Content uploaded by Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka on Jul 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
health psychology report · volume 4(3), 6
theoretical article
Following gender prescriptions can aect individuals’
quality of life. Research has shown that the unequal dis-
tribution of household labor is correlated with low psy-
chological well-being and family conflict. Therefore, ne-
gotiations concerning household and family duties within
relationships appear to be an important health-related
issue. Additionally, research has shown that couples who
have more gender-egalitarian arrangements within their
households have beer health outcomes if the wider soci-
ety is more gender egalitarian.
In this literature review, we aim to shed light on the re-
lationship of the equal division of housework between
women and men with their health and well-being. We also
present selected results from the series of studies conduct-
ed during our PAR Migration Navigator project, which ex-
plores the practices of gender equality within households
and their relationship to individual well-being among Pol-
ish couples living in Poland, Polish migrant couples living
in Norway, and Norwegian couples living in Norway.
key words
gendered household duties; gender equality and health;
gender stereotypes and health
Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka
A,B,C,D,E,F,G
Lubomiła Korzeniewska
E,F
Marta Kaczorowska
E,F
Sharing housework can be healthy:
cultural and psychological factors inuencing
men’s involvement in household maintenance
– Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
’ – A: Study design · B: Data collection · C: Statistical analysis · D: Data interpretation ·
E: Manuscript preparation · F: Literature search · G: Funds collection
– Natasza Kosakowska-Berezecka, Ph.D., Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk,
4 Bażyńskiego Str., 80-309 Gdansk, Poland, e-mail: natasza.kosakowska@ug.edu.pl
e – Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Korzeniewska, L., &Kaczorowska, M. (2016). Sharing housework can
be healthy: cultural and psychological factors influencing men’s involvement in household maintenance. Health
Psychology Report, 4(3), 189–201. doi: 10.5114/hpr.2016.62232
21.06.2016 · 20.07.2016 · 30.08.2016 · 12.09.2016
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
190 health psychology report
As we approach anew century – and anew mil-
lennium – it’s the men who have to break through to
anew way of thinking about themselves and society.
Too bad women can’t do it for them, or go much further
without them.
Bey Friedan “Metamorphosis”
e Feminine Mystique (1997, p. XV)
Housework, gender roles,
and HealtH
Women’s increased participation in the labor market
has not resulted in the equal distribution of house-
hold chores between men and women (Öun, 2012;
Lammi-Taskula, 2008; Voicu, Voicu, & Strapcova,
2009). Although there is anoticeable convergence in
the amount of time spent by partners on household
chores, remaining inequalities in the paid-to-un-
paid work ratio consistently favor men, who devote
signicantly more time to professional work than
household maintenance (Bonke &Jensen, 2012). is
invisibility of men in domestic chores reects the
demands embedded within gender prescriptions for
men to pursue professional careers and for women
to focus more on house and family (Heilman, Wal-
len, Fuchs, &Tamkins, 2004; Rudman, Moss-Racusin,
Phelan, &Nauts, 2012; Wood &Eagly, 2012). Follow-
ing gender prescriptions, though, can aect indi-
viduals’ quality of life. Research has shown that the
unequal distribution of household labor is correlated
with low psychological well-being and family con-
icts. erefore, negotiations concerning household
and family duties within relationships appear to be
an important health-related issue (Kil &Neels, 2014;
Lammi-Taskula, 2008).
Although some theorists have associated gender
equality with men’s loss of status and power (e.g.,
by sharing housework and becoming more domes-
tic, men risk their professional careers) (cf. Rud-
man &Mescher, 2013), an analysis by Holter (2014)
demonstrated the opposite. He examined gender
equality variables and potential health eects using
adatabase with a sample from European countries
and the United States drawn from the Gender Gap
Index, Social Watch Gender Equality Index, United
States Gender Equality Index (USGEI), United States
Women’s Autonomy Index, gross domestic product
(GDP), and Gini index. Holter (2014) showed that
gender equality brings more positive eects for men
than expected and that men’s importance in gender
equality has been so far neglected in research lines.
e results indicate that living in a gender-equal
region of the world increases the chances of men’s
feeling happy and decreases the chances of being de-
pressed regardless of men’s income or class (Holter,
2014). Gender equality in the family has also been
strongly linked to: 1) greater relationship satisfaction
and well-being among both women and men (Holter,
Svare, &Egeland, 2009); 2) lower divorce rates and
higher sexual satisfaction, and 3) fewer men being
victims of violent deaths (the rate is lower in gen-
der-egalitarian countries) (Holter, 2014). e benets
of gender equality for men have also been reected in
other data showing that, with higher gender equal-
ity, the gender gap in life expectancy gets smaller
(cf. Scambor, Wojnicka, &Bergmann, 2013), and male
suicide decreases (Holter, 2014). Moreover, couples
who have more gender-egalitarian arrangements
within their households have beer health outcomes
if their larger society is more gender egalitarian
(Holter, 2014). is indicates that cultural factors
play a signicant role in the relationship between
gender equality levels and health-related benets for
both women and men.
As men’s role in country’s gender equality levels
has been so far overlooked (cf. Holter, 2014; Cro,
Schmader, &Block, 2015) the overall goal of this ar-
ticle is to present adetailed analysis of the cultural
and psychological factors related to men’s great-
er involvement in housework and the relationship
of these factors with men’s well-being and health
outcomes. We consider this line of research to be
highly important because the gender inequality
present in the labor market is still perpetuated be-
cause men do not stay at home and do not share
more household duties with women. Even when
in dual-career relationships, both genders follow
agender-congruent path. As aresult, women en-
ter the workforce not with equal power but with
more limiting family obligations than men (cf. Ko-
sakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a). Allowing men
to be involved in housework could be of crucial
importance in fostering gender equality because
women would have more opportunities to pursue
professional careers. is change could also lead
to higher quality of life and health-related bene-
ts for both partners (cf. Holter, 2014). However,
there exist certain barriers to men’s involvement in
household duties resulting from gender stereotypes
perpetuated by cultural norms.
So far, the majority of studies in this eld have
focused on men’s involvement in parenting (Astone
&Peters, 2014) or the general reasons for men’s un-
derrepresentation in communal roles (Cro et al.,
2015). In this paper, however, we focus on the issue
of housework and the factors which inuence the
unequal distribution of household duties between
women and men.
wHy do men restrain from
HouseHold duties?
e extent to which the division of labor between
women and men is perpetuated depends on the lev-
Sharing housework
can be healthy
191
volume 4(3), 6
el of gender equality in agiven country. Biosocial
construction theory (Wood & Eagly, 2010, 2012)
holds that, across societies, the division of labor
between women and men is maintained through
gender-role beliefs that justify and normalize the
division. ese beliefs concerning masculinity and
femininity follow xed and interrelated lines which
express gendered associations: agency–career–men
and communality–family–women (Wood & Ea-
gly, 2012). Research has shown that stereotypes of
women as communal and men as agentic are weak-
er in societies with higher levels of gender equali-
ty, where women and men are allowed to perform
similar roles in society (Glick &Fiske, 2001; Wood
&Eagly, 2012). However, if men live in an environ-
ment where family and career are assigned to men
and women respectively, then men tend to follow
a gender-congruent path. To meet the masculine
standards of agency, men must avoid feminine tasks
for several reasons: 1) economically, involvement in
the feminine, domestic world does not allow men
to full their duty to be the breadwinner of the
family; 2) interpersonally, acommunal man can be
seen negatively by others (backlash eect) (Rudman
et al., 2012); and consequently, 3) the high agency
standards set for men can make them sensitive to
threats to their masculinity (Bosson & Vandello,
2011; Caswell, Bosson, Vandello, & Sellers, 2014;
Cro et al., 2015; Kosakowska-Berezecka et al.,
2016a). Hence, if men perform feminine tasks (e.g.
household duties), they might be perceived as in-
suciently manly. Consequently, to preserve their
manhood, they refrain from entering the domes-
tic realm, follow gender stereotypical norms, and
perform unhealthy behaviors. is trend, in turn,
maintains the inequalities in the system and perpet-
uates the unequal gendered division of household
tasks. As a result, men do not benet from being
more involved in household maintenance. Asum-
mary of this model is presented in Figure 1.
