experienced by the more recent marriage cohort.

Gender Relations and Marital Quality I 749

Discussion The goals of this study were to investigate changes in gender relations within marriage, changes in marital quality, and the relationship between these two domains. Our first question involved how gender relations in marriages have changed during the last two decades. We answered this question by comparing dimensions of marital quality in a relatively recent marriage cohort (married between 1981 and 1997 and assessed in 1997) and an earlier marriage cohort (married between 1964 and 1980 and assessed in 1980). In the more recent cohort, wives contributed a greater proportion of family income, wives faced greater work-family demands, husbands and wives held less traditional gender attitudes, husbands contributed a greater proportion of housework, and individuals reported less husband influence and greater wife influence. These differences are consistent with prior studies of gender and marriage (Coltrane 1996; Hochschild 1997; Pleck 1997). The only variable that did not change in the anticipated manner involved people's perceptions of unfairness in the household division of labor, which did not appear to increase between 1980 and 1997. This result is surprising, given the increasing level of scholarly interest in perceptions of fairness and its relation to marital quality (John, Shelton & Luschen 1995; Thompson 1991). Our next question dealt with how the two samples differed in marital quality. The two groups were approximately similar with respect to age and duration of marriage at the time of data collection, and we statistically held constant a variety of other demographic characteristics. Consequently, members of the earlier cohort and the more recent cohort were at the same stage of life and at similar points in their marriages. In spite of this comparability, however, members of the more recent cohort reported higher levels of marital discord, and this increase was apparent for husbands as well as wives. These findings are consistent with earlier analyses suggesting an erosion in the quality of contemporary marriages (Glenn 1991, 1998; Rogers & Amato 1997). It is interesting that the two groups did not differ in reports of marital happiness. This finding suggests that although marital discord appears to have increased, people's subjective evaluations of their marriages did not change. Our next question asked whether changes in gender relations in marriage can account for the increase in marital discord between cohorts. We found that marital discord was higher when wives had to deal with work-family demands, when spouses held nontraditional gender attitudes, when the household division oflabor was perceived to be unequal, when husbands did relatively little family work, and when marital power was unequal. (Wives' proportion of family income was not related to marital discord.) Nevertheless, even though gender relations were consistent predictors of marital quality, changes in gender relations, in general, did not account for the increase in marital discord during this period. Only increases in work-family demands based on wives' level of employment and the number

750 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

of preschool-age children in the household explained some of the gap in marital discord between our early and recent marriage cohorts. Unfortunately,we were unable to disentangle the specific work-family demands that may be affecting marriage. Time shortages are one source of work-family conflict, and previous research indicates that time shortages reported by married mothers affect marital quality by decreasing couples' time together (Kingston & Nock 1987),increasing wives'feelings of role overload and role conflict (Voydanoff 1988), and raising wives' awareness of inequity in the household division of labor (Booth et al. 1984). In addition, research emphasizes that the consequences of performing multiple roles are moderated not only by role demands but also by the capacities individuals bring to their roles (Wethington & Kessler 1989) and the subjective meanings that individuals attach to them (Simon 1995). It is important for future research to clarifywhich of these factors may be contributing to declines in marital quality. Some limitations to this research require comment. Our 1980 sample was reasonably representative of the larger national population of married couples in that year (ages 19-35). Our 1997 sample, however, was derived from parents in the 1980 sample, and a good deal of panel attrition occurred between 1980 and 1997. Consequently, we cannot guarantee that our 1997 marriage sample was representative of all married individuals (ages 19-35) in that year. Nevertheless, our more recent marriage cohort differed from the earlier marriage cohort in ways consistent with national trends. In particular, our more recent cohort was better educated (especially wives), married at later ages, reported a higher proportion of incomes from wives, experienced more work-family demands, held less traditional gender-role attitudes, claimed greater housework by husbands, reported less husband influence, and reported more wife influence - all differences that are consistent with findings in other studies. These considerations suggest that comparing the two samples was a reasonable research strategy. Nevertheless, our findings would be strengthened by analyses with two samples that are each representative of all married individuals in their cohorts. With respect to selection, the divorce rate increased substantially during the 1960sand 1970sand then stabilized.The typical person in the early cohort married in 1976, well into the period when divorce rates were rising. Consequently, the risk of divorce (especially early in marriage) probably was not much higher in the earlier cohort than in the more recent cohort (in which the typical person was married in 1991). For this reason, the effects of selection due to divorce in the present study probably are modest. However, to the extent that the more recent cohort experienced a higher rate of divorce than the earlier cohort, then we would expect people in the more recent cohort to report higher marital quality, as problematic marriages should have been terminated and removed from the pool of married individuals at a faster rate. This tendency would work against the trend reported here, that is, for recent marriages to report poorer marital quality

