nonstandard work schedules and partnership quality: quantitative and qualitative findings

MELINDA MILLS University of Groningen

KADRI TAHT Free University Amsterdam and Tallinn University*

Nonstandard Work Schedules and Partnership

Quality: Quantitative and Qualitative Findings

This article questions existing findings andprovides new evidence about the consequencesof nonstandard work schedules on partnershipquality. Using quantitative couple data fromThe Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS)(N = 3,016) and semistructured qualitativeinterviews (N = 34), we found that, for women,schedules with varying hours resulted in greaterrelationship dissatisfaction than for men. Menwith young children who worked varying hourshad less relationship conflict and spent moretime with children. Parents used nonstandardschedules for tag-team parenting or to maintainperceptions of full-time motherhood. The lackof negative effects, particularly for night shifts,suggests that previous findings—largely U.S.ones—are not universal and may be attributedto wider cultural, industrial relations, andeconomic contexts.

The diffusion of nonstandard work schedulesin industrialized countries has brought diversechallenges to family relationships (Presser,

Department of Sociology/ICS, University of Groningen,Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen,The Netherlands ([email protected]).

*VU University Amsterdam and Institute of Internationaland Social Studies, Tallinn University, Uus-Sadama 5-665,10120, Tallinn, Estonia ([email protected]).

Key Words: conflict, marital quality, marital satisfaction,nonstandard work schedules, work – family balance, workhours.

Gornick, & Parashar, 2008). Nonstandardschedules refer to nonstandard employmenthours (outside of fixed 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedules,including evenings, nights, rotating shifts) andnonstandard employment days (Saturday orSunday or both) (Presser, 2003). Individualswith nonstandard schedules are at work whenthe majority of society, as well as their familyand social network, are not.

The majority of existing research hasshowed overwhelmingly negative affects ofnonstandard work schedules (Perry-Jenkins,Goldberg, Pierce, & Sayer, 2007; Weiss & Liss,1988; White & Keith, 1990), including higherlevels of divorce, less time together as a couple,and lower relationship satisfaction. Nonstandardschedules have been found to exert a strain onrelationships due to a lack of companionship andunequal participation in household duties (Hertz& Charlton, 1989), or role overload (Perry-Jenkins et al., 2007), which can lead to guilt,anger, loneliness, and depression (Matthews,Conger, & Wickrama, 1996). Such scheduleshave also been linked to higher levels of stressand sleeping and physical disorders (Schulz,Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan, 2004). Exhaustedindividuals are emotionally unavailable andpotentially insensitive to other family members.

One question emerges from this body of liter-ature, which is largely from the United States. Dothe studies to date reflect a universal impact ofnonstandard work? The United States is a uniquecase because of the pervasiveness of nonstandardschedules (Presser, 2003), comparatively weak

860 Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (August 2010): 860 – 875DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00735.x

Nonstandard Work Schedules and Partnership Quality 861

employment protection, and a higher divorcerate. Some Western European countries resista 24/7 economy, with no trend of increas-ing nonstandard schedules (Breedveld, 1998;Hamermesh, 1996). The comparatively restric-tive employment regulations, the protection ofworkers, higher wages, and strict opening hoursacross most of Europe mean that the catego-rization of nonstandard schedules as bad jobs oras nonnegotiable job conditions (Perry-Jenkinset al., 2007) may be less valid there.

Using a multimethod approach, we questionexisting findings and provide new evidence byexamining the impact of nonstandard scheduleson partnership quality, which we define as thelevel of relationship conflict and dissatisfaction.Using a quantitative survey of the NKPS(Dykstra et al., 2004), we engaged in a couple-level analysis (N = 2,820) to examine how theimpact of nonstandard schedules on partnershipquality varies as a function of couples’work schedules, personal characteristics, andrelationship and family characteristics, as wellas the association among those factors. Wealso used qualitative interviews (N = 34) tosupplement and fill in gaps from the quantitativedata and to understand certain effects andexplore individual perceptions and strategies thatcouples develop.

