Mental labor is an under-researched and long-invisible component of family work. Scholars have described mental labor as important, taxing, and disproportionately performed by mothers compared to fathers. However, operational definitions used in these studies were only preliminary and lack unified terminology. Answering calls for expanded views of household labor and better definitions of its content, we undertook a phenomenological investigation of family-related mental labor performed by mothers. Our interpretive phenomenological analysis of seven focus group interviews produced a definition of mothers’ mental labor and its component parts that was empirically grounded in the lived experience of mothers of young children (N = 25). Distinct from housework chores, childcare, and emotion work, mental labor emerged as thinking activity performed for the sake of accomplishing family goals. We identified six forms of mental labor: (a) planning and strategizing, (b) monitoring and anticipating needs, (c) metaparenting, (d) knowing (learning and remembering), (e) managerial thinking (including delegating and instructing), and (f) self-regulation. All participating mothers represented themselves as their family’s primary mental laborer, regardless of employment status or their partner’s level of involvement. Our description of mental labor may help parents, researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and educators recognize, value, and better account for the mental labor dynamics operating in the construction of family life, reproduction of gender roles, and perpetuation of gender gaps in family labor division and mental load. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index
AhnJ. N.HainesE. L.MasonM. F. (2017). Gender stereotypes and the coordination of mnemonic work within heterosexual couples: Romantic partners manage their daily to-dos. Sex Roles, 76, 435–452. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0743-1
ArendellT. (2001). The new care work of middle class mothers: Managing childrearing, employment, and time. In DalyK. J. (Ed.), Minding the time in family experience: Emerging perspectives and issues (pp. 163–204). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
4.
BarnettR. C.BaruchG. K. (1987). Determinants of fathers’ participation in family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 29–40. doi:10.2307/352667
5.
BianchiS. M.MilkieM. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705–725. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00726.x
6.
BianchiS. M.RobinsonJ. P.MilkieM. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York, NY: Sage.
7.
BianchiS. M.WightV. R. (2010). The long reach of the job: Employment and time for family life. In ChristensenK.SchneiderB. (Eds.), Workplace flexibility: Realigning 20th-century jobs for a 21st-century workforce (pp. 14–42). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
BirdC. E.RossC. E. (1993). Houseworkers and paid workers: Qualities of the work and effects on personal control. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 913–925. doi:10.2307/352772
9.
BlairS. L.LichterD. T. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor: Gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 91–113. doi:10.1177/019251391012001007
10.
Bradbury-JonesC.SambrookS.IrvineF. (2009). The phenomenological focus group: An oxymoron?Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 663–671. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04922.x
11.
ColemanM. T. (1988). The division of household labor: Suggestions for future empirical consideration and theoretical development. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 132–148. doi:10.1177/019251388009001007
12.
ColtraneS. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208–1233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x
13.
ColtraneS. (2010). Gender theory and household labor. Sex Roles, 63, 791–800. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9863-6
14.
CrouterA. C.HeadM. R. (2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In BornsteinM. (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Becoming and being a parent (pp. 461–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
DanielsA. K. (1987). Invisible work. Social Problems, 34, 304–415. doi:10.2307/800538
16.
DanielsA. K. (1988). Invisible careers: Women civic leaders from the volunteer world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
DeVaultM. L. (1987). Doing housework: Feeding and family life. In FerstelN.GrossH. E. (Eds.), Families and work, (pp. 178–191). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
18.
DeVaultM. L. (1991). Feeding the family. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
DoucetA. (2001). “You see the need perhaps more clearly than I have”: Exploring gendered processes of domestic responsibility. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 328–357. doi:10.1177/019251301022003004
20.
EdgellS. (2012). The Sociology of work: Continuity and change in paid and unpaid work (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
21.
EdwardsM. (2004). We’re decent people: Constructing and managing family identity in rural working-class communities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 515–529. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00035.x
22.
EricksonR. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 337–351. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00120.x
23.
HessB. B. (1990). Book review—Invisible careers: Women civic leaders from the volunteer world. Gender & Society, 4, 283–284. doi:10.1177/089124390004002021
24.
HessingM. (1994). More than clockwork: Women’s time management in their combined workloads. Sociological Perspectives, 37, 611–633. doi:10.2307/1389281
25.
HochschildA. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
HochschildA. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
27.
HochschildA. R.MachungA. (1989). The second shift. New York, NY: Viking Press.
28.