Cultural norms and men’s
involvement in Housework
Overall, men’s share of household duties clear-
ly tends to increase with social policies targeted at
more gender-equal welfare regulations, especially in
countries where gender egalitarianism is considered
to be of value (Scambor et al., 2013; Holter, 1997).
us, male participation in household tasks is sensi-
tive to the cultural context (Fuwa, 2004; Geist, 2005;
Yodanis, 2010). In southern European countries, men
tend to avoid domestic tasks, whereas Nordic social
democracies and liberal, English-speaking countries
are more likely to breed gender-egalitarian husbands
who participate in stereotypically feminine domestic
tasks (cf. Tai &Treas, 2013).
Men’s eagerness to share household duties also
varies from country to country by how important
paid work is considered to be (Work Culture Index;
see ébaud, 2010). Men from countries which rank
high on the Work Culture Index undertake signi-
cantly fewer household chores than men from neutral
work cultures (ébaud, 2010; Hewi, Craig, &Bax-
ter, 2012). A cross-national analysis by évenon
Lower well-being
and health outcomes
for men
Asymmetry of status
and power between
women and men
Gendered associations:
agency–career–men vs.
communality–family–women
Men have to meet agency
standards and undertake risky
and unhealthy behaviour
Gender stereotypes
perpetuated by cultural norms
Status quo of gender relations
is maintained
Men fear backlash for gender
incongruent behaviour
and avoid household duties
Figure 1. Model path explaining men’s low involvement in household maintenance.
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
192 health psychology report
(2011) showed that support for the working parents
of young children (younger than age 3) (acase of
Nordic countries) encourages men’s involvement
in performing household duties (évenon, 2011).
ese results might be explained by certain psycho-
logical mechanisms which account for variations
within perceptions of what gender is.
If both sexes are present in the domestic and pro-
fessional areas of life in relatively equal proportions,
then their sex traits are perceived as similar. Never-
theless, even in countries where gender dierences
are decreasing within most masculine aributes,
a corresponding shi in feminine aributes is not
visible (Wood &Eagly, 2012). Although men spend
more time on housework and childcare, women still
dominate domestic work (Bianchi, Robinson, &Milk-
ie, 2006; Kan, O’Sullivan, &Gershuny, 2011). As other
research has indicated, “[w]omen invest fewer hours
in housework in countries that achieved greater
gender earning equality… and in more egalitarian
countries” (Strier &Lewin-Epstein, 2007, p. 247), but
that does not necessarily indicate that men devote
more time to household chores (Strier &Lewin-Ep-
stein, 2007). When we review the reasons why men
willingly engage in household chores, it appears that
husbands with less traditional gender-role aitudes
are more likely to do female-typical housework in
general (Baxter, 1992). Similarly, couples who have
amore egalitarian approach toward life and the divi-
sion of duties do indeed distribute them more equal-
ly. ey seem to see their household division of labor
as ateam project requiring team eorts (Kosakow-
ska-Berezecka, Żadkowska, Gajewska, Wroczyńska,
&Znaniecka, 2016b).
demand for men to fulfil
standards of agenCy
Especially in masculine, individualistic cultures, be-
ing aman imposes high demands to be agentic (Cud-
dy et al., 2015). is, in turn, prescribes that men
should aain high status in society by achieving suc-
cess in professional life (Prentice &Carranza, 2002;
Rudman et al., 2012). is almost universal model of
“the real man” is mostly associated with risk-taking,
toughness, rivalry, and emotional restraint (World
Health Organization [WHO], 2010; Moss-Racusin,
Phelan, & Rudman, 2010). e pressure on men to
full the social demands of emotional restraint and
power displays can be detrimental to their mental
and physical health (European Institute for Gender
Equality [EIGE], 2012). Social pressure and alack of
emotional support are documented factors contribut-
ing to mental illnesses in males (United Nations [UN],
2011; WHO, 2010). Men oen report trouble seeking
needed medical and psychological help because ac-
cording to the dominant masculinity model, asking
for help is asign of weakness and thus deprives men
of their true manhood (Vogel, Heimerdinger-Ed-
wards, Hammer, &Hubbard, 2011; Johnson, Olie,
Kelly, Galdas, &Ogrodniczuk, 2012). AWHO report
on gender equality (2010) underlined the necessity of
a transformation toward an egalitarian-partnership
model of the family, with both partners involved in
domestic work.
A study by Laurin, Kay, and Shepherd (2011)
showed that people tend to specially apply gender
stereotypes to themselves aer experiences which
remind them of gender inequalities. Hence, if the cul-
ture in which individuals live emphasizes gender dif-
ferences and gendered role division, both men tend
to describe themselves through the lenses of gen-
der stereotypes which follow societal expectations
for men to be agentic (Amanatullah &Morris, 2010;
Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). Manhood needs to con-
stantly demonstrated (Bosson &Vandello, 2011; Van-
dello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, &Weaver, 2008), so
failing to live up to masculine agentic prescriptions
by equally sharing housework threatens men’s mas-
culinity. To help within the household, men might
have to seek work–life balance arrangements at
work, but this could lead to negative consequences
for their manhood. Consequently, men fear not be-
ing perceived as suciently manly and refrain from
performing female-typed activities. Avoiding house-
work can be one of the ways in which males com-
pensate for threats to their masculinity and main-
tain their high standards of self-perceived agency
(Bosson &Vandello, 2011; Caswell et al., 2014; Kosa-
kowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a).
In one of our studies, we showed that agency has
avery important role in men’s self-description and
constitutes certain psychological barriers to their
involvement in domestic roles. reatening men’s
status (in our studies, we provided 76 male students
with feedback about their testosterone level) leads
men who think they are not manly enough (low tes-
tosterone levels) to express more traditional views
of gender relations and parental roles than men
who think that they have high levels of testosterone
(study 1, Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a). It thus
is clear that changing the dynamics of men’s role de-
pends on changing the notions of manhood and the
expectations for their agency (United Nations [UN],
2012). Men’s self-stereotyping regarding their agen-
cy mediates the relationship between feeling athreat
to their manhood and being willing to do housework
(cf. Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a; Vandello
&Bosson, 2013).