Nonstandard Schedules in The Netherlands

The share of nonstandard work scheduleshas not significantly increased over time inThe Netherlands, which has led most Dutchexperts to maintain that The Netherlands isnot at risk of entering the 24-hour economy(Breedveld, 2006; Tijdens, 1998). Depending onthe definition of nonstandard, the prevalence ofnonstandard schedules in The Netherlands variesfrom between 11% and 14% in nonstandardshifts (Breedveld, 1998, 2006) to around 30%in both nonstandard shifts and days (Presseret al., 2008). Although The Netherlands isamong the European countries with the highestprevalence of nonstandard schedules (Presseret al., 2008), levels there are still less thanthat of 40% in the United States (Presser,2003). As in the United States (Presser, 2003),nonstandard schedules in The Netherlands areconcentrated in particular areas (e.g., nurses,waiters and waitresses, cashiers, police) andoften lower level occupations (e.g., elementaryjobs). Higher levels of weekend work can be

found among professionals and managers (Mills,2004; Presser, 2003), largely men who workovertime.

Several aspects differentiate The Netherlandsfrom countries such as the United States, includ-ing regulated business hours, more inclusive andcompensatory protective legislation for workers,and a high number of part-time female work-ers. As with its neighbors like Germany, TheNetherlands has relatively strict work scheduleregulations (Jacobs, 2004). For example, it wasonly in 1996 that regulations were introduced topermit certain stores (primarily grocery stores)to remain open after 6 p.m. (Fourage & Baai-jens, 2004), and in 1997 European law allowedshopkeepers to open one Sunday each month.

A history of strong labor unions andcollective agreements that protect all workers(including nonunion and part-time employees) inaddition to a supportive welfare state mean thatworkers with nonstandard schedules have strongprotection and compensation (Jacobs, 2004). Infact, the Working Time Law (Arbeidstijdenwet)of 1996 was specifically aimed to protectemployees against allegedly unhealthy workschedules and inadequate rest periods betweenworking periods (Fourage & Baaijens, 2004).Many nonstandard schedules in The Netherlandsare part-time jobs for which workers receivesimilar labor market protection and benefits offull-time workers (Fourage & Baaijens, 2009),which makes such work an attractive choice,especially for women. In the United States,work schedule regulations are considerably moremodest (Gornick & Meyers, 2003), and there isa lack of protective measures for workers withnonstandard schedules (Hamermesh, 1996).

The Netherlands is also a nation with a strongcultural norm of mothers staying at home orworking limited hours. Although this argumentholds for many countries, what sets TheNetherlands apart from other European countriesis that this norm is largely realized. In fact, in2003, of the 64% of Dutch women who wereemployed, 75% were part-time workers, whichis considerably higher than the European averageof 25% (Organisation of Economic Co-operationand Development [OECD], 2006). Elementaryschool children generally have one to twoafternoons free per week and often return homefor lunch each day. This reinforces parents’need to be available to their children. There arealso strong norms about formalized day care. Ina large national study, Portegijs, Cloın, Ooms,

862 Journal of Marriage and Family

and Eggink (2006) found that 61% of householdswith children younger than 12 used no informalor formal child care, with 75% reporting thatwhen day care was required, it should be for only1 or 2 days a week, which is also the nationalaverage. In line with previous research (Deutsch,1999), Dutch parents bestow high importance onparental care, particularly for infants, but theyalso appear to follow through with that.

Nonstandard Schedules and PartnershipQuality

Working nonstandard schedules is often relatedto higher levels of stress, tiredness, and sleepingproblems (Fenwick & Tausig, 2001), whichmay have a negative impact on relationshipquality, which we measure in this study by thelevel of relationship conflict and dissatisfaction.Employees with nonstandard schedules faceintense time demands of employment and thefamily domain (Voydanoff, 2004).

