Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT. The research literature frequently conveys the notion that gender roles are
becoming less stereotypical. In this study the authors explored the question of how a col-
lege population views the role of househusband and housewife and if there are significant
differences in role expectations. A 51-item questionnaire was constructed and adminis-
tered to 526 college students. This sample was chosen because college students are likely
to be assuming these roles in the near future. As predicted, the role expectations for house-
husbands and housewives are not the same. Women tended to question the current struc-
ture of household roles more than did men, and the role of househusband was generally
more negatively perceived. Reasons for these findings are discussed.
Key words: gender role reversal, househusbands, housespouse, housewives
GENDER ROLES and their etiology have been heavily researched but few defin-
itive conclusions have been reached. What is agreed upon is the differentiation of
the terms sex (a biologically based distinction) from gender (personality traits,
activities, interests, and behavior; Beere, 1990). Thus, gender is a socially based
distinction and lends itself to myriad interpretations.
Fenstermaker, West, and Zimmerman (1991) and West and Zimmerman
(1987) suggested that one “does gender.” They distinguished gender from both
sex (determined by biological criteria) and sex category (adhering to socially
required displays of the appropriate sex). Gender affects most, if not all, phases
of life. Activities are viewed as either feminine or masculine in nature. Thus,
when one assumes a particular role it invariably has a gender cast attached to it.
If individuals challenge these roles by assuming a cross-gender activity, it is like-
ly they will be viewed negatively, and attempts will be made to enforce gender
appropriate activities.
639
640 The Journal of Psychology
Several studies have explored what happens when people experience a gen-
der role reversal. A study by Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, and Pascale
(1975), in which students evaluated men and women who behaved either in line
with gender role stereotypes or counter to them, found penalties for gender role
reversal behavior. Both popularity ratings and perceived psychological adjust-
ment were negatively affected when either a man or a woman performed behav-
iors antithetical to his or her traditional gender role stereotyped behavior.
A more recent study by Fitzgerald and Cherpas (1985) demonstrated the
continuing strength of gender stereotypes. They enlisted practicing or in-training
vocational counselors in their examination of gender role reversals. Counselors
were asked about the appropriateness of certain careers for men and women. As
expected, feminine-dominated careers, such as nursing, were viewed as much
more appropriate for female than for male clients. What is encouraging, though,
is that they found that women who aspired to traditionally male occupations,
such as becoming a physician, did not evoke a negative reaction.
Robertson and Fitzgerald (1990) conducted similar research. Practicing coun-
selors and therapists viewed videotaped simulations of a depressed male client.
When the client was nontraditional (described as a househusband) as opposed to
having a traditional occupation (engineer), the therapists assigned more severe
pathology to the client, behaved differently toward the client, and were more like-
ly to “attribute his depression to his life situation” (p. 6). Some even focused their
therapy on the nontraditional behavior as a remedy for the symptoms presented.
Martin (1990) explored the attitudes of current undergraduate students
toward “tomboys” and “sissies.” As she expected, the sissies were evaluated
more negatively than were the tomboys. The students were concerned about the
long-term outcomes of the sissies and felt that sissies could be expected to con-
tinue their behavior into adulthood, whereas this was not true for tomboys.
McCreary (1994) attempted to explain why male cross-gender behavior is
treated more harshly than female cross-gender behavior. He suggested that there
is a stronger link between gender roles and perceived sexuality for men than for
women. Thus, when men assume more traditionally feminine roles they are more
likely to be viewed as homosexual. His research with a group of student partici-
pants supported this theory.
Pleck, Sonenstein, and Ku (1994) argued that male roles are “conceptually
distinct from other gender-related attitudes.” They used the Male Role Attitude
Scale and discovered that it is not related to attitudes toward the female role.
Their argument supports the idea that the househusband role and the housewife
role are distinct.
Deutsch and Saxon (1998) found that there is a double standard in both the
praise and criticism working parents receive. As expected, mothers are criticized
more than fathers are for too little involvement at home or too much involvement
in paid work. Fathers experienced just the opposite, criticism for too much
involvement at home and too little involvement at work.