Our ndings accord with research on self-stigma
conducted by Vogel et al. (2011). Self-stigma is an
important cause which discourages men from seek-
ing professional aid when it is needed. Seeking help
is socially perceived as apresentation of weakness
which is not congruent with the agentic masculinity
Sharing housework
can be healthy
193
volume 4(3), 6
model. Self-stigma can be described as the feeling
of inferiority and weakness resulting from inter-
nalized, negative social views of illness and men
who seek help (Vogel et al., 2011). Another study on
asample of males indicated that pressure to full
ideal of the real man contributes to mental illnesses,
especially depression (Johnson et al., 2012). Addi-
tionally, Vogel et al. (2011) found that adherence to
hegemonic masculine gender roles was correlated
with more negative aitudes toward seeking psy-
chological help and with generally lower willing-
ness to seek aid. erefore, self-judgments comprise
an important topic for scholars and practitioners
working with egalitarianism and men’s health. Es-
pecially if gender incongruent behavior is seen neg-
atively within men’s larger society.
BaCklasH and HouseHold duties
e division of domestic duties depicts cultural un-
derstandings of masculinity and femininity that
are built on gender prescriptions and proscriptions
which limit women and men to performing gen-
der-congruent activities (Heilman et al., 2004; Rud-
man et al., 2012). Hence, if men do get more involved
in domestic work, they might be socially punished for
breaking the rules of gender norms (backlash eects)
(Rudman et al., 2012). Stay-at-home fathers devoted
to their family suer backlash in the form of social
penalties for performing counter-stereotypical male
roles (Rudman &Fairchild, 2004; Rudman &Mescher,
2013). Vandello, Heinger, Bosson, and Siddiqi (2013)
have also shown that men seeking work–life balance
might be especially stigmatized in the eyes of others
who see them as less masculine, more feminine, and
probably less happy. In astudy with Polish students
using vignees describing spouses (either male or
female) who were nancially dependent or indepen-
dent of the other spouse, Roszak, Pałucka, and Ryka-
czewska (2012) showed that men who are nancial-
ly independent are perceived as more satised with
their life than men who are nancially dependent on
their wives. No such dierence was observed in com-
parisons of nancially dependent and independent
women (Roszak et al., 2012). If staying at home and
doing housework deprives men of nancial indepen-
dence, it might lead to their unhappiness.
Economic factors and social punishments prevent
men from being more involved in housework, and as
aresult, men doing housework might be perceived as
counter-stereotypical and of lower status (Rudman
&Phelan, 2010; Cro et al., 2015). According to the
status incongruity hypothesis, it is the violation of
status – rather than the violation of aspecic gender
role – that is most likely to result in backlash against
the transgressor (e.g., Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Rud-
man et al., 2012). Men focused on domestic duties
rather than their professional career might thus be
considered violators of the existing societal hierar-
chy (Eagly, Wood, &Diekman, 2000; Moss-Racusin
et al., 2010).
Other research has also shown that men who are
viewed as almost exclusively family oriented might
be perceived as having relatively low competence
and agency, as shown by our results obtained in Po-
land (Kosakowska-Berezecka & Karasiewicz, 2014).
e loss of perceived agency and competence can be
also astrong deterrent to western men, preventing
them from being more involved at home (Vandello
&Bosson, 2013). Also requesting family leave to be
more involved with the family can be detrimental
for men’s masculinity and productivity as employ-
ees (Brines, 1994; Vandello et al., 2013; Rudman
&Mescher, 2013) and thus threaten their manhood.
Hence, doing housework deprives men of their mas-
culinity, competence, agency, high status, productiv-
ity and happiness in the eyes of others – who would
like that?
wHy is it easier for men
to avoid HouseHold duties
tHan for women?
Professional careers and employment status seem to
be good indicators of which partner takes up more
household duties. e results of studies have shown
that the partner who has more time aer work engag-
es the most at home (cf. Shelton &John, 1996). An-
other inuential factor is the dierence in partners’
earnings. Brines (1994) has shown that the partner
with fewer economic resources (usually the woman)
has lile power or opportunity to negotiate who does
household chores (Brines, 1994). As the gender pay
gap shows, women who earn less thus are more in-
volved in household duties (Öun, 2013). However, in
countries which introduce dual-earner policies, wom-
en and men are expected to re-evaluate their views on
household duties distribution (Öun, 2013).
Furthermore, fathers’ type of employment inu-
ences the amount of time they spend with their chil-
dren. Fathers employed part time or not employed
spend more time with their children than those em-
ployed full time. However, working mothers spend
more time with their children than working fathers.
Additionally, when employment is increased by
1 hour more per week, it results in approximately 2.5
fewer hours spent with children (for both men and
women) (Baxter, 2009). Wight, Raley, and Bianchi
(2008) have also shown that fathers with an evening
and night schedule spend signicantly more time
with their children than those employed on the day
shi (Wight et al., 2008). us, untypical employ-
ment might give men more opportunities to engage
in household chores.
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
194 health psychology report
e division of domestic duties is the result of
household bargaining, so married people with high-
er income and education use these advantages to
increase their partner’s share of housework while
minimizing their own (Coltrane 2000; Fuwa 2004;
Sanchez &omson, 1997). Nevertheless, men who
earn less than their female partners do not contribute
more housework hours than men who earn the same
or more than their female partners (ébaud, 2010).
In auniversal paern, ahusband working 40 hours
a week is 55% more likely to avoid feminine tasks
than aman with no job. is gap between the male
and female shares of household chores is especial-
ly noticeable when tasks are grouped in male-typed
(agentic) and female-typed housework (Schneider,
2012). Treas and Tai (2010), who gathered data in
34 countries, described an almost universal division
of chores into male-typed (yardwork, small repairs)
and female-typed (laundry, meal preparation, clean-
ing, sick care, grocery shopping) chose. Another
cross-cultural study by Treas and Tai (2010) showed
that, in all cultures, men tend to avoid certain
tasks, such as laundry, meal preparation, cleaning,
sick care, and grocery shopping, which are seen as
time-consuming and monotonous. In contrast, male-
type tasks, such as home maintenance, car repair,
and yard work, are seen as more recreational and
episodic (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, &Robinson, 2000).
However, women’s role in maintaining the gender
gap within hours spent on housework also should
not be overlooked.
Astudy by Holter et al. (2009) showed that, among
cohabitating couples in Norway, tidiness standards
are among the possible reasons for the unequal dis-
tribution of household duties among partners. More
women than men agreed with the statement that
they oen think the home is too untidy, while only
half as many men agreed (Holter et al., 2009). Women
would even rather wash clothes themselves so that
they know it is done properly (58% of women think
so in contrast to only 8% of men) (Holter et al., 2009).
Hence, the standards for cleanliness in the house are
maintained by mostly women; 60% of both men and
women agree that it is the female partner who de-
cides what is clean enough in the house. Holter et al.
(2009) claimed that, as women adopt dierent tidi-
ness standards than men, they view their contribu-
tions as lower and less valuable than men’s declared
contributions.
As women are already positioned as experts in
household duties who know best in these maers,
they tend to put their partners in the role of student
(Żadkowska, 2011). Women oen dictate to men
what, when, and how they should do chores around
the house, depriving them of responsibility for do-
mestic duties (Sikorska, 2009). As aresult, men’s en-
try into domestic work can be also limited by female
gatekeeping, or women exerting control over house-
hold duties (Allen &Hawkins, 1999; Connell, 2005).
us, men do not engage fully in domestic duties be-
cause for women, it might mean losing their bastion
of power (Titkow, Duch-Krzystoszek, &Budrowska,
2004; Żadkowska, 2011).