A seminal study by Mott, Mann, McLoghlin,and Warwick (1965) found that shift workreduced partnership happiness and ability tocoordinate family activities, thus causing strainand conflict. White and Keith (1990) establishedthat family arguments increased when at leastone family member worked a non – day shift.In a study of male air force security guards,Hertz and Charlton (1989) demonstrated thathusbands exhibited feelings of frustration, guilt,and neglect over their shifts, whereas theirwives viewed the shifts as interfering withcompanionship and were disillusioned withmarried life. Under such circumstances, it maybe that interaction assumes a pattern of onepartner demanding more engagement and theother exhibiting avoidance through withdrawal,thus resulting in relationship dissatisfaction(Roberts, 2000).

Hostile exchanges may also arise as a resultof a physically exhausted and frustrated part-ner, which is a strong predictor of partnershipdissatisfaction and divorce (DeMaris, 2000).Longitudinal studies have confirmed this causallink, showing that hostile, negative, or indiffer-ent behavior both erodes marital satisfaction andincreases the chances of dissolution (Matthewset al., 1996; Roberts, 2000). This leads to thefirst hypothesis: nonstandard schedules reducethe level of partnership quality.

We also anticipate a gender-specific effectof nonstandard schedules. Wight, Raley, and

Bianchi (2008) showed that when one part-ner works nonstandard shifts, a couple’s timetogether often does not overlap. That lack ofoverlapping could pose a problem for relation-ships, particularly in a context such as TheNetherlands. This is because The Netherlandsis predominately a male-breadwinner society,where women are responsible for the bulk ofhousehold duties, such as child care and meals(Mills, Mencarini, Tanturri, & Begall, 2008).Women who work evening or night shifts goagainst the norm because they leave their part-ner alone to ‘‘fend for himself,’’ prepare hisown meals, and engage in the primary care ofchildren (e.g., preparing meals, bathing, bed-time). Because women who work nonstandardschedules often place their male partners in arole that is generally atypical for Dutch men, weanticipate that they will experience higher levelsof conflict and dissatisfaction. Thus, the secondhypothesis is that women who work nonstan-dard schedules will experience a more negativeimpact on partnership quality than will men.

Impact of the Type of Nonstandard Schedule

Previous research has established that differ-ent types of nonstandard schedules have diverseconsequences on individual, family, and sociallife (White & Keith, 1990) as well as health(Fenwick & Tausig, 2001). In particular, nightshifts have more negative effects (Davis, Good-man, Pirretti, & Almeida, 2008) because theydisrupt the biorhythms and ‘‘sociorhythms’’ ofworkers, who may become out of sync with theirfamily, friends, institutional arrangements, andleisure activities. Perhaps the most disruptivetype of schedule is one in which hours varyand are unpredictable, which makes it difficultto make appointments or binding commitments.Weekend work may also be disruptive, but it hasbeen shown to affect families in a more modestway (Presser, 2003). Thus, the third hypothe-sis is that the negative effect of evening, night,and varying schedules on partnership quality isstronger than the effect of weekend schedules.

The Role of Partner Support

We propose that nonstandard schedules notonly have negative repercussions but also cancreate synergy between multiple roles. Thisbuilds on the work of Voydanoff (2004), whoargues that ‘‘resources associated with one role


enhance or make easier participation in the otherrole’’ (p. 399). It also echoes Presser’s (1984)research on the reciprocal relationship betweenfamily characteristics, which affect schedules,and schedules that affect family relationships(Presser, 1986). Nonstandard schedules can bea resource to enhance participation and satisfac-tion in both paid employment and family roles,but this is possible only with partner support,which has been shown to have a significant linkwith marital functioning. Higher levels of partnersupport can reduce the potential role of conflictfor those in nonstandard schedules, which leadsto the fourth hypothesis: higher levels of partnersupport will diminish the negative effect of arespondent’s and partner’s nonstandard sched-ules on partnership quality.