HoldenG. W.HawkC. Z. (2003). Meta-parenting in the journey of child rearing: A cognitive mechanism for change. In KuczynskiL. (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations (pp. 189–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
KanM. Y.LaurieH. (2018). Who is doing the housework in multicultural Britain?Sociology, 52, 55–74. doi:10.1177/0038038516674674
30.
KorieD. O. (2015). A qualitative study of the perceived relationship between media use and adolescents’ academic performance and aggressive behavior. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 10016163). Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1767230760?%20accountid=8624
31.
LeeY.WaiteL. J. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ time spent on housework: A comparison of measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 328–336. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00119.x
32.
MedererH. J. (1993). Division of labor in two-earner homes: Task accomplishment versus household management as critical variables in perceptions about family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 133–145. doi:10.2307/352964
33.
MeierJ. A.McNaughton-CassillM.LynchM. (2006). The management of household and childcare tasks and relationship satisfaction in dual earner families. Marriage and Family Review, 40, 61–88. doi:10.1300/J002v40n02_04
34.
MoustakasC. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
NicholsonJ. S.HowardK. S.BorkowskiJ. G. (2008). Mental models for parenting: Correlates of metaparenting among fathers of young children. Fathering, 6, 39–61. doi:10.3149/fth.0601.39
36.
OakleyA. (1974). The sociology of housework. New York, NY: Pantheon.
37.
OfferS. (2014). The costs of thinking about work and family: Mental labor, work–family spillover, and gender inequality among parents in dual-earner families. Sociological Forum, 29, 916–936. doi:10.1111/socf.12126
38.
PalmerM.LarkinM.de VisserR.FaddenG. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7, 99–121. doi:10.1080/14780880802513194
39.
PedersenD. E. (2017). Quantity and quality: A more nuanced look at the association between family work and marital well-being. Marriage & Family Review, 53, 281–306. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1177632
40.
PedersenD. E.MinnotteK. L.MannonS. E.KigerG. (2011). Exploring the relationship between types of family work and marital well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 288–315. doi:10.1080/02732173.2011.557038
41.
Perry-JenkinsM.RepettiR. L.CrouterA. C. (2000). Work and family in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 981–998. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00981.x
42.
RisnerJ. R. (2012). Coping strategies used for household financial management: Problem and emotion focused coping in diverse economic climates. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 3530357). Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1112278253?%20accountid=8624
43.
RobertsonL. G. (2017). Mothers and mental labor: A phenomenological focus group study of the thinking work involved in parenting and household management(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (Order No. 10286088). Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1916817747?%20accountid=8624
44.
RuddickS. (1989). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
45.
SealeC. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London, England: Sage.
46.
SheltonB. A.JohnD. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 299–322. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299
47.
SmithJ. A.EatoughV. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In LyonsE.CoyleA. (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology. London, England: Sage.
48.
SmithJ. A.OsbornM. (2003). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In SmithJ. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51–80). London, England: Sage.
49.
ThorneD. (2010). Extreme financial strain: Emergent chores, gender inequality and emotional distress. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 31, 185–197. doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9189-0
50.
ThorstadR. R.AndersonT. L.HallM. E. L.WillinghamM.CarruthersL. (2006). Breaking the mold: A qualitative exploration of mothers in Christian academia and their experiences of spousal support. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 229–251. doi:10.1177/0192513X05282189
51.
TingS.PeralesF.BaxterJ. (2015). Gender, ethnicity and the division of household labour within heterosexual couples in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 52, 693–710. doi:10.1177/1440783315579527
52.
TreasJ.TaiT. (2012). How couples manage the household: Work and power in cross-national perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1088–1116. doi:10.1177/0192513X11426700
53.
WalzerS. (1996). Thinking about the baby: Gender and divisions of infant care. Social Problems, 43, 219–234. doi:10.1525/sp.1996.43.2.03x0206x
54.
WarrenT. (2011). Researching the gender division of unpaid domestic work: Practices, relationships, negotiations, and meanings. The Sociological Review, 59, 129–148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01993.x
55.
WinklerA. E.IrelandT. R. (2009). Time spent in household management: Evidence and implications. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 293–304. doi:10.1007/s10834-009-9160-0
56.
ZimmermanT. S.HaddockS. A.ZiembaS.RustA. (2001). Family organizational labor: Who’s calling the plays?Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 13, 65–90. doi:10.1300/J086v13n02pass
57.
ZlomkeK.LamportD.BaumanS.GarlandB.TalbotB. (2014). Parenting adolescents: Examining the factor structure of the Alabama parenting questionnaire for adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 23, 1484–1490. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9803-5
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.