Another factor which might inuence men’s in-
volvement in the household is women’s general per-
ception of the fairness in duties division. If they con-
sider the distribution of the duties to be fair, they do
not encourage their partners to take part in them. Al-
though this factor varies between countries, ageneral
perception of equity is more common among women
than the perception of inequality. Astudy conduct-
ed in 25 countries showed that, on average, 44.60%
of women nd the division of household duties to
be fair to themselves (Braun, Lewin-Epstein, Stier,
& Baumgärtner, 2008). Conducting a cross-country
comparison, Braun et al. (2008) reported that, “[i]n
countries with ahigh gender-wage ratio, that is, where
the advantage of men against women with regard to
wages is less pronounced, the eect of an increasingly
unequal division of labor in reducing the perception
of equity is stronger” (p. 1153). Furthermore, women
generally have more positive aitudes toward un-
dertaking household duties and associate them with
greater enjoyment, higher standards, and feelings of
responsibility (Poortman &van der Lippe, 2009).
Women’s higher standards of cleanliness, gate-
keeping function, and unawareness of the unfairness
of the division of labor might inuence men’s unwill-
ingness to engage in those activities. Women should
appear to be clever, encouraging, reinforcing moti-
vators of men’s gender-equal participation in house-
hold maintenance. If women do not, it might backre
on them as they do not accomplish the equal division
of household duties.
wHy is it wortHwHile
for aman to shift from
gender stereotypes?
One area of men’s involvement in domestic work
is parenting-related duties. Since the late twentieth
century, fatherhood and the father’s active role in
the family have become important maers of social
concern in European and North American culture
(Astone &Peters, 2014). e evolving new man is
an aware, involved parent (Duyvendak &Stavenu-
iter, 2004) interested in reconciling work and family
life (Vandello et al., 2013). One manifestation of the
changing concept of fatherhood is the increasing
number of men who are both fathers and employ-
ees and wish to take parental leave (Lammi-Tasku-
la, 2008).
So far, scientic ndings have pointed to the ben-
ecial outcomes of fathers’ involvement in the up-
bringing of children for childcare in general (Astone
Sharing housework
can be healthy
195
volume 4(3), 6
& Peters, 2014) but also for men’s health. Speci-
cally, parenthood has been found to be amoderat-
ing factor which signicantly lowers blood pressure
among men (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, &Layton, 2010).
Moreover, fatherhood resulted in mental and social
benets documented in studies on a group of par-
ents (McKeering &Pakenham, 2000; Lammi-Taskula,
2008; Wiesmann, Boeije, van Doorne-Huiskes, &den
Dulk, 2008; O’Neill, McCaughan, Semple, & Ryan,
2013). McKeering and Pakenham (2000) found that
parental generativity resulted in societal generativ-
ity. In Nordic countries, parental duties are consid-
ered to be opportunities to develop one’s profession-
al, personal, and family life (Lammi-Taskula, 2008).
At the same time, limitations to the positive link
between the egalitarian family care model and men’s
increased well-being should be considered. Father-
hood can be advantageous to a man’s health, but
health is also controlled by other factors, such as the
stress associated with supporting afamily. For exam-
ple, the UN (2011) reported that men’s risk of heart
disease increased by 12% in relation to family size (in
cases with more than 2 children). Engelman, Agree,
Yount, and Bishai (2010) identied culture-specif-
ic issues which play important moderating roles in
health benets; for example, in Egypt, where the sex
preference for male children is high, fatherhood of
daughters was linked to poorer health. Moreover, the
complexity within variables should be taken into con-
sideration. For example, married fathers are general-
ly healthier and wealthier than non-married fathers,
but it has not been investigated whether becoming
amarried father is the factor inuencing the positive
outcome or whether the positive eect is simply due
to the advantageous circumstances of men who be-
come married fathers (Astone &Peters, 2014).
As well, being on parental leave can oer asignif-
icant break from work and thus positively inuence
the father’s mental health due to the self-perceived
responsibility for family and fullment of the social
pressure to take care of one’s family. Men oen con-
sider their work to be burdensome, so parental leave
oers the opportunity to avoid professional chores
and work-related stress (Humberd, Ladge, & Har-
rington, 2015). Involved fathers have stronger social
bonds with their children, partners, extended family,
and in-laws (Astone &Peters, 2014). Moreover, Egge-
been, Knoester, and McDaniel (2012) suggested that
fathers tend to refrain from risky behaviors which
are stereotypically male (e.g. displays of power, sex-
ual conquest behaviors). In general, fathers appear to
be healthier and to have longer life expectancy than
other men (Astone &Peters, 2014). ese observed
changes in the concept of manhood seem to be slow-
ly changing the dominant masculinity model and
thus could result in improved male health, asmaller
gender gap in mental illnesses, and longer life of ex-
pectancy for men (EIGE, 2012).
According to Bekkengen (2002), the new father-
hood encompasses of fathers’ engagement in the
practical, everyday care of children to the same
extent as mothers. However, Bekkengen (2002)
also posited that greater involvement as fathers is
not necessarily followed by more involvement in
other domestic tasks, such as housework, another
crucial element in fostering gender equality with-
in households. On the other hand, paid paternity
leave is considered to be afast track to more male
involvement in care (Kotsadam &Finseraas, 2011).
Paid parental leaves helps men to be more involved
in household duties; for example, fathers on paid
parental leave are more involved in childcare and
more willingly participate in household duties (Re-
ich, Boll, &Leppin, 2012). Various studies have also
shown that longer leave fosters greater involvement
in childcare; hence, the longer men’s parental leave
is, the more visible their participation in childcare
is, the more willing they are to take care of children
alone (without the assistance of mothers), and the
more satisfaction they derive from time spent with
their children (Haas &Hwang, 2008). Fuwa and Co-
hen (2007) have also shown that the longer leave is,
the more equal the division of housework between
partners is.
Involvement in household duties is also associ-
ated with health benets for partners. Men’s more
active role in household chores has desired results
for women’s health because it decreases the time
that women spend on household maintenance and
family care. Such apositive change might, in turn,
be related to women’s relationship satisfaction
(UN, 2011). Even aminor contribution to the work
around the house provided by aman is perceived
by his female partner as asign of respect and care
and can increase her relationship satisfaction (Gag-
er, 1998; Tai &Treas, 2013). Women who claim that
their husbands are not involved enough in house-
hold duties are less satised (Frisco & Williams,
2003; Stevens, Kiger, &Riley, 2001; Wilkie, Ferree,
&Ratcli, 1998), more depressed (Bird, 1999), and
more likely to resort to divorce (Frisco &Williams,
2003) than women whose partners share house-
hold tasks. It is important to highlight that the hus-
band’s mere demonstration of the willingness to do
feminine tasks rather than how much he actually
does inuences women’s perception of relationship
quality (ompson, 1991; Spitze &Loscocco, 2000;
Ruppanner, 2008). is nding indicates that even
declared equality within household division might
not be manifested in the actual division of tasks
(Giddens, 1992; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2004).
e standards of what is considered to be the equal
division of housework varies across countries de-
pending on the level of gender equality present in
agiven context.