Wentworth & Chell 641
The roles people play based on their gender are both complex and multilay-
ered. One of these roles, that of housewife, has become well established over the
past century. Only recently has the male version of housewife, labeled househus-
band, come into existence as an alternative for men. Many would question whether
it truly is a viable alternative or merely something highlighted in the media. The
academic literature seems to support the latter. A recent literature search of Psych-
Lit (the computerized abstracts of psychology-related journals), covering the past
23 years, revealed hundreds of separate entries for the term housewives, but fewer
than 10 were found when househusband(s) was entered as the key term.
Hayghe (1990) cited Bureau of Labor statistics that reveal a slight increase
over a 13-year period in married couples with children (under 18 years old) with
only the mother in the labor force. These statistics show that in 1975, 1.6% of
families fit that model. By 1988, it had increased to 2.2%. Tang (1999), using
more recent Bureau of Labor statistics, reported that there has been an 82.6%
increase in men aged 25 to 54 years who did not work or look for work due to
home responsibilities, when the numbers from 1991 (4.6%) were compared with
those from 1996 (8.4%). Additionally, a front page article in The New York Times
(Marin, 2000) profiled a group of men attending a convention for at-home fathers
and examined the larger issue of men staying home to care for their children.
Because of the current media interest in this topic and its impact on dual-
career and single-parent families, we conducted a search of Internet sites during
the summer of 1999. Our search confirmed that there is a small but growing core
of men who have decided to stay at home with their children while their wives
work. One of the largest sites serving this community is slowlane.com. Robert
Frank (1998a, 1998b), a psychologist, has posted his research on stay-at-home
fathers there. In both 1994 and 1996 he conducted questionnaire research involv-
ing subscribers to an on-line newsletter (“At-Home Dad”). The average respon-
dent was a 38-year-old, married, suburbanite with two children, had been a
househusband for just less than 3 years, and was staying home because he did not
want daycare for his children and his wife made more money in the workplace
than he did. The majority were either extremely or somewhat satisfied with
being at home, as were their wives. However, they did report a sense of isolation
associated with their situation. A majority stated that their decision to stay home
had hurt their career either a lot or somewhat.
Frank’s survey also examined gender roles to determine if they had changed
as a result of the father being at home. In several core areas, the answer was no.
Men were still the primary drivers of the family vehicle and responsible for per-
forming mechanical tasks at home. Frank suggested that househusbands are not
looking for complete role reversals but are looking for more “equal balance in
parenting . . . with the result of less stereotypical attitudes” on the part of their
children (Frank 1998b).
Frank conducted another study involving 423 primary caregiving fathers and
602 primary caregiving mothers and their perception of workforce reentry prob-
642 The Journal of Psychology
lems, career progress concerns, and estimated lost income associated with stay-
ing home. All were solicited from Internet newsletter subscribers for at-home
fathers and at-home mothers clubs. As expected, the men and women differed in
their perceptions, with the men generally more concerned about career issues
(Frank, 1998a).
Using a subsample of this larger group, Frank (1998a) also examined the
“contribution of gender compared to role in determining the division of family
labor.” He found that there has not been a role reversal, but rather a melding of
traditional and contemporary behaviors. Certain child-care activities such as
bathing of children remain tasks performed primarily by women, home repair
remains a task performed mainly by men, and other tasks such as shopping and
bill paying are not tied to a certain sex.
Lutwin and Siperstein (1985) also explored the househusband role. Their def-
inition of a househusband was “those husbands who actively are engaged in a role
reversal with their wives. Consequently, the husbands are responsible for the pri-
mary care of the children and home while their wives are the principal wage earn-
ers” (p. 273). Their study was based on the results of interviewing and question-
naire completion by 56 househusbands who met the following criteria: (a)
currently engaged in the full-time role of househusband, (b) married with at least
one minor child, (c) involved in the househusband role for at least 6 months. Their
sample proved to be fairly homogeneous and closely paralleled the 1996 Internet
survey discussed previously. The respondents were mainly White, well educated,
in their mid-30s, and married for at least 8 years. The vast majority had arrived at
their present role initially through an involuntary process; they had been either fired
from a job, laid off, or disabled while working. The level of adjustment to the new
role varied, and most found little societal support for their role. In a number of
cases there was active rejection of the husband in the housewife role.