We also anticipated a gender-specific effectand a more complicated moderation effect (in theform of a three-way interaction). We expectedthat both gender and partner support moderatedthe effect of nonstandard schedules and that,in turn, gender moderated the effect of partnersupport. The fifth hypothesis is that the effectof partner support on the relationship betweena respondent’s and a partner’s nonstandardschedules and partnership quality will varyby gender, which will be stronger for womenthan men. In other words, women who worknonstandard schedules and have more supportfrom their partner will experience a less negativeeffect (i.e., better relationship quality) than willmen in the same situation.

Presence of Young Children

Nonstandard schedules are often related to themanaging of child care (Le Binah & Martin,2004), with women scheduling work hoursaround the family (Presser, 1986) and couplesengaging in tag-team parenting. Most stud-ies show higher levels of stress, guilt, anddepression among parents, particularly moth-ers (Davis et al., 2008; Joshi & Bogen, 2007;Perry-Jenkins et al., 2007; Strazdins, Clements,Korda, Broom, & D’Souza, 2006). Other stud-ies find either no effect or even a positive effectof nonstandard schedules on parents’ relation-ships (Barnett, Gareis, & Brennan, 2008; Han &Waldfogel, 2007). Women’s nonstandard sched-ules have also been shown to increase fathers’involvement in child care (Le Binah & Martin,2004; Wight et al., 2008) and improve the moni-toring of adolescents (Han & Waldfogel, 2007).

The broader literature shows that, althoughyoung children increase the stability of relation-ships, they decrease overall relationship quality(Waite & Lillard, 1991). Tag-team parentingmay add a further strain by increasing time spentalone with children at the expense of other activ-ities, such as sleep, leisure time, and coupletime (Wight et al., 2008). On the basis of thatresearch, an initial hypothesis is that individ-uals with very young children will experiencea more negative impact of nonstandard sched-ules on their relationships than will those witholder children. As discussed previously in rela-tion to the second hypothesis, when womenwork nonstandard schedules, it often means thatthey leave their partner alone to care for thechildren. Given that this is relatively uncon-ventional in the Dutch context, we predict thatthe negative impact of young children on therelationship between nonstandard schedules andpartnership quality will vary by gender, whichwill be stronger for women than men.

The majority of studies mentioned hereincluded additional controls, including partner’sage, education, socioeconomic status, durationof partnership, and number of children, whichwe also control for in our analysis.

METHOD

Quantitative Data

The quantitative data are taken from the firstwave of the NKPS collected in 2002 – 2004,which is representative of the Dutch population(Dykstra et al., 2004). The NKPS contains alarge amount of life history information, includ-ing information on nonstandard work schedulesand partner relationships. The data were col-lected from a random sample of individuals inprivate households in The Netherlands, aged18 to 79. A total of 8,161 respondents wereinterviewed face-to-face. If applicable, theirpartners were also asked to fill in a question-naire, which included detailed informationon work schedules and partnership quality.

Our sample was restricted to coresidentialcouples for which at least one of the partnerswas in paid employment. Of main respondents,71.7% reported that they had a partner withwhom they shared the same household—92.2%(n = 4,762) of those respondents and 76%(n = 3,944) of their partners filled out the ques-tionnaire. There was a slight underrepresentation


of partners reporting poor relationship qual-ity (Dykstra et al., 2004), but because of highresponse levels, we did not anticipate seriousbias. Of main respondents who reported hav-ing a coresidential partner, we excluded 14.8%(n = 765 couples) because they did not meetsample criteria (i.e., both not employed), and26.8% (n = 1,383) because of missing ques-tionnaires and incomplete labor market statusinformation (about 1% of all cases). This left uswith an effective sample of 3,016 couples for theanalysis.