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
196 health psychology report
CHanging Cultures, CHanging
gender roles, and signs of
soCial CHange
Both European Union reports and asubstantial body
of research and literature indicate that men’s great-
er involvement in domestic and childcare benets
women’s career development and has positive eects
on men’s health and on children’s social, emotional,
and cognitive functioning (cf. Bartle, 2004; Eurostat,
2013; Engle, Beardshaw, &Loin, 2006; Richter, 2006).
As changing cultural contexts can make perceptions
of gender roles more neutral (Oyserman, 2011) com-
pare household maintenance paerns among men
who migrate from less-gender egalitarian to more
gender-egalitarian country might shed light on the
factors fostering the transformation toward an egal-
itarian-partnership model of the family, with both
partners involved in domestic work.
In our PAR Migration Navigator project during
the period between 2013-2016 we explored the prac-
tices of gender equality related to individual well-be-
ing within the households of Polish couples living in
Poland, Polish migrant couples living in Norway, and
Norwegian couples living in Norway. In this way, we
compared couples living in two countries with visi-
bly dierent gender-equality levels. Additionally, we
compared Polish couples living in these two coun-
tries, which allowed us to compare the practices of
couples who have similar cultural backgrounds but
live in social systems with dierent approaches to
gender equality (Żadkowska, Kosakowska-Bereze-
cka, &Ryndyk, 2016).
Poland is a country less gender egalitarian than
Norway. In Poland, there is avisible, stereotypical
division of domestic duties (Chrzan-Dętkoś, Ko-
sakowska-Berezecka, & Pawlicka, 2011; Gwizdała,
2013; Szczepańska, 2006) as Polish men tend to take
asecondary role in childcare and domestic duties (cf.
Kosakowska-Berezecka, Pawlicka, & Kalinowska-
Żeleźnik, 2012; Mikołajczak & Pietrzak, 2015; Żad-
kowska, 2011). Polish women spend on as average
of 296 minutes daily on housework and caring for
family members, but men an average of 157 minutes
daily (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), Beer Life Index, 2014). Nor-
wegian men contribute more to housework and relat-
ed chores (OECD) (Beer Life Index, 2014). Norwe-
gian men spend 180 minutes aday doing housework
(their female partners still spend 210 minutes) and
thus have one of the highest scores for time spent
on housework among the 34 countries analyzed in
the report.
In one of our studies we conducted in-depth in-
terviews with asample of highly educated, dual-in-
come Polish migrant couples including: 19 hetero-
sexual couples, mixed couples in region of Rogaland,
Norway (3 couples, Polish women and Norwegian
men), Polish citizens living in the Pomerania region
(21 couples), mixed couples in Pomerania (4 couples,
Polish women and Norwegian men) and Norwegians
living in the same region as Polish migrants (3 cou-
ples). All interviewees cohabitated, and not all were
married. eir ages ranged from 22 to 53, and the av-
erage age was 31. e interviewed families had 1, 2 or
3 children. e rst round of data collection (100 in-
dividual interviews and 100 joint interviews) showed
that Polish migrant men desired adual-career model
in their marriages. In contrast, acomparable sample
of fathers in Poland did not approve of gender-egal-
itarian practices within their relationships. Polish
men in Norway also declared that their family life
improved greatly aer migration from Poland to
Norway. eir greater involvement in household du-
ties and childcare in Norway were supported by their
working environment and social system (Żadkowska
et al., 2016) because achieving gender equality within
households is considered to be anorm in Norwegian
society and men who are involved in housework are
not seen as gender-norm violators. is result was
also conrmed in an experimental study conducted
among Norwegian and Polish students (Kosakow-
ska-Berezecka, Safdar, Jurek, &Bhardwaj, 2016d) in
which they were asked to rate men in communal
roles. We showed that men who were exclusively oc-
cupied in household maintenance and child care did
not lose status in the eyes of others and are socially
accepted – but only among Norwegian students (Ko-
sakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016d). us, Polish fa-
thers who migrated with their families to Norway
enjoyed beer opportunities to be more engaged in
fatherhood and household duties. is behavior was
considered to be less gender incongruent in Norway
and did not lead to the backlash eect.
Additionally, family policies in Norway sup-
port such behaviors. Fathers in Norway are oered
1 month of non-transferable, paid leave out of atotal
of 11 months’ parental leave, and the father’s pay
during leave is based on his previous income, not
the mother’s. As aresult, in 2014, 89% of fathers in
Norway used parental leave (International Labour
Standards [ILO], 2014). Polish men in Norway per-
form more household duties than Norwegian men
in Norway (Kosakowska-Berezecka, Jurek, Besta,
Korzeniowska, & Seibt, 2016e). As well, compared
to Polish men in Poland, Polish men in Norway
give less gendered descriptions of domestic tasks,
are more willing to be involved fathers, and seem
to follow agender-egalitarian division of household
duties (Żadkowska et al., 2016). is cooperative
approach to household duties is fostered by aribu-
tion of a less-gendered meaning to domestic labor
in Norway and changes in views on gender identity.
Polish men in Norway seem to have an increased
sense of masculinity as they earn more in Norway
Sharing housework
can be healthy
197
volume 4(3), 6
and, similarly to Norwegians, tend to view domestic
duties in amore gender neutral way (cf. Kosakow-
ska-Berezecka et al., 2016e). Consequently, Polish
men living in Norway tend to do more at home (Żad-
kowska et al., 2016).
ese ndings show that gender roles are not built
on xed, universal norms that impose demands on
men and women from agiven society but are aexi-
ble set of activities, created through interactions and
shaped by the given cultural context. us, when
men see that men and women can perform similar
tasks they might perceive housework as less femi-
nine. As a result, they potentially see engaging in
these activities as alesser threat to their masculinity.
is was conrmed in our another study where our
participants read ashort scientic text either empha-
sizing stereotypical gender dierences or showing
evidence that there are no such dierences. Results
indicated that in the “no dierences” condition, men
showed lower acceptance of gender inequality and
agreater willingness to engage in domestic activities
(Study 3, Kosakowska-Berezecka et al., 2016a).
Hence, more gender-neutral perceptions of the
world might lead to more gende-netural perception
of domestic work might and this might be an import-
ant factor in encouraging more men to cleaning the
at and be more involved in household maintenance.
And have benecial eects for men’s health.
ConCluding remarks
Policies specically directed at men are necessary
initiatives to foster gender equality and health eq-
uity among women and men. Individual men have
important roles to advocate and stand for women’s
rights because doing so promote gender equality as
an advantageous model both for women and men
(WHO, 2010).
Another important need is to teach couples how
to negotiate the division of household duties. e
unequal distribution of household labor is correlated
with low psychological well-being and family con-
ict, making negotiations concerning household and
family duties an important health-related issue (Kil
& Neels, 2014; Lammi-Taskula, 2008). Oen, these
negotiations concerning the demands of working
and raising a family can be overwhelmed by gen-
dered assumptions about who is expected to perform
acertain task, who sets the standards of cleanliness,
and who evaluates what in the house (Klein, Izquier-
do, &Bradbury, 2007). Research results concerning
communication between couples when deciding the
division of domestic work show that the transition to
parenthood is acritical moment in the development
of unequal time spent on household maintenance;
therefore, such negotiations should take place as
quickly as possible (Katz-Wise, Priess, &Hyde, 2010).