Gender Relations and Marital Quality I 751 than earliermarriages. Our analysis, therefore, may have slightly underestimated the increase in discord across cohorts. In conclusion, our findings provideevidence that genderrelations in marriage have changed in recent decades. They also provide support for the notion that maritalrelationships havechanged in recentyears - becomingmore problematic and difficult to maintain,yetstill relatively happyand highly valued. It is surprising that thesetwo trends have onlya limitedintersection. Relatively little of the increase in maritaldiscord can be explained by changes in gender relations within marriage, and only increases in work-family demands have contributed to the increases in discord across these two cohorts. This latter finding is particularly important, given the substantial number of marriages in which work and family roles are shared by the spouses. Nevertheless, the study presented here suggests that shifts in gender relationshave not undermined the qualityof contemporary marriages.

References
Amato, Paul R, and Alan Booth. 1995. "Changes in Gender Role Attitudes and Perceived Marital Quality." American Sociological Review 60:58-66. Arbuckle, James L. 1997. AMOS Users' Guide, Version 3.6. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation [producer and distributor] . Blumstein, Philip, and Pepper Schwartz. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. William Morrow. Booth, Alan, Paul R. Amato, David R. Johnson, and John N. Edwards. 1993. Marital Instability over the Life Course: Methodology Report for Fourth Wave. Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Booth, Alan, and David R. Johnson. 1985. "Tracking Respondents in a Telephone Interview Panel Selected by Random Digit Dialing." Sociological Methods and Research 14:53-64. Booth, Alan, David R. Johnson, Lynn K. White, and John N. Edwards. 1984. "Women, Outside Employment, and Marital Instability." American Journal of Sociology 90:567-83. Cherlin, Andrew. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Rev. ed. Harvard University Press. Coltrane, Scott. 1996. Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework and Gender Equity. Oxford University Press. Conger, Rand D., Glen H. Elder [r., Frederick 0. Lorenz, Katherine J. Conger, Ronald L. Simons, Les B. Whitbeck, Shirley S. Huck, and Janet N. Melby. 1990. "Linking Economic Hardship to Marital Quality and Instability." Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:643-56. Danziger, Sheldon, and Peter Gottschalk. 1995. America Unequal. Harvard University Press. Doherty, William J., Edward F. Kouneski, and Martha F. Erickson. 1998."Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework." Journal ofMarriage and theFamily 60:277-92. Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1994. "Time, Agency, and Social Change: Perspectives on the Life Course."

Social Psychology Quarterly 57:5-15.

Farley, Reynolds. 1996. The New American Reality. Russell Sage Foundation.

752 I Social Forces 79:2, December 2000

Glass, Jennifer, and Tetsushi Fujimoto. 1994. "Housework, PaidWork,and Depression among Husbands and Wives." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 35:179-91. Glenn, Norval D. 1991. "The RecentTrend in Marital Success in the United States." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:261-70.
---.1998. TheCourse of Marital Success and Failure in Five American lO-year Marriage

Cohorts." Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:569-76. Glenn,NorvalD.,and Beth-AnnShelton. 1983. Pre-Adult Background Variables and Divorce: A Note of Caution about Overreliance on Explained Variance." Journal of Marriage and the Family 45:405-10. Goode, William J. 1960. "A Theory of Role Strain." American Sociological Review 25:483-96. Greenstein, TheodoreN. 1996. Gender Ideology and Perceptions of the Fairness of the Division of Labor: Effects on Marital Quality." Social Forces 74:1029-42. Hawkins, Alan J., Christina M. Marshall, and KatherineM. Meiners. 1995. Exploring Wives' Sense of Fairness about Family Work: An InitialTest of the Distributive Justice Framework" Journal of Family Issues 16:693-721. Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error:' Econometrics 47:15361.