Of all main respondents in the sample, 1,311(43.7%) were men and 1,701 (56.3%) werewomen. We did not observe any significant,sample-biased gender differences among themain socioeconomic (age, education, socioe-conomic status), family (presence of children,number of children, age of youngest child), andpartnership (perceived partnership conflict anddissatisfaction, duration of partnership, partner)characteristics. There were significant genderdifferences in the labor market participationrates of men and women and in their workingschedules (see the ‘‘Results’’ section), whichis in line with the broader labor market con-text. Among men, 8% reported that they didnot work (0 – 12 hours a week), 14% workedpart-time (13 – 35 hours a week), and the remain-ing 78% reported working full-time. Amongwomen, 31% were not employed, 29% wereemployed part-time, and 19% worked full-time(36 or more hours a week).

Qualitative Data

The qualitative data were taken from anNKPS minipanel, ‘‘The Impact of NonstandardWorking Schedules on Partnership Qualityand Stability’’ (Mills & Hutter, 2007). Usinga purposive sampling strategy (Marshall &Rossman, 1999), we had the unique opportunityto draw a sample from the first wave of theNKPS quantitative survey. Selection was basedon both the dependent variables (conflict anddissatisfaction) and key independent variables(gender, type of work schedule, and presenceand age of children). We chose cases torepresent variation across variables (i.e., personswith both high and low levels of conflict anddissatisfaction) and in proportion to their levelsin the quantitative survey to reflect the largersample. In an attempt to reduce a selectioneffect of interviewing only resilient couples,

we also selected several respondents who bothhad worked nonstandard schedules and haddivorced.

Data consisted of semistructured interviewswith 34 individuals, and, where within cou-ples, at least 1 of the respondents was engagedin nonstandard schedules. The sample included18 men and 16 women, with an average ageof 38. Most respondents were married or inan unmarried cohabiting relationship, and therewere several divorced respondents. Of respon-dents, 28 of the 34 were in partnerships, eithermarried or cohabiting, and we were able to inter-view both partners. In the remainder of cases,respondents either were divorced or we wereunable to interview the partner. Around 20%had no children, with the largest proportionhaving children under the age of 12. Aroundone third were employed in night shifts, fol-lowed by standard times (generally a partnerwho worked nonstandard schedules), varying orrotating shifts, and homemakers. The majority(35%) were employed in medical and health-related occupations, followed by manufacturingand manual labor jobs (18%) and restaurant orhotel-related occupations (12%). The remain-der included several workers in professional oradministrative occupations, police officers, retailsales workers, and an artist.

Interviews took place from February toJune 2006 in respondents’ homes, and eachindividual was interviewed separately. Eachinterview lasted typically 1.5 hours and wasdigitally recorded and transcribed verbatim,complete with observations of the household.The semistructured format made interviewscomparable. Because of different circumstances,we used different interview formats for respon-dents working nonstandard schedules and theirpartner (who might or might not have beenemployed). Questions were based on gaps, orcausality questions, that arose from previousresearch and the quantitative analyses. Respon-dents were asked detailed questions aboutemployment, disadvantages and advantages ofnonstandard schedules, strategies, their vision ofa good relationship, their own relationship, theirrelationship history and process, and conflictsor tensions in the relationship. The qualitativeinterviews were conducted three years after thequantitative survey, which added a decidedlylongitudinal nature and allowed us to interviewindividuals who had left or changed their type ofnonstandard schedules, dissolved their previous


relationship, or reevaluated previous relation-ship perceptions.

Measures

The level of partnership conflict and partnershipdissatisfaction operationalizes the concept ofpartnership quality. We examined both measuresbecause they measure different partnershipdynamics but are still related (with a correlationof .45), and we controlled for them in eachof the models. Partnership conflict measuresthe level of negative behavior and reciprocityin relationships via a four-item scale (α =0.70) on frequency of heated discussions,incessant reproaches, withdrawal from talking,and whether arguments get out of hand.Partnership dissatisfaction is a broader measurewith a four-item scale (α = 0.95) that asks notabout negative relationship behavior but moregenerally about whether the partnership is agood one, makes one happy, is strong, and isstable. Beyond those quantitative measures, thequalitative data explored the nature and anatomyof conflicts and expectations and perceptions ofpartnership quality.

