Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics (1988) 12,199-204.

Children’s contributions to household activities in single-parent and two-parent families

SUSAN B . LOVETT AND MOHAMED ABDEL-GHANY School of Home Economics, University of Alabama

Differences in children’s contributions to total household work, food preparation, dishwashing, shopping, housecleaning, and the maintenance of home, yard, car and pets were examined. Differences due to the impact of age and sex of the child as well as. the employment status of the homemaker were also analysed.

Introduction

If the current divorce rate persists, demographers predict that about half of all U.S.A. children will spend some years in a single-parent household before they reach their eighteenth birthdays. With this change in family form, children’s household work patterns have also possibly changed.

Many researchers have included questions in their studies concerning the housework contributions of children. As early as 1929, Wilson2 found that the average time contribution of children was 4.6 h/week. Arnguist and Roberts3 found that girls generally did more household work than boys, and this difference increased as the children got older. Richardson‘ also found girls to spend more time on household tasks than boys. Nordenstedt and Walker’ found that among 6-11-year-olds, children spent an average of 45 midday in household work. In the 12-17-year-old group, girls averaged 90 midday and boys only 30 midday. Hoppen’@ work showed that, among high school sophomores and juniors, girls spent 67 midday in work and boys contributed 25 midday of work. O’Neill’ found a definite bias on the assignment of household tasks in terms of sex roles.

Cogle and Tasker8 found that children’s participation was affected significantly by a child’s age and sex, and by the employment of the mother. Cogle, Tasker and Morton’ reported that adolescents with mothers employe&full-time spent 84 m i d day in total household work, and adolescents with mothers who were full-time homemakers contributed 56 minlday. Mothers who were employed part-time received only 35 midday of help from the teenager. In an earlier study, Wiegand’” found that children of an employed homemaker spent an average of 0.6 hlday on household tasks. By comparison, the unemployed mother’s child spent an average of only 0.3 Nday. In contrast, Walker” found that the employ- ment status of the mother had very little effect on the hours worked by children.

Correspondence: Mohamed Abdel-Ghany, School of Home Economics, The University of

199

Alabama, Alabama 35487, U.S.A.

Children and household activities

Employed mothers’ children aged 6-11 worked 1.0 h, and unemployed mothers’ children worked 1-1 Wday. Employed mothers’ children aged 12-17 worked 2.2 h, and unemployed mothers’ children worked 2.0 hlday .

The objective of this study was to examine the differences in the household work time of children in single-parent, two-child families and that of children in two-parent, two-child families. Household work time of children was studied according to family form, the age and sex of the child, and the employment status of the homemaker.

Methods

This study used California data collected in an 11-state project, ‘An Interstate UrbadRural Comparison of Families’ Time Use’. The project was established in 1977 under the Regional Research Project of the United States Department of Agriculture as a project of the Northeastern Region of Agricultural Experiment Stations (NE-113). The California sample of households included the Sacramento metropolitan area as the urban area, with the rural sample selected from the surrounding counties of Sacramento, Yo10 and parts of Sutter and Solano Counties. Data were collected from families consisting of two adults and two children under the age of 18 who were full-time residents of the households and from single-parent, two-child homes.

The sample was stratified by the age of the younger child. The instruments used for the collection of the data included a time-use chart and a survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was used to collect information about the family’s demographic characteristics and various other information. The time-use chart provided space to record activities of 5 min or longer for each family member over 6 years of age.

Data collection occurred over a full year during all seasons and on controlled days of the week in order to determine accurately overall household activity and time allotment.’*

Two days of time use were recorded in midday. For this study, the household work time was calculated for the tasks of food preparation, dishwashing, shop- ping, housecleaning and the maintenance of home, yard, car and pets. A total household time was calculated by adding the time of the five tasks together.

Definition of variables

The task of food preparation included all tasks relating to the preparation of food for meals, snacks and future use, including canning and freezing. This also included the time spent setting the table and serving the food.

The task of dishwashing included washing and drying dishes, and loading and

200

S. B. Lovett and M. Abdel-Ghany

unloading the dishwasher or dish drainer. It also included meal clean-up of table, leftovers, kitchen equipment and rubbish.