Radin (1994) reviewed five studies plus her own research on primary care-
giving fathers within two-parent families. These studies were conducted interna-
tionally (Australia, Sweden, Israel, and two in the United States). The studies
took place in the 1970s or 1980s. One of the most interesting findings, across cul-
tures, was that there were two major determinants of fathers’ assuming the house-
husband role: (a) their perceptions of the fathering they had experienced as chil-
dren, and (b) the difficulty their fathers had in obtaining employment and
whether their mother worked and her career aspirations (Radin). These findings
suggest that it is a combination of forces that may determine whether a man
assumes the househusband role.
Rosenwasser, Gonzales, and Adams (1985) examined the effects of gender
on college students’ perceptions of housespouses. As hypothesized, househus-
bands were perceived less positively and homemakers of either gender were
viewed more positively when their role included paid work in addition to their
childcare and housekeeping activities.
Because there has been so little research in this area, we decided to direct-
Wentworth & Chell 643
Hypotheses
We hypothesized that although there would be overlap between the two roles
and their concomitant role expectations, there would be greater differences than
similarities in the perceived role expectations. Also, we proposed that women
would view the househusband role in a more positive light than would men. This
hypothesis stems from previous research that has found that women, on the
whole, are more likely to hold egalitarian views than are men (Hochschild, 1989;
Mason & Lu, 1988).
Method
Participants
types of care were indicated by fewer than 2% of the participants, because so few
of the participants in total had children needing care.
The great majority (88%) of participants identified themselves as neither a
housewife nor a househusband. Three percent indicated they were housewives,
and 2% indicated they were househusbands. Eight percent did not answer this
question. However, 30% of the participants indicated they knew someone who
was a househusband, and 63% indicated they did not know any househusbands.
Seven percent did not answer this item.
Instrument
Procedure
Results
Factor Analysis
Factor
Question loading
TABLE 1 (continued)
Factor
Question loading
Note. Four questions loaded on more than one factor; thus, 39 items are listed for the four factors but
only 35 items are unique. N = 52; loadings > .3999.
Wentworth & Chell 647
for questions by factor with their factor loadings). Factor 1, labeled Negative Per-
ceptions of Househusbands, included a total of 17 questions, 3 of which were
reverse-coded. Factor 2, labeled Negative Effect on Spousal Relationship, includ-
ed a total of 11 questions, 5 of which were reverse coded. Factor 3, labeled Neg-
ative Perception of Housewives, contained 7 questions, 5 of which were reverse-
coded. Factor 4 contained 5 questions, 3 of which were reverse-coded. This
factor was labeled Psychological Effects.
Four questions loaded on more than one factor, with the result that only 35
separate questions were included in the factors. Thus, 16 of the total 51 questions
were eliminated because of their low factor loadings.
Of those questions that were paired (i.e., when househusband or housewife
was substituted using the same question stem), 1 question (11%) and its pair
did load on Factor 1, whereas 8 questions (89%) and their pairs did not load on
Factor 1. Factor 2 displayed a different picture. Four (57%) of the questions
that were paired loaded on Factor 2, and 3 (43%) did not. For Factor 3, all 5
questions (100%) and their pairs loaded on this factor. In Factor 4, only 2 ques-
tions were paired; of these, 1 loaded on the factor, and the other did not. Over
all four factors, 52% of the pairs did not load on a factor (or the same factor),
and 48% did. Thus, it seems that in some areas the roles overlapped greatly,
whereas in other areas they were viewed as distinct, giving support to our first
hypothesis.
Gender Differences
When scores for the women were compared with scores for the men for all
35 of the retained questions combined, a significant difference was obtained,
t(522) = –6.75, p < .01. Women’s mean scores (M = 2.98) were slightly lower
than men’s mean scores (M = 3.17), indicating a greater disagreement with the
traditional role structure on the part of the women. We also conducted t tests by
factor. Similar results were found for Factor 1 (Negative Perception of House-
husbands), t(522) = –8.27, p < .015, women—M = 2.37, men—M = 2.77; Factor
2 (Negative Effect on Spousal Relationship), t(522) = –3.95, p < .01, women—
M = 3.11, men—M = 3.24; and Factor 3 (Negative Perception of Housewives),
t(522) = 2.98, p < .01, women—M = 4.17, men—M = 4.03. Factor 4, Psycho-
logical Effects, did not reveal a significant difference between the male and
female participants, t(522) = –.70, ns, women—M = 3.11, men—M = 3.15 (see
Table 2).
These results demonstrate that the women and men differed in their percep-
tions of the househusband role, the negative effect on the spousal relationship,
and the negative perception of the role of housewives. The only areas in which
they agreed were the psychological effects of these roles. However, women
always had lower levels of endorsement of the traditional gender role, a finding
that supports our second hypothesis.
648 The Journal of Psychology
TABLE 2
Gender Differences by Factor
n M SD
Variable Women Men Women Men Women Men df t
*p < .01.
Type of Employment
Age Differences
Differences in responses for various age ranges were also explored. When
participants’ responses were placed into four age categories (under 22, 22–30,
31–40, over 40) and compared using analyses of variance, no significant differ-
ences were found, F(3, 522) = 1.25, ns.
Knowing Househusbands
Discussion
REFERENCES
Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Green-
wood Press.
Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereo-
types hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex role reversals. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 11, 520–530.
Deutsch, F. M., & Saxon, S. E. (1998). The double standard of praise and criticism for
mothers and fathers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 665–683.
Fenstermaker, S., West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Gender inequality: New con-
ceptual terrain. In R. L. Blumberg (Ed.), Gender, family and economy (pp. 289–307).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fitzgerald, L. D., & Cherpas, C. C. (1985). On the reciprocal relationship between gender
and occupation: Rethinking the assumptions concerning masculine career development.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 109–122.
Frank, R. A. (1998a). Primary caregiving father families: Do they differ in division of
childcare and housework? (On-line). Available: www:slowlane.com/research.
Frank, R. A. (1998b). Research on at-home dads. (On-line). Available: www:
slowlane.com/research.
Hayghe, H. V. (1990). Family members in the work force. Monthly Labor Review, 113,
14–19.
Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift. New York: Viking Press.
Lutwin, D. R., & Siperstein, G. N. (1985). Househusband fathers. In S. M. H. Hanson &
F. W. Bozett (Eds.), Dimensions of fatherhood. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marin, R. (2000, January 2). At-home fathers step out to find they are not alone. The New
York Times, pp. A1, A18.
Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional and
traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22(3/4), 151–165.
Mason, K. O., & Lu, Y. (1988). Attitudes toward women’s familial roles: Changes in the
United States, 1977–1985. Gender & Society, 2, 39–57.
McCreary, D. R. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31(9/10),
517–531.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles among
adolescent males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30(7/8), 481–501.
Radin, N. (1994). Primary-caregiving fathers in intact families. In A. Gottfried & A. W.
Gottfried (Eds.), Redefining families: Implications for children’s development. New
York: Plenum.
Robertson, J., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990). The (mis)treatment of men: Effects of client gen-
der role and life-style on diagnosis and attribution of pathology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 17(1), 3–9.
Rosenwasser, S. M., Gonzales, M. H., & Adams, V. (1985). Perceptions of a housespouse:
The effects of sex, economic productivity, and subject background variables. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 9(2), 258–264.
Tang, A. (1999, October 20). Fewer men are working, as home duties beckon. The New
York Times, p. G1.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.