Women in different-gender relationships do more household labor than their partners, which is linked with lower relationship satisfaction. These dynamics are influenced by parental status, with mothers doing more household labor than women without children, and partner gender, such that unequal labor division arrangements is more negatively related to satisfaction for women partnered men than women partnered with women. A sample of cisgender women (N = 227) in long-term romantic relationships with women (n = 102) or men (n = 125) were surveyed on their division of household labor, their degree of couple decision-making power, and their relationship satisfaction. Findings revealed that mothers in different-gender couples bear a significantly greater household labor burden compared to any other group in our sample, including mothers partnered with women and women without children. Group path analysis revealed that this labor division imbalance negatively related to women's relationship satisfaction. Moreover, decision-making power was a significant predictor of relationship satisfaction for all groups, except mothers partnered with men. Findings shed light on the manifestation of gender roles in relationships when considering both partner gender and parental status.
AllenK. R.GoldbergA. E. (2020). Lesbian women disrupting gendered, heteronormative discourses of motherhood, marriage, and divorce. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 24(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2019.1615356
2.
AscigilE.WardeckerB. M.ChopikW. J.EdelsteinR. S. (2021). Division of baby care in heterosexual and lesbian parents: Expectations versus reality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(2), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12729
3.
BabbieE. R. (2021). The practice of social research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.
4.
BareketO.ShnabelN.KendeA.KnabN.Bar-AnanY. (2021). Need some help, honey? Dependency-oriented helping relations between women and men in the domestic sphere. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1175–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000292
5.
BauerG. (2016). Gender roles, comparative advantages and the life course: The division of domestic labor in same-sex and different-sex couples. European Journal of Population, 32(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-015-9363-z
6.
BrewsterM. E. (2017). Lesbian women and household labor division: A systematic review of scholarly research from 2000 to 2015. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 21(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2016.1142350
7.
BrickD. J.ZhouL.ChartrandT. L.FitzsimonsG. J. (2022). Better to decide together: Shared consumer decision making, perceived power, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1260
8.
CallaghanB. L.McCormackC.KimP.PawluskiJ. L. (2024). Understanding the maternal brain in the context of the mental load of motherhood. Nature Mental Health, 2(7), 764–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00268-4
9.
CampbellA. N. C.TrossS.DworkinS. L.HuM.-C.ManuelJ.PavlicovaM.NunesE. V. (2009). Relationship power and sexual risk among women in community-based substance abuse treatment. Journal of Urban Health, 86(6), 951–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-009-9405-0
10.
CarlsonD. L. (2022). Reconceptualizing the gendered division of housework: Number of shared tasks and partners’ relationship quality. Sex Roles, 86(9–10), 528–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01282-5
11.
CarlsonD. L.HansonS.FitzroyA. (2016). The division of child care, sexual intimacy, and relationship quality in couples. Gender & Society, 30(3), 442–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215626709
12.
CarlsonD. L.MillerA. J.RuddS. (2020). Division of housework, communication, and couples’ relationship satisfaction. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 6, https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120924805
13.
CerratoJ.CifreE. (2018). Gender inequality in household chores and work-family conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01330
14.
CharbonneauA.Lachance-GrzelaM.BouchardG. (2021). Threshold levels for disorder, inequity in household labor, and frustration with the partner among emerging adult couples: A dyadic examination. Journal of Family Issues, 42(1), 176–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20918616
15.
ChristopherE. (2024). It’s a man’s job’: Doing gender and male gatekeeping in the division of household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 45(11), 2851–2874. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231224109
16.
ColtraneS. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1208–1233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1566732 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01208.x
17.
ColtraneS.ShihK. Y. (2010). Gender and the division of labor. In ChrislerJ. C.McCrearyD. R. (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Volume 2: Gender research in social and applied psychology (pp. 401–422). Springer.
18.
CroftA.SchmaderT.BlockK. (2019). Life in the balance: Are women’s possible selves constrained by men’s domestic involvement?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 808–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218797294
19.
DeanL.ChurchillB.RuppannerL. (2022). The mental load: Building a deeper theoretical understanding of how cognitive and emotional labor over load women and mothers. Community, Work & Family, 25(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2021.2002813
DossB. D.SimpsonL. E.ChristensenA. (2004). Why do couples seek marital therapy? Professional Psychology. Research and Practice, 35(6), 608–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.6.608
22.