Hernandez, Donald. 1993. America's Children: Resources from Family, Government, and the Economy. Russell Sage Foundation. Hochschild, Arlie R. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. VikingPress.
- - - . 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work.

Metropolitan Books. Hood, Jane. 1983. Becoming a Two-Job Family. Praeger. John, Daphne, Beth-Ann Shelton, and Kristen Luschen. 1995. Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Perceptions of Fairness." Journal of Family Issues 16:357-79. Kingston, Paul W.,and Steven 1. Nock. 1987. TimeTogether among Dual-Earner Couples." American Sociological Review 52:391-400. Levy, Frank. 1995. Incomes and Income Inequality." Pp. 1-57 in State of the Nation. VoL 1, Economic Trends, edited by Reynolds Farley. Russell Sage Foundation. Mizan, Ainon N. 1994. Family Power Studies: Some Major Methodological Issues." International Journal of Sociology of the Family 24:85-91. Moen, Phyllis. 1992. Women's Two Roles: A Contemporary Dilemma. Auburn House. Nock, Steven. 1998. Marriage in Men's Lives. Oxford University Press. Oppenheimer, Valerie K. 1997. Women's Employment and the Gain to Marriage: The Specialization and TradingModeL" AnnualReview of Sociology 23:431-53. Pina, Darlene 1., and Vern 1. Bengtson. 1993. The Division of Household Labor and Wives' Happiness: Ideology, Employment, and Perceptions of Support."Journal ofMarriage and the Family 55:901-12. Pleck, Joseph. 1997. Paternal Involvement: Levels, Sources, and Consequences." Pp. 66-103 in The Role of the Father in Child Development, 3d ed., edited by MichaelE. Lamb. Wiley.

Gender Relations and Marital Quality I 753 Robinson, John P., and Geoffrey Godbey. 1997. Timefor Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time. Pennsylvania State University Press. Rogers, Stacy J., and Paul R. Amato. 1997. "Is Marital Quality Declining? Evidence from Two Generations." Social Forces 75:1089-1100. Ross, Catherine. 1995. "Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Attachment."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:129-40.

Scanzoni, John. 1972. Sexual Bargaining. Prentice-Hall. - - . 1978. SexRoles, Women's Work andMarital Conflict: A Studyof Family Change. Heath. Simon, Robin. 1995. "Gender, Multiple Roles, Role Meaning, and Mental Health." Journal of

Health and Social Behavior 36:182-94.

Spain, Daphne, and Suzanne M. Bianchi. 1996. Balancing Act. Russell Sage Foundation. Thompson, Linda. 1991. "Family Work: Women's Sense of Fairness." Journal of Family Issues 12:181-96. Thompson, Linda, and AlexisJ.Walker. 1989."Gender in Families:Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:845-71. Thornton, Arland. 1989. "Changing Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States."

Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:873-93.

Umberson, Debra, Meichu D. Chen, James S. House, Kristine Hopkins, and Ellen Slaten. 1996. "The Effect of Social Relationships on Psychological Well-Being: Are Men and Women Really So Different?" American Sociological Review 61:837-57. U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1998.Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, Table A-2. Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Race, Sex,Age, and Hispanic Origin. <http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab2.html> U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Households, Families, and Children: A Thirty Year Perspective. Current Population Reports, ser. P23, no. 181. U.S. Government Printing Office. - - - . 1998. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1998. 118th ed. U.S. Government Printing Office. Voydanoff, Patricia. 1988. "Work Role Characteristics, Family Structure Demands, and Work! Family Conflict." Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:749-61. - - - . 1990. "Economic Distress and Family Relations: A Review of the Eighties." Journal

of Marriage and the Family 52:1099-1115.

Wethington, Elaine, and Ronald C. Kessler. 1989. "Employment, Parental Responsibility, and Psychological Distress: A Longitudinal Study of Married Women." Journal ofFamily Issues 10:527-46. Zill, Nicholas, and Christine W. Nord. 1994. Running in Place: How American Families Are Faring in a Changing Economy and an Individualistic Society. Child Trends.