An attractive explanation of the persistence of gender inequality in the division of domestic labor hinges on the role of culture. However, it is difficult to demonstrate the impact of cultural factors (e.g. social norms), as they are confounded with other institutional factors (e.g. social policies). This article deals with this issue by applying the emerging ‘epidemiological approach’ which focuses on international migrants as individuals who bring cultures differing from that prevailing in the national contexts in which they live. The study analyzes the gender division of housework of first- and second-generation immigrants living in countries covered by the second and fifth round of the European Social Survey. Applying cross-classified multilevel models and using several indicators of gender culture at both origin and destination, it is found that the female share of housework increases in couples when the man or the woman comes from a gender-traditional cultural background. The effect of culture is homogenous across destination countries and only partly explained by parental background. However, it tends to disappear among second generations.
AboimS (2010) Gender cultures and the division of labour in contemporary Europe: A cross-national perspective. Sociological Review58(2): 171–196.
2.
AkreshIR (2008) Occupational trajectories of legal US immigrants: Downgrading and recovery. Population and Development Review34(3): 435–456.
3.
AlbaRNeeV (2003) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
AlesinaAGiulianoPNunnN (2013) On the origins of gender roles: Women and the plough. Quarterly Journal of Economics128(2): 469–530.
5.
AltintasESullivanO (2016) Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research35: 455–469.
6.
AlwinDFKrosnickJA (1991) Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span. American Journal of Sociology97(1): 169–195.
7.
ArpinoBEsping-AndersenGPessinL (2015) How do changes in gender role attitudes towards female employment influence fertility? A macro-level analysis. European Sociological Review31(3): 370–382.
8.
AxelrodR (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
9.
BarroRLeeJW (2013) A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics104: 184–198.
10.
BeckerG (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal75(299): 493–517.
11.
BerkSE (1985) The Gender Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum Press.
12.
BittmanMEnglandPFolbreN, et al. (2003) When does gender trump money: Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology109(1): 186–214.
13.
BreenRCookeLP (2005) The persistence of the gendered division of domestic labour. European Sociological Review21(1): 43–57.
14.
BrinesJ (1993) The exchange value of housework. Rationality and Society5(3): 302–340.
15.
BrinesJ (1994) Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology100(3): 652–688.
CharlesMGruskyDB (2004) Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
18.
ColtraneS (2000) Research on household labor: Modelling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family62(4): 1208–1233.
19.
CookeLP (2007) Policy pathways to gender power: State-level effects on the us division of housework. Journal of Social Policy36(2): 239–260.
20.
CunninghamM (2001) Parental influences on the gendered division of housework. American Sociological Review66(2): 184–203.
21.
DavisSNGreensteinTN (2009) Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology35(1): 87–105.
22.
DavisSNGreensteinTNGerteisen MarksJP (2007) Effects of union type on division of household labor: Do cohabiting men really perform more housework?Journal of Family Issues28(9): 1246–1272.
23.
DinesenPT (2013) Where you come from or where you live? Examining the cultural and institutional explanation of generalized trust using migration as a natural experiment. European Sociological Review29(1): 114–128.
24.
Dotti SaniGM (2014) Men’s employment hours and time on domestic chores in European countries. Journal of Family Issues35(8): 1023–1047.
25.
EdlundJÖunI (2016) Who should work and who should care? Attitudes towards the desirable division of labour between mothers and fathers in five European countries. Acta Sociologica59(2): 151–169.
26.
EvertssonM (2014) Gender ideology and the sharing of housework and child care in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues35(7): 927–949.
27.
FernandezR (2011) Does culture matter? In: BenhabibJJacksonMOBisinA (eds) Handbook of Social Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.481–510.
28.
FernandezRFogliA (2009) Culture: An empirical investigation of beliefs, work, and fertility. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics1(1): 146–177.
29.
FinseraasHKotsadamA (2017) Ancestry culture and female employment – an analysis using second-generation siblings. European Sociological Review33(3): 382–392.
30.
FonerN (1997) The immigrant family: Cultural legacies and cultural changes. International Migration Review31(4): 961–974.
31.
FrankKHouF (2015) Source-country gender roles and the division of labor within immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family77(2): 557–574.
32.
FuwaM (2004) Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries. American Sociological Review69(6): 751–767.
33.
FuwaMCohenPN (2007) Housework and social policy. Social Science Research36(2): 512–530.
34.
GansHJ (2007) Acculturation, assimilation and mobility. Ethnic and Racial Studies30(1): 152–164.
35.
GecasV (2003) Self-agency and the life course. In: MortimerJTShanahanMJ (eds) Handbook of the Life Course. Boston: Springer US, pp.369–388.
36.
GeistC (2005) Welfare state and the home: Regime differences in domestic division of labour. European Sociological Review21(1): 23–41.
37.
GeistCCohenPN (2011) Headed toward equality? Housework change in comparative perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family73(4): 832–844.
38.
GershunyJGodwinMJonesS (1994) The domestic labour revolution: A process of lagged adaptation? In: AndersonMBechhoferFGershunyJ (eds) The Social and Political Economy of the Household. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.151–197.
39.
GiulianoP (2007) Living arrangements in Western Europe: Does cultural origin matter?Journal of the European Economic Association5(5): 927–952.
40.
GoldscheiderFGoldscheiderCBernhardtEM (2011) Creating egalitarian families among the adult children of Turkish- and Polish-origin immigrants in Sweden. International Migration Review45(1): 68–88.
41.
GreensteinT (2000) Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family62(2): 322–335.
42.
HicksDLSantacreu-VasutEShohamA (2015) Does mother tongue make for women’s work? Linguistics, household labor, and gender identity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization110: 19–44.
43.
HitlinSPiliavinJA (2004) Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology30: 359–393.
44.
HookJL (2006) Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American Sociological Review71(4): 639–660.
45.
HookJL (2010) Gender inequality in the welfare state: Sex segregation in housework, 1965–2003. American Journal of Sociology115(5): 1480–1523.
46.
KalmijnM (2010) Consequences of racial intermarriage for children’s social integration. Sociological Perspectives53(2): 271–286.
47.
KanMY (2008) Measuring housework participation: The gap between ‘stylised’ questionnaire estimates and diary-based estimates. Social Indicators Research86(3): 381–400.
48.
KillewaldAGoughM (2010) Money isn’t everything: Wives’ earnings and housework time. Social Science Research39(6): 987–1003.
49.
KnudsenKWærnessK (2008) National context and spouses’ housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review24(1): 97–113.
50.
KroeberALKluckhohnC (1952) Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University47(1).
51.
Lachance-GrzelaMBouchardG (2010) Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles63(11–12): 767–780.
52.
LevelsMDronkersJKraaykampG (2008) Immigrant children’s educational achievement in western countries: Origin, destination, and community effects on mathematical performance. American Sociological Review73(5): 835–853.
53.
LundbergSPollackRA (1996) Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives10(4): 139–158.
54.
McManusPAApgarL (2019) Parental origins, mixed unions, and the labor supply of second-generation women in the United States. Demography56(1): 49–73.
55.
MeilG (2013) European men’s use of parental leave and their involvement in child care and housework. Journal of Comparative Family Studies44(5): 557–570.
56.
PessinLArpinoB (2018) Navigating between two cultures: Immigrants’ gender attitudes toward working women. Demographic Research38: 967–1016.
57.
Pfau-EffingerB (2005) Culture and welfare state policies: Reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy34(1): 3–20.
58.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics45(4): 595–628.
59.
PolaviejaJG (2015) Capturing culture: A new method to estimate exogenous cultural effects using migrant populations. American Sociological Review80(1): 166–191.
60.
PolaviejaJG (2017) Culture as a random treatment. American Sociological Review82(2): 444–450.
61.
PolaviejaJGFernández-ReinoMRamosM (2018) Are migrants selected on motivational orientations? Selectivity patterns amongst international migrants in Europe. European Sociological Review34(5): 570–588.
62.
ReadJGOselinS (2008) Gender and the education–employment paradox in ethnic and religious contexts: The case of Arab Americans. American Sociological Review73(2): 296–313.
63.
RibarDC (2013) Immigrants’ time use: A survey of methods and evidence. In: ConstantAFZimmermanKF (eds) International Handbook on the Economics of Migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.373–392.
64.
RöderAMühlauP (2014) Are they acculturating? Europe’s immigrants and gender egalitarianism. Social Forces92(3): 899–928.
65.
RuppannerLMaumeDJ (2016) The state of domestic affairs: Housework, gender and state-level institutional logics. Social Science Research60: 15–28.
66.
RuppannerLE (2010) Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure. Social Science Research39(6): 963–975.
67.
SchoeberPS (2014) Parental leave and domestic work of mothers and fathers: A longitudinal study of two reforms in West Germany. Journal of Social Policy43(2): 351–372.
68.
SjöbergO (2004) The role of family policy institutions in explaining gender-role attitudes: A comparative multilevel analysis of thirteen industrialized countries. Journal of European Social Policy14(2): 107–123.
69.
SnijdersTBoskerR (2012) Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE.
70.
SorensenAMcLanahanS (1987) Married women’s economic dependency, 1940–1980. American Journal of Sociology93(3): 659–687.
71.
SullivanOGershunyJRobinsonJP (2018) Stalled or uneven gender revolution? A long-term processual framework for understanding why change is slow. Journal of Family Theory & Review10(1): 263–279.
72.
TamilinaLTamilinaN (2014) The impact of welfare states on the division of housework in the family: A new comprehensive theoretical and empirical framework of analysis. Journal of Family Issues35(6): 1–26.
73.
TreasJLuiJ (2013) Studying housework across nations. Journal of Family Theory & Review5(2): 135–149.
74.
TreasJTaiT (2012) Apron strings of working mothers: Maternal employment and housework in cross-national perspective. Social Science Research41(4): 833–842.
75.
United Nations (2016) United Nations statistics division time use data portal. Available at: unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/timeuse/index.html (accessed 4 January 2019).
76.
Van Der LippeTDe RuijterJDe RuijterE, et al. (2011) Persistent inequalities in time use between men and women: A detailed look at the influence of economic circumstances, policies, and culture. European Sociological Review27(2): 164–179.
77.
Van PuttenADykstraPSchippersJ (2008) Just like mom? The intergenerational reproduction of women’s paid work. European Sociological Review24(4): 435–449.
78.
Van TubergenFMaasIFlapH (2004) The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 western societies: Origin, destination, and community effects. American Sociological Review69(5): 704–727.
79.
VoicuMVoicuBStrapcovaK (2009) Housework and gender inequality in European countries. European Sociological Review25(3): 365–377.
WrongD (1961) The oversocialized conception of men in modern sociology. American Sociological Review26(2): 183–193.
84.
ZhouM (1997) Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies, and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review31(4): 975–1008.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