DowningJ. B.GoldbergA. E. (2011). Lesbian mothers’ constructions of the division of paid and unpaid labor. Feminism & Psychology, 21(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510375869
23.
EatonA. A.RoseS. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9
24.
EnglandP.LevineA.MishelE. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 6990–6997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918891117
25.
ErvinJ.TaoukY.AlfonzoL. F.HewittB.KingT. (2022). Gender differences in the association between unpaid labour and mental health in employed adults: a systematic review. The Lancet Public Health, 7(9), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00160-8
26.
EsmailA. (2010). Negotiating fairness”: A study on how lesbian family members evaluate, construct, and maintain “fairness” with the division of household labor. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(5), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918361003711881
27.
FrankK.FrenetteM. (2021). Couples’ perceptions of the division of household and child care tasks: Are there differences between sociodemographic groups? Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019 m/11f0019m2021003-eng.htm#
28.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
29.
GoldbergA. E. (2013). Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12009
30.
GoldbergA. E.Perry-JenkinsM. (2007). The division of labor and perceptions of parental roles: Lesbian couples across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(2), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507075415
31.
GoldbergA. E.SmithJ. Z.Perry-JenkinsM. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 812–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00992.x
32.
Gray-LittleB.BurksN. (1983). Power and satisfaction in marriage: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 93(3), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.513
33.
HarrisE. A.GormezanoA. M.Van AndersS. M. (2022). Gender inequities in household labor predict lower sexual desire in women partnered with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(8), 3847–3870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02397-2
34.
HooblerJ. M.WayneS. J.LemmonG. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 939–957. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44633700
35.
HsuN.BaduraK. L.NewmanD. A.SpeachM. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000343
36.
KellyM.HauckE. (2015). Doing housework, redoing gender: Queer couples negotiate the household division of labor. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(5), 438–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2015.1006750
37.
KimC. N.KerrM. L. (2024). Different patterns of endorsement of intensive mothering beliefs: Associations with parenting guilt and parental burnout. Journal of Family Psychology, 38(7), 1098–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001241
38.
KimJ. J.VissermanM. L.ImpettE. A. (2019). Power in close intimate relationships. In AgnewC. R.HarmanJ. J. (Eds.), Power in close relationships ((1st ed, pp. 192–224). Cambridge University Press.
39.
KnudsenH. K.LeukefeldC.HavensJ. R.DuvallJ. L.OserC. B.Staton-TindallM.MooneyJ.ClarkeJ. G.FrismanL.SurrattH. L.InciardiJ. A. (2008). Partner relationships and HIV risk behaviors among women offenders. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(4), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2008.10400653
KörnerR.SchützA. (2021). Power in romantic relationships: How positional and experienced power are associated with relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(9), 2653–2677. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211017670
42.
KornrichS.BrinesJ.LeuppK. (2013). Egalitarianism, housework, and sexual frequency in marriage. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412472340
43.
KrstićA.ShenW.VartyC. T.LamJ. Y.HidegI. (2025). Taking on the invisible third shift: The unequal division of cognitive labor and women’s work outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 49(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843251393947
44.
KyriazosT. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 09(08), 2207–2230. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
45.
LamC. B.McHaleS. M.CrouterA. C. (2012). The division of household labor: Longitudinal changes and within-couple variation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 944–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01007.x
46.
LamontE. (2017). We can write the scripts ourselves”: Queer challenges to heteronormative courtship practices. Gender & Society, 31(5), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217723883
47.
LamontE. (2020). The Mating Game: How Gender Still Shapes How We Date. University of California Press.
48.
LazarusA.MandelH. (2023). The allocation of housework in same- and different-sex partnerships: Recent evidence from the U.S. Sex Roles, 89(7–8), 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01382-w
49.
LiekmeierE.VowelsL. M.AntoniettiJ.BodenmannG.DarwicheJ. (2023). Coparenting change after couple therapy using self-reports and observational data. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 49(3), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12647
50.
MandelH.LazarusA.ShabyM. (2021). Economic exchange or gender identities? Housework division and wives’ economic dependency in different contexts. European Sociological Review, 36(6), 831–851. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcaa023
51.