The task of shopping included all activities related to shopping for food, supplies, services, furnishings, clothing, appliances and equipment, whether or not a purchase was made. It included shopping by telephone, by mail, at home or at the store. The task of shopping also included comparison shopping, putting purchases away, getting or sending of mail and packages, and hiring of services.

The task of housecleaning included any regular or seasonal cleaning of house and appliances such as mopping, vacuuming, sweeping, dusting, waxing, washing windows or walls, cleaning the oven, defrosting and cleaning the refrigerator or freezer, making beds and putting rooms in order.

The maintenance of the home included any repair and upkeep of home, appliances and furnishings such as painting, papering, redecorating, doing carpenter work, repairing equipment, plumbing or furniture, putting up storm windows or screens, taking out rubbish and trash, caring for houseplants, and arranging flowers. The maintenance of the yard included daily and seasonal care of outside areas such as the yard, garden, sidewalks, driveways, patios, outside porches, garage, tool shed and swimming pool. The maintenance and care of family motor vehicles included washing, waxing, changing oil and interchanging tyres. It also included taking the car to a service station, garage, or car wash. The maintenance of pets included feeding and care as well as trips to the kennel or the veterinary surgeon.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses for this study are as follows: Hypothesis 1: there is no significant difference between household work time of

children in single-parent and two-parent families. Hypothesis 2: there is no significant difference between household work time of

male children and female children. Hypothesis 3: there is no significant difference between household work time of

children aged 6-11 and children aged 12-18. Hypothesis 4: there is no significant difference between the household work

time of the children when the homemaker is unemployed, employed part-time and employed full-time.

Hypothesis 5: there is no significant difference in household work time of children resulting from interaction between the factors of family form, age and sex of child and labour force participation of homemaker.

Analysis

The hypotheses were tested using the four-way factorial ANOVA procedure (analysis of variance) using the regression approach. The dependent variable was

201

Children and household activities

the child’s household work time. The independent variables or factors were family form, age and sex of child and the labour force participation of the homemaker. The F statistic was used to test the hypotheses. The decision to reject a null hypothesis was determined by the value of F at the 0.05 level with the appropriate degrees of freedom. If interaction was significant, then the Tukey procedure, a multiple comparison test, was used to pinpoint the difference. The Tukey procedure calculates the difference between cell means necessary for ~ignificance’~ The difference is calculated as W = q X d ( M S E I n ) where q is a value obtained from a Tukey table, MSE is the mean square error obtained from the ANOVA, and n is a weighted sample size, such that:

n = number of cells/C(l/ni)

Results and discussion

Using the ANOVA procedure, the difference in total household work time as well as times spent on individual tasks by children of single-parent families were not statistically significantly different from those of two-parent families. The average daily household work times, stated in minutes, of children in single- parent and two-parent families are presented in Table 1.

This finding conflicts with the work of Strait,14 who implied that single-parent children have more responsibilities. This was not reflected in household work time.

The sex of the child did not affect the total household work time of children. This finding is inconsistent with the findings of O’Neill,’’ Cogle and Tasker,I6 and White and Brinkerhoff, *’ who found that girls participated more in household tasks than boys. However, in the three particular tasks of food preparation, dishwashing and housecleaning, girls spent significantly more time on the tasks than did boys. These results are consistent with those of O’Neill’s study.18 In food preparation, girls contributed 11.02 midday whereas boys contributed only 5.17

Table 1. Average daily household work times (in minutes) of children in single-parent and two- parent families

Household task Single-parent Two-parent

Food preparation 9.67 6.84 Dishwashing 4.47 4.28 Shopping 28.86 22.13 Housecleaning 12.87 10.93 Maintenance of home, 10.00 12.92

Tasks combined 65.87 57.10 yard, car and pets

202

S. B. Lovett and M. Abdel-Ghany

midday. Females spend 6.26 midday washing dishes compared with only 2.24 midday by males. In housecleaning, girls spent 15.55 midday whereas boys spent only 7.79 midday.

The results showed a significant interaction between the sex of the child and the employment status of the homemaker. For unemployed homemakers, girls spent significantly more time shopping than did boys. This was not true for part-time or full-time employed homemakers.