Partner support. Partner support was measuredusing a five-item scale (α = 0.84) of level ofsupport received from the partner in terms ofcareer decisions, worries and health problems,leisure and social contacts, and practical andpersonal matters.

Work hours and schedules. Nonstandard sched-ules are constructed from the working hours ofthe week prior to data collection. We use thecommon definition of nonstandard, in which atleast half the hours worked most days in theprior week fell between specific hours of theday (Presser, 2003). When most of the hoursfell between 4 p.m. and 12 p.m., we catego-rized the schedule as a fixed evening schedule.We classified workers who carried out most oftheir work between 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. as work-ing in fixed night schedules. When there wasno clear pattern in working times, we classifiedrespondents as working varying hours. Whenthe majority of hours fell between 8 a.m. and4 p.m., we regarded the person as working afixed day schedule. Unfortunately, our quan-titative data did not allow us to differentiatethe category of nonstandard schedules work-ers who work (weekly) rotating shifts, but the

qualitative interviews allow us to explore thisaspect further.

Presser (2003) demonstrated that it is essentialto differentiate between not only the hoursworked during the day but also employmentduring the week versus the weekend. We createdan additional category of those who worked infixed day schedules and on weekend days. Thecategory of fixed day schedule workers thereforeincludes only those who work exclusively onweekdays. An advantage of this strict definitionis that it allowed us to look at the effect offixed nonstandard schedules. A disadvantage,however, is that we may have underestimatedovertime. Overtime in The Netherlands is lessextensive and mostly captured by controllingfor weekend work and the number of hours inemployment.

Number of paid employment hours. Nonstan-dard schedules are often related to reducedemployment hours. For that reason, we includedpart-time employment as employment for13 – 35 hours a week. We measured no or lim-ited paid employment as working 0 – 12 hours aweek and full-time employment as 36 or morehours a week.

Presence and age of children. We also includedpresence and age of children in the model in theform of a continuous variable that measures theage of the youngest child living the household.We also controlled for individuals who had nochildren and the number of children.

Control variables. The controls included in themodels are partners’ mean age and education(in years), socioeconomic status (measured onthe International Socio-Economic Index) (seeGanzeboom, de Graaf, & Treiman, 1992), dura-tion of the current partnership, total numberof children, partnership dissatisfaction (in themodel about conflict), and conflict (in the modelof dissatisfaction).

Analytical Techniques

Most respondents reported low levels ofpartnership dissatisfaction and conflict, whichresulted in dependent variables with limitedvariability and a highly left skew. For thatreason, we used an ordered logit regressionmodel rather than a binary one to avoid losinginformation. Another advantage is that the model


is not sensitive to variable distributions in theway that many other regression models are(Long, 1997). We also checked for the parallelregression assumption, which our models did notviolate. Using the couple data, we ran separatemodels for men and women to measure theimpact of the explanatory variables separatelyon partnership conflict and dissatisfaction. Totest for differences between men and women,we ran additional models that interacted eachvariable with gender (more precisely women)to determine whether there was a significantdifference between women’s effects and men’seffects. Table 2 shows whether the differencewas significant (in the column ‘‘Diff.’’); detailedinteraction estimates are available on request.

The qualitative analyses combined narrativeand correspondence analysis to visualize rela-tionships between individual characteristics andresponses. The narrative analysis involved closereadings of the text by first defining generalcategories (e.g., negative impact of schedules)and then investigating the relationship betweencategories with respondent characteristics (e.g.,gender) (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This detailedreading allowed us to isolate narratives thatexemplify certain points or associations.