ManninoC. A.DeutschF. M. (2007). Changing the division of household labor: A negotiated process between partners. Sex Roles, 56(5–6), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9181-1
52.
MitnickD. M.HeymanR. E.Smith SlepA. M. (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(6), 848–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017004
53.
NapierJ. L.van der ToornJ.VialA. C. (2023). The personal is political: Internalized sexual stigma and the desire for gender complementarity in (some) same-gender relationships. Sex Roles, 89(3), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01384-8
54.
OphirA. (2022). Thank u, next”? repartnering and the household division of labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 636–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12816
55.
ParryA. (2025). The flexibility paradox and spatial-temporal dimensions of COVID-19 remote work adaptation among dual-earner mothers and fathers. Gender, Work & Organization, 32(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13130
PiovaniC.Aydiner-AvsarN. (2021). Work time matters for mental health: A gender analysis of paid and unpaid labor in the United States. Review of Radical Political Economics, 53(4), 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134211035565
58.
PulerwitzJ.GortmakerS. L.DeJongW. (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007051506972
59.
Reich-StiebertN.FroehlichL.VoltmerJ.-B. (2023). Gendered mental labor: A systematic literature review on the cognitive dimension of unpaid work within the household and childcare. Sex Roles, 88(11–12), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01362-0
60.
RizzoK. M.SchiffrinH. H.LissM. (2013). Insight into the parenthood paradox: Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(5), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z
61.
SanchezD. T.FetterolfJ. C.RudmanL. A. (2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender role adherence in intimate relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.653699
62.
SavageB.BarringerM. N. (2023). It matters who does the (unpaid) work: Gender and the provision of informal caregiving by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) aging adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 36(1), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2023.2241029
63.
SchmidtE.DécieuxF.ZartlerU.SchnorC. (2023). What makes a good mother? Two decades of research reflecting social norms of motherhood. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12488
64.
ShechoryM.ZivR. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56(9–10), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9207-3
65.
SmartM. J.BrownA.TaylorB. D. (2017). Sex or sexuality? Analyzing the division of labor and travel in gay, lesbian, and straight households. Travel Behaviour and Society, 6, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2016.07.001
66.
TrübnerM. (2022). Conflicts over the division of domestic work: A matter of gender-specific expectations and needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(9), 2825–2846. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221089043
67.
VandelloJ. A.HettingerV. E.BossonJ. K.SiddiqiJ. (2013). When equal isn’t really equal: The masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12016
68.
van der VleutenM.JaspersE.van der LippeT. (2021). Same-sex couples’ division of labor from a cross-national perspective. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17(2), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2020.1862012
69.
VinkM.DerksB.EllemersN.Van Der LippeT. (2023). Penalized for challenging traditional gender roles: Why heterosexual relationships in which women wear the pants may be more precarious. Sex Roles, 88(3–4), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01339-5
70.
WaddellN.OverallN. C.ChangV. T.HammondM. D. (2021). Gendered division of labor during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: Implications for relationship problems and satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(6), 1759–1781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996476
71.
Waismel-ManorR.WassermanV.Shamir-BaldermanO. (2021). No room of her own: Married couples’ negotiation of workspace at home during COVID-19. Sex Roles, 85(11–12), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01246-1
72.
WaltersP.WhitehouseG. (2012). A limit to reflexivity: The challenge for working women of negotiating sharing of household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 33(8), 1117–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11431566
73.
WeinbergJ.FreeseJ.McElhattanD. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19
WhillansA.PowJ.GladstoneJ. (2025). Buying (quality) time predicts relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 128(4), 821–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000488
76.
WilliamsonT.WagstaffD. L.GoodwinJ.SmithN. (2023). Mothering ideology: A qualitative exploration of mothers’ perceptions of navigating motherhood pressures and partner relationships. Sex Roles, 88(1–2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01345-7
77.
WongJ. D.MarshallA. D.FeinbergM. E. (2021). Intimate partner aggression during the early parenting years: The role of dissatisfaction with division of labor and childcare. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000156
78.
WongJ. S.DamingerA. (2024). The myth of mutuality: Decision-making, marital power, and the persistence of gender inequality. Gender & Society, 38(2), 157–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432241230555
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.