However, more research is needed in this area (Katz-
Wise et al., 2010).
Another important implication for future policies
is the need to put more emphasis on men. Although
the majority of gender-equality eorts are aimed
at women, our literature review and the results of
our studies show that men’s lack of involvement
in household duties might suppress further steps
to accomplishing gender equality in the family and
society. Holter’s (2014) “emerging culture of gender
equality” (p. 541) could lead to the improvement
of both men’s and women’s health and well-being.
Highlighting men’s benets from gender egalitarian-
ism and the gender-equality progress achieved due to
men’s involvement is thus of crucial importance and
should be an important area for scholars and practi-
tioners working with men’s health.
Educational programs should also teach the abili-
ty to avoid gender stereotypes when sharing house-
hold duties. An example of such an education pro-
gram can be found in the PAR Migration Navigator
manuals for couples and for trainers who work with
couples in workshops (Kosakowska-Berezecka et al.,
2016b; Kosakowska-Berezecka, Żadkowska, Ga-
jewska, Wroczyńska, &Znaniecka, 2016c). In these
publications, we present aset of chapters dedicated
to dierent areas of skills useful in eective negoti-
ations concerning household duties division (stress
management, conict resolution and communication
skills, gender stereotypes and dierent family models
inuencing division of housework, intimacy and hap-
piness in couples’ life). Participation in aworkshop
based on this method might lead couples to negotiate
who does what at home instead of following implicit
assumptions about housework (Kosakowska-Bereze-
cka et al., 2016c). en seeing aman cleaning aat
on with acomparable frequency as women are seen
might not be so unexpected. First, though, both men
and women need to see the benets of men’s involve-
ment in household maintenance.
e research leading to these results has received
funding from the Polish-Norwegian Research Pro-
gramme operated by the National Centre for Research
and Development under the Norwegian Financial
Mechanism, 2009–2014 in the frame of Project Contract
Pol-Nor/202343/62/2013.
References
Allen, S. M., &Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gate-
keeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that in-
hibit greater father involvement in family work.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199–212.
Amanatullah, E. T., &Morris, M. W. (2010). Negoti-
ating gender roles: gender dierences in asser-
tive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
198 health psychology report
of backlash and aenuated when negotiating on
behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 256–267.
Astone, N. M., &Peters, H. E. (2014). Longitudinal in-
fluences on men’s lives: research from the transi-
tion to fatherhood project and beyond. Fathering,
12, 161–173.
Bartle, E. (2004). The eects of fatherhood on the
health of men: areview of the literature. Journal
of Men’s Health and Gender, 1, 159–169.
Baxter, J. (1992). Power aitudes and time: The do-
mestic division of labour. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 23, 165–182.
Baxter, J. (2009). Parental time with children. Do job
characteristics make a dierence? Australian In-
stitute of Family Studies. Retrieved from: hps://
aifs.gov.au/publications/parental-time-chil-
dren-do-job-characteristics-make-d/summary
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2004). Families
in a runaway world. In S. Jacqueline, J. Treas,
&M. Richards (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to
the Sociology of Families (pp. 498–514). Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Bekkengen, L. (2002). Man far valja: Om foraldras-
kap och faraldraledighet iarbetsliv och familjeliv
[Men can choose – about parenthood and paren-
tal leave in working life and family life]. Stock-
holm: Liber.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., &Robin-
son, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the housework?
Trends in the gender division of household labor.
Social Forces, 79, 191–228.
Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., &Milkie, M. (2006).
Changing rhythms of American family life. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bird, C. E. (1999). Gender, household labor, and psy-
chological distress the impact of the amount and
division of housework. Journal of Health and So-
cial Behavior, 40, 32–45.
Bonke, J., &Jensen, B. (2012). Paid and unpaid work
in Denmark – Towards gender equity. Internation-
al Journal of Time Use Research, 9, 108–119.
Bosson, J. K., &Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious man-
hood and its links to action and aggression. Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 82–86.
Braun, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H., &Baumgärt-
ner, M. K. (2008). Perceived equity in the gendered
division of household labor. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 70, 1145–1156.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and
the division of labor at home. American Journal of
Sociology, 100, 652–688.
Caswell, T. A., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., &Sell-
ers, J. G. (2014). Testosterone and men’s stress
responses to gender threats. Psychology of Men
&Masculinity, 15, 4–11.
Chrzan-Detkos, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N.,
& Pawlicka, P. (2011). Women, men and second
shi-psychological determinants of work-life bal-
ance. Polish Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 123–140.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor:
modelling and measuring the social embedded-
ness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 1208–1233.
Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeep-
ers: men, masculinities, and gender equality in
the global arena. Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 30, 1801–1825.
Cro, A., Schmader, T., &Block, K. (2015). An under-
examined inequality: Cultural and psychological
barriers to men’s engagement with communal
roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19,
343–370.
Cuddy, A., Wolf, E., Glick, P., Croy, S., Chong, J.,
&Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as cultural ideals: cul-
tural values moderate gender stereotype content.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109,
622–635.
Duyvendak, J. W., & Stavenuiter, M. (2004). Work-
ing fathers, caring men. reconciliation of working
life and family life. Retrieved from: hp://www.
policy.hu/takacs/courses/matters/Working-Fa-
thers-2004-7-31.pdf
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., &Diekman, A. B. (2000). So-
cial role theory of sex dierences and similarities:
Acurrent appraisal. In T. Eckes &H. M. Trautner
(eds.), The developmental social psychology of gen-
der (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eggebeen, D., Knoester, C., &McDaniel, B. (2012). The
implications of fatherhood for men. In N. Cabrera
&C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (eds.), Handbook of father
involvement: multidisciplinary perspectives (2nd ed.)
(pp. 338–357). New York, NY: Rutledge.
Engelman, M., Agree, E. M., Yount, K. M., &Bishai, D.
(2010). Parity and parents’ health in later life: The
gendered case of Ismailia, Egypt. Population Stud-
ies, 64, 165–178.
Engle, P., Beardshaw, T., & Loin, C. (2006). The
child’s right to shared parenting. In L. Richter
&R. Morrell (eds.), Baba: Men and fatherhood in
South Africa (pp. 293–305). Cape Town: HSRC
Press.
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)
(2012). The Involvement of Men in Gender Equali-
ty Initiatives in the European Union. Luxembourg:
Publications Oice of the European Union.
Eurostat. (2013). Sustainable development in the Eu-
ropean Union. Statistical Books, 76–90.
Frisco, M. L., & Williams, K. L. (2003). Perceived
housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce
in duel-earner households. Journal of Family Is-
sues, 24, 51–73.
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and
the division of household labor in 22 countries.
American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.
Sharing housework
can be healthy
199
volume 4(3), 6
Fuwa, M., &Cohen, P. N. (2007). Housework and So-
cial Policy. Social Science Research, 36, 512–530.
Gager, C. (1998). The role of valued outcomes, justifi-
cations, and comparison referents in perceptions
of fairness among dual-career couples. Journal of
Family Issues, 19, 622–648.
Geist, C. (2005). The welfare state and the home: re-
gime dierences in the domestic division of labor.
European Sociological Review, 21, 23–41.
Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy:
Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glick, P., &Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance:
Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary
justifications for gender inequality. American Psy-
chologist, 56, 109–118.
Gwizdała, M. (2013). Gender equality? Publish Opin-
ion Research Center. Retrieved from: hp://www.
cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2006/K_184_06.PDF (20th
July 2014).
Haas, L., &Hwang, C. P. (2008) The impact of taking
parental leave on fathers’ participation in child-
care and relationships with children: lessons from
Sweden. Community, Work &Family, 11, 85–104.
doi: 10.1080/13668800701785346
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tam-
kings, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gen-
der-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
416–427.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., &Layton, J. B. (2010).
Social relationships and mortality risk: ameta-an-
alytic review. PLoS Med, 7, e1000316. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000316
Holter, Ø. G. (1997). Gender, Patriarchy and Capital-
ism – ASocial Forms Analysis. Oslo: University of
Oslo.
Holter, Ø. G. (2014). What’s in it for men? Old ques-
tion, new data. Men and Masculinities, 17, 515–548.
doi: 10.1177/1097184X14558237
Holter, Ø. G., Svare, H., &Egeland, C. (2009). Gender
Equality and ality of Life – A Norwegian Per-
spective. Oslo: NIKK (Nordic Gender Institute).
Humberd, B., Ladge, J. J., &Harrington, B. (2015). The
“New” Dad: Navigating Fathering Identity Within
Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30, 249–266.
International Labour Organization. (2014). Interna-
tional Labour Standards. Retrieved from: hp://
www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_
norm/---normes/documents/genericdocument/
wcms_230305.pdf
Johnson, J. L., Olie, J. L., Kelly, M. T., Galdas, P.,
&Ogrodniczuk, J. S. (2012). Men’s discourses of
help-seeking in the context of depression. Sociol-
ogy of Health &Illness, 34, 345–361.
Kan, M. Y., O’Sullivan, O., &Gershuny, J. (2011). Gen-
der convergence in domestic work: Discerning the
eect of interactional and institutional barriers
from large-scale data. Sociology, 45, 234–251.
Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A, Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gen-
der-role aitudes and behavior across the transition
to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 18–28.
Kil, T., &Neels, K. (2014). Gender Inequality in the Di-
vision of Housework over the Life Course: aEuro-
pean Comparative Perspective. Paper presented at
the European Population Conference. Budapest,
Hungary. Retrieved from: hp://epc2014.prince-
ton.edu/papers/140493
Klein, W., Izquierdo, C., & Bradbury, T. N. (2007).
Working relationships: communicative paerns
and strategies among couples in everyday life.
alitative Research in Psychology, 4, 29–47. doi:
10.1080/14780880701473391
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K.,
Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., &Vandello, J. (2016a). If
my masculinity is threatened iwon’t support gen-
der equality? the role of agentic self-stereotyping
in restoration of manhood and perception of gen-
der relations. Psychology of Men &Masculinity, 17,
274–284. doi: 10.1037/ men0000016
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., &Karasiewicz, K. (2014).
Jestem unikalny, więc cenię Twoją unikalność?
Wpływ aktywizacji tożsamości osobistej i spo-
łecznej na postrzeganie innych – porównanie
międzykulturowe Polska–Indie [I am unique
therefore I appreciate your uniqueness? Eects
of personal and social identity priming on judg-
ments of others: A cross-cultural comparison of
Poland and India]. Psychologia Społeczna, 9/1,
54–67. doi: 10.7366/189618002014280104
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Pawlicka P., &Kalinow-
ska-Żeleźnik, A. (2012). New female roles versus
gender stereotypes – situation of women in the
public sphere. In M. Lipowski &Nieckarz Z.(eds.),
Empirical Aspects of the Psychology of Manage-
ment (pp. 175–227). Gdynia: Wydawnictwo Wyż-
szej Szkoły Administracji iBiznesu im. Eugeniu-
sza Kwiatkowskiego.
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Żadkowska, M., Gajew-
ska, M., Wroczyńska, A., &Znaniecka, M. (2016b).
Navigator for couples. Manual for Couples. Wy-
dawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. hp://mi-
grationnavigator.org/p/Couplesnavigator.pdf
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Żadkowska, M., Gajew-
ska, M., Wroczyńska, A., &Znaniecka, M. (2016c).
course on work-life balance for couples. man-
ual for educators. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Gdańskiego. hp://migrationnavigator.org/p/
Manualfortrainers.pdf
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Safdar, S., Jurek, P.,
& Bhardwaj, G. (2016d, paper to be submied).
Men in Communal Roles: Evaluations of norm vi-
olators in Canada, Norway, Poland &India.
Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Jurek, P., Besta, T.,
Korzeniewska, L., &Seibt, B. (2016e, paper to be
Natasza
Kosakowska-
Berezecka,
Lubomiła
Korzeniewska,
Marta
Kaczorowska
200 health psychology report
submied). De-gender them! Gendered division
of household labour and men’s willingness to
share it – cross-cultural comparison of Polish and
Norwegian male students.
Kotsadama, A., &Finseraas, H. (2011). The state inter-
venes in the bale of the sexes: Causal eects of pa-
ternity leave. Social Science Research, 40, 1611–1622.
Lammi-Taskula, J. (2008). Doing fatherhood: under-
standing the gendered use of parental leave in
Finland. Fathering, 6, 133–148.
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., &Shepherd, S. (2011). Self-ste-
reotyping as aroute to system justification. Social
Cognition, 29, 360–375.
McKeering, H., &Pakenham, K. I. (2000). Gender and
generativity issues in parenting: do fathers bene-
fit more than mothers from involvement in child
care activities? Sex Roles, 43, 459–480.
Mikołajczak, M., & Pietrzak, J. (2015). A broader
conceptualization of sexism: the case of Poland.
In S. Safdar & N. Kosakowska-Berezecka (eds.),
Psychology of Gender Through the Lens of Cul-
ture: Theories and Applications (pp. 169–192). New
York: Springer.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., &Rudman, L. A.
(2010). When men break the gender rules: status
incongruity and backlash against modest men.
Psychology of Men &Masculinity, 11, 140–151.
OECD Beer Life Index. (2014). OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from: hp://www.oecdbeerlifeindex.
org/countries/canada/
O’Neill, C., McCaughan, E., Semple, C., &Ryan, A.
(2013). Fatherhood and cancer: acommentary on
the literature. European Journal of Cancer Care, 22,
161–168.
Oyserman, D. (2011). Culture as situated cognition:
Cultural mindsets, cultural fluency, and meaning
making. European Review of Social Psychology, 22,
164–214.
Öun, I. (2012). Work-family conflict in the nordic
countries: acomparative analysis. Journal of Com-
parative Family Studies, 43, 165–184.
Öun, I. (2013). Is it fair to share? perceptions of fair-
ness in the division of housework among couples
in 22 countries. Social Justice Research, 26, 400–421.
Poortman, A., &Van der Lippe, T. (2009). Aitudes
toward housework and child care and the gen-
dered division of labor. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 71, 526–541.
Prentice, D. A., &Carranza, E. (2002). What women
and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to
be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescrip-
tive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women
arterly, 26, 269–281.
Reich, N., Boll, Ch., &Leppin, J. S. (2012). Fathers’
childcare and parental leave policies: Evidence from
Western European Countries and Canada. HWWI
Research Papers 115, Hamburg Institute of Inter-
national Economics (HWWI).
Richter, L. (2006). The importance of fathering for
children. In L. Richter &R. Morrell (eds.), Baba:
Men and fatherhood in South Africa (pp. 53–69).
Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Roszak, J., Pałucka, R., & Rykaczewska, K. (2012).
O zadowolonej kobiecie sukcesu i jej niezbyt
szczęśliwym partnerze, czyli jak (nie)zależność
finansowa wzwiązku wpływa na postrzeganą sa-
tysfakcję życiową kobiet imężczyzn [On satisfied
successful woman and her not-so-satisfied part-
ner – how financial (in)dependence influences
the perception of women’s and men’s satisfaction
with life]. In A. Chybicka, N. Kosakowska-Bereze-
cka, & P. Pawlicka (eds.), Podróże między ko-
biecością amęskością [Journeys between feminin-
ity and masculinity] (pp. 39–58). Kraków: Oficyna
Wydawnicza “Impuls”.
Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to
counterstereotypic behavior: the role of backlash
in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176.
Rudman, L. A., &Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men
who request a family leave: is flexibility stigma
afemininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69,
322–340.
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E.,
&Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and back-
lash eects: Defending the gender hierarchy mo-
tivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.
Rudman, L. A., &Phelan, J. E. (2010). The eect of
priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender
beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology,
41, 192–202.
Ruppanner, L. E. (2008). Fairness and housework:
across-national comparison. Journal of Compar-
ative Family Studies, 39, 509–526.
Sanchez, L., &Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming moth-
ers and fathers: Parenthood, gender and the divi-
sion of labor. Gender and Society, 11, 747–762.
Scambor, E., Wojnicka, K., & Bergmann, N. (2013).
The role of men in gender equality – European
strategies & insights. Luxembourg: Publications
Oice of the European Union.
Schneider, D. (2012). Gender deviance and household
work: the role of occupation. American Journal of
Sociology, 17, 1029–1072.
Shelton, B. A., &John, D. (1996). The division of house-
hold labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322.
Sikorska, M. (2009). Nowa matka, nowy ojciec, nowe
dziecko. Onowym układzie sił wpolskich rodzinach
[New mother, new father, new child. On new rela-
tions of power among Polish families]. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwa Akademickie iProfesjonalne.
Spitze, G., &Loscocco, K. A. (2000). The labor of si-
syphus? Women’s and men’s reactions to house-
work. Social Science arterly, 81, 1087–1100.
Stevens, D., Kiger, G., & Riley, P. J. (2001). Working
hard and hardly working: domestic labor and
Sharing housework
can be healthy
201
volume 4(3), 6
marital satisfaction among dual-earner couples.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 514–526.
Strier, H., &Lewin-Epstein, N. (2007). Policy eects
on the division of housework. Journal of Compar-
ative Policy Analysis, 9, 235–259.
Szczepańska, J. (2006). Men and women and share of
household duties. Public Opinion Research Center.
Retrieved from: hp://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.
POL/2006/K_184_06.PDF (20th July 2014).
Tai, T., &Treas, J. (2013). Housework task hierarchies
in 32 countries. European Sociological Review, 29,
780–791.
Thébaud, S. (2010). Masculinity, bargaining, and
breadwinning: understanding men’s housework
in the cultural context of paid work. Gender and
Society, 24, 330–354.
Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD coun-
tries: acomparative analysis. Population and De-
velopment Review, 37, 57–87.
Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: women’s sense of
fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181–196.
Titkow, A., Duch-Krzystoszek, D., &Budrowska, B.
(2004). Nieodpłatna praca kobiet. Mity, realia, per-
spektywy [Unpaid work of women. Myths, reality
and perspectives]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo In-
stytutu Filozofii iSocjologii PAN.
Treas, J., &Tai, T. (2010). Real Men Don’t Do Laundry?
Avoidance of Female-Typed Household Tasks in 34
Countries. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association Annu-
al Meeting, Hilton Atlanta and Atlanta Marrio
Marquis, Atlanta, GA.
United Nations. (2011). Men in Families and Fam-
ily Policy in a Changing World. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/docs/
men-in-families.pdf
United Nations. (2012). Men in Families and Fam-
ily Policy in a Changing World. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/docs/
men-in-families.pdf
Vandello, J. A., &Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and
easily lost: Areview and synthesis of theory and re-
search on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men
&Masculinity, 14, 101–113. doi: 10.1037/a0029826
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M.,
&Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325–
1339.
Vandello, J. A., Heinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., &Sid-
diqi, J. (2013). When equal really isn’t equal: The
masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility.
Journal of Social Issues, 69, 303–321.
Vogel, D. L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S. R., Hammer,
J. H., &Hubbard, A. (2011). “Boys don’t cry”: ex-
amination of the links between endorsement of
masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking
aitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. Jour-
nal of Counselling Psychology, 58, 368–382.
Voicu, M., Voicu, B., &Strapcova, K. (2009). House-
work and gender inequality in European coun-
tries. European Sociological Review, 25, 365–377.
Wiesmann, S., Boeije, H., van Doorne-Huiskes, A.,
& den Dulk, L. (2008). “Not worth mentioning”:
The implicit and explicit nature of decision-mak-
ing about the division of paid and domestic work.
Community, Work &Family, 11, 341–363.
Wilkie, J. R., Ferree, M. M., &Ratcli, K. S. (1998).
Gender and fairness: marital satisfaction in
two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 60, 577–594.
Wight, V., Raley, S., &Bianchi, S. (2008). Time for
children, one’s spouse and oneself among parents
who work nonstandard hours. Social Forces, 87,
2–28.
Wood, W., &Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske,
D. T. Gilbert, &G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of so-
cial psychology (pp. 629–667). New York: Wiley.
Wood, W., &Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construc-
tion of sex dierences and similarities in behavior.
In J. M. Olson &M. P. Zanna (eds.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 55–123). Lon-
don, UK: Elsevier.
World Health Organization. (2010). Policy approach-
es to engaging men and boys in achieving gender
equality and health equity. Retrieved from: hp://
www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowl-
edge/9789241500128/en/
Yodanis, C. (2010). The institution of marriage. In
J. Treas &S. Drobnič (eds.), dividing the domestic:
men, women, and household work in cross-national
perspective (pp. 175–191). Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Żadkowska, M. (2011). Mąż uczniem żony. O po-
dziale obowiązków domowych na podstawie
socjologii pary Jeana-Claude’aKaufmanna [Hus-
band – awife student. Domestic duties division
according to Jean-Claude Kaufmann sociology of
couple]. In M. Świątkiewicz-Mosny (ed.), Rodzina
– kondycja iprzemiany [Family conditions and fa-
mily changes] (pp. 89–101). Kraków: Wydawnic-
two Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Żadkowska, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., &Ryn-
dyk, O. (2016, in press). Two worlds of fatherhood
– comparing the use of parental leave among Pol-
ish fathers in Poland and in Norway. In K. Sla-
ny, E. Guriye, P. Pustułka, &M. Ślusarczyk (eds.),
Transnational Polish families in Norway: social cap-
ital, integration, institutions and care. Warsaw: Pe-
ter Lang International Academic Publishers (2016,
forthcoming).