We then developed formal coding proceduresusing three separate coders. Each coder firstindependently created a coding scheme. Wethen met to discuss and create a comprehensivescheme. Interviews followed a semistructuredformat, which resulted in coding that emergedalong the interview lines and did not markedlydiffer between coders. The data were thencoded in the program Qualitative Data Anal-ysis (QDA) Miner (Peladeau, 2007), where itwas also possible to check for interrater relia-bility between coders, which was high. In thenext stage of analysis, we engaged in the sum-marizing technique of correspondence analysis.Correspondence analysis is a descriptive tech-nique representing the relationship between therows (e.g., the type of shift) and columns (e.g.,negative impact of nonstandard schedules onrelationship) of a two-way contingency table ina joint plot, often referred to as a correspondencemap. For example, we examined the relationshipbetween the type of shift by the positive or neg-ative impacts on one’s relationship and the ageof children by the reason to work nonstandardschedules. This analytical approach, developedby Benzecri (1973), reduces the complexity ofthe coded categories and shows their association

and clustering in a visual matrix, which enhancesthe interpretation of data (figures available onrequest).

RESULTS

Prevalence of Nonstandard SchedulesAmong Couples

Table 1 presents the share of nonstandard sched-ules by gender among couples. The predominantschedule for Dutch men was a standard full-timeschedule. One quarter of men were engaged innonstandard schedules, and 18.5% worked fixeddays combined with weekend work, whereasaround 6% worked in nonstandard shifts (fixedevening, night, or varying schedules). Amongwomen, the share of nonstandard scheduleswas 17.2%, which we attribute to the fact thatalmost one third of all Dutch women are notin paid employment. When we considered onlyeconomically active women, the share of non-standard schedules was similar among men andwomen. A clear gender difference was the highshare of women’s fixed day, part-time work forfewer than 5 days a week (37%), and around14% of women worked in full-time, standardschedules.

Of couples, 36.2% had at least one partner innonstandard schedules. The prevalent combina-tion was men working in a fixed day scheduleand on weekends with a partner who was not inpaid employment (6.2%) or was working part-time with a fixed day schedule (6.0%). Anotherfrequent combination was men who workedfull-time standard schedules with a partner whoworked fixed day schedules together with week-end work (4.4%) or in nonstandard shifts (3.3%).Women have a clear role in households with non-standard schedules, especially in evening, night,and varying hours of employment. In 5.2% of allcouples, both partners engaged in nonstandardschedules.

Nonstandard Schedules and PartnershipQuality

Table 2 shows the results of the regres-sion analysis for partnership conflict (left-handcolumns) and partnership dissatisfaction (right-hand columns) (the ‘‘Diff.’’ column showswhether there was a significant gender differ-ence). We had expected that nonstandard sched-ules would reduce partnership quality and thatthe negative effect would be stronger for women


Table 1. Description of Employment and Nonstandard Schedules Among Dutch Couples

Women

NonstandardShiftsa

Fixed Day,Weekend Day

Fixed Day,5 Days

Fixed Day,< 5 Days

NotEmployed Total, Men

MenNonstandard shiftsa 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.4 2.1 5.7Fixed day, weekend day 1.1 3.0 2.1 6.0 6.2 18.5Fixed day, 5 days 3.3 4.4 7.6 19.2 18.7 53.2Fixed day, <5 days 0.9 1.2 1.8 7.2 4.7 15.7Not employed 1.1 1.1 1.5 3.1 — 6.8

Total, women 7.1 10.1 14.2 37.0 31.6 100

Note: N = 3,016.aNonstandard shifts include the categories fixed evening shift, fixed night shift, and hours vary.

than for men. A related hypothesis predictedthat the negative effect of evening, night, andvarying schedules on partnership quality wouldbe stronger than the effect of weekend scheduleswould be.

Hypothesis 1 received mixed support in thatonly women working in schedules with varyinghours had lower relationship quality. A surpris-ing finding was that, though working varyinghours significantly increased relationship dissat-isfaction for women, it decreased relationshipconflict for men.

Hypothesis 2 gathered some support. Whenwe first examined the main effects only (notshown), we found that women in a fixedevening shift and working in the weekend hadsignificantly higher levels of relationship conflictthan did those in regular day shifts. This fit withour expectation that women’s absence duringpeak child care times generated conflict. Whenