| Literature DB >> 35886263 |
Ching-Fen Lee1, Shain-May Tang2.
Abstract
The purposes of this study was to discover the circumstances in which people gain happiness from performing housework and to understand gender differences in housework-related happiness. We used national data from the Taiwan Social Change Survey conducted in 2011. Only married and cohabiting respondents were included in this study (N = 1250). Two types of housework happiness were developed: the goal satisfaction type (GST) and the activity enjoyment type (AET), based on interview results in pilot studies and the concept of positive psychology. We found that the significant variables on the two types of housework-related happiness for the total sample were gender, socioeconomic status, gender role attitude, decision-making power, relative feminine housework, and respondent's health. In addition, the effects on the two types of housework-related happiness for males and females are different. Most people derive happiness from housework if their preferences for type of housework and their personal characteristics are matched. It is possible to transform an otherwise monotonous daily activity into a source of happiness through the process of understanding your housework preference type, learning to enjoy the beauty of housework, and creating fun with chores for families. However, the survey (TSCS) used in this study was carried out over 10 years ago (2011) and the results may be somewhat different in Taiwan today.Entities:
Keywords: couples’ health status; decision-making power; division of housework; gender; gender role attitude; happiness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886263 PMCID: PMC9322080 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Characteristics of the sample.
| Variables |
| (%) | Mean | (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 669 | (53.5%) | ||
| Female | 581 | (46.5%) | ||
| Age | 54.07 | (13.74) | ||
| Education level | ||||
| None/Illiterate/Elementary school | 346 | (27.7%) | ||
| Junior high school | 173 | (13.8%) | ||
| High school | 344 | (27.5%) | ||
| College/University | 323 | (25.8%) | ||
| Master/Doctor | 64 | (5.1%) | ||
| Working hours | 48.68 | (15.28) | ||
| Gender role attitude | 2.13 | (1.00) | ||
| Decision-making power | 3.03 | (1.19) | ||
| Respondent feminine housework | 14.10 | (5.60) | ||
| Partner feminine housework | 13.73 | (6.24) | ||
| Respondent masculine housework | 2.73 | (1.38) | ||
| Partner masculine housework | 2.42 | (1.35) | ||
| Respondent’s health | ||||
| Very poor | 16 | (1.3%) | ||
| Poor | 182 | (14.6%) | ||
| Neither good nor poor | 141 | (11.3%) | ||
| Good | 685 | (54.8%) | ||
| Very good | 226 | (18.1%) | ||
| Partner’s health | ||||
| Very poor | 21 | (1.7%) | ||
| Poor | 186 | (14.9%) | ||
| Neither good nor poor | 117 | (9.7%) | ||
| Good | 669 | (53.5%) | ||
| Very good | 255 | (20.4%) |
Binary logistic regression predicting two types of housework-related happiness.
| Meanings | Model 1 (Total) | Model 2 (Male) | Model 3 (Female) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | 95%CI | Odds Ratio | 95%CI | Odds Ratio | 95%CI | ||||
| Gender(0 = female) | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||||||
| Male |
| 0.011 | 0.33, 0.86 | ||||||
| Age | 0.99 | 0.172 | 0.98, 1.00 | 0.99 | 0.121 | 0.99, 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.675 | 0.98, 1.02 |
| SES |
| 0.021 | 1.00, 1.02 |
| 0.012 | 1.00, 1.03 | 1.01 | 0.592 | 0.99, 1.02 |
| Working hours | 1.00 | 0.528 | 1.00, 1.01 | 1.00 | 0.652 | 0.99, 1.01 | 1.01 | 0.087 | 1.00, 1.02 |
| Gender role attitude |
| 0.001 | 1.11, 1.46 |
| 0.009 | 1.07, 1.56 |
| 0.048 | 1.00, 1.52 |
| Decision-making power |
| 0.004 | 1.06, 1.32 |
| 0.031 | 1.01, 1.36 | 1.19 | 0.057 | 1.00, 1.42 |
| Relative feminine housework |
| 0.004 | 1.01, 1.05 | 1.02 | 0.134 | 1.00, 1.05 |
| 0.013 | 1.01, 1.08 |
| Relative masculine housework | 1.02 | 0.630 | 0.94, 1.11 |
| 0.039 | 1.01, 1.26 | 0.91 | 0.120 | 0.80, 1.03 |
| Respondent’s health |
| 0.025 | 0.71, 0.98 | 0.88 | 0.219 | 0.72, 10.8 | 0.78 | 0.051 | 0.60, 1.00 |
| Partner’s health | 1.06 | 0.456 | 0.91, 1.23 | 0.95 | 0.602 | 0.77,1.16 | 1.19 | 0.136 | 0.95, 1.50 |
| Constant | 1.22 | 0.744 | 0.79 | 0.778 | 0.76 | 0.771 | |||
| Omnibus χ2 | |||||||||
| Hosmer & Lemeshowχ2 | 10.32 ( | 8.92 ( | 2.28 ( | ||||||
| N | 1083 | 577 | 506 | ||||||
Values in bold indicate significant relationships (p < 0.05).