The results of this study indicate that children aged 12-18 spent more time in maintenance work as well as in total household work time than children aged 6-11. Younger children contributed 4.49 midday to maintenance, with a total household work time of 43.90 midday. Older children contributed 17.77 midday to maintenance, with a total household work time of 77-39 midday.

Labour force participation of the homemaker did not significantly affect the total household work time of children. This is in agreement with the work of Walker. l9 Cogle and Tasker2" found, however, that the employment of the homemaker significantly affected children's participation.

Conclusion

In this study, family form, labour force participation of the homemaker, and sex of the child produced few differences in the total household work time of children. Age of the child was the only variable significantly affecting the total household work time of children. This general lack of difference has important implications for the family, society and the government.

Within U.S.A. society, divorce is increasing and, thus, so are the numbers of single-parent families. Although some research would indicate that single parents expect their children to be of greater assistance in household tasks, the, total household work time of children in this study did not significantly differ according to family form. Perhaps single parents use their resources more efficiently to carry the work load without depending on the children. It is also possible that the spouse in two-parent families made little contribution to the household work of children. Working homemakers should recognize that the assistance most children give to working parents is the same o? less in some tasks as is given to unemployed parents.

Not only is the lack of difference between children's work times important in the making of family decisions, but also in the making of government policy. There has been much discussion about including the value of home production in the Gross National Product (GNP). The home production of children would need to be included in that measure. Unless specific tasks were to be measured and assigned a specific value, one general value for production would be assigned to a child on the basis of age. All children's work would be given only two values because there were no significant differences between the total household work

203

Children and household activities

times of children according to family form, sex, or employment of the homemaker.

Children’s household work serves as an aid to parents and a teacher of responsibility to children. This study has supported the idea that children’s work is more a method of teaching responsibility than a ‘real’ help. If children’s household work was a ‘real’ help, perhaps family form and employment status of the homemaker would have produced significant differences. Perhaps children’s work also tends to reinforce traditional values in that involvement in some tasks is still affected by the sex of the child.

The household work contribution of children remains an important resource to families. This study examined the household work time of children and found, for the most part, that children have a lot in common.

References

1. Schorr, A.L. & Moen, P. (1979) The single parent and public policy. Social Policy, 9, 15-21.

2. Wilson, M. (1929) Use of Time by Oregon Farm Homemakers. Oregon State Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 256.

3. Arnguist, I.F. & Roberts, E.H. (1929) The Present Use of Time of Farm Homemakers. Washington State College Experiment Station Bulletin No. 38.

4. Richardson, J.E. (1933) The Use of Time by Rural Homemakers in Montana. Montana State Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 271.

5. Nordenstedt, B. & Walker, K.E. (1964) Helpers’ time in household activities. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.

6. Hoppen, K.K. (1966) Teenage contribution to the work of the home in 28 families, Baldwin,

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20.

204

New York. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University. O’Neill, B.M. (1978) Time-use patterns of school-age children in household tasks: a comparison of 1967-68 and 1977 data. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University. Cogle, F.L. & Tasker, G.E. (1982) Children and housework. Family Relations, 31,395-399. Cogle, F.L., Tasker, G.E. & Morton, D.G. (1982) Adolescent time use in household work. Adolescence, 17, 451455. Wiegand, E. (1954) Use of Time by Full-Time and Part-Time Homemakers in Relation to Home Management. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir No. 330. Walker, K.E. (1970) How much help for working mothers? Human Ecology Forum, 1, 13-15. Walker, K.E. (1983) An interstate urbadrural comparison of families’ time use. Home Economics Research Journal, 12, 11sL121. Ott, L. (1977) An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury Press, Massachusetts. Strait, F. (1979) Parent and Problems: I Don’t Have Two Parents at Home. Essence Publications, New Jersey. O’Neill, B., op. cit. Cogle, F.L. & Tasker, G.E., op. cit. White, L.K. & Brinkerhoff, D.B. (1981) The sexual division of labor: evidence for childhood. Social Forces, 60, 170-181. O’Neill, B., op. cit. Walker, K.E. (1970), op. cit. Cogle, F.L. & Tasker, G.E., op. cit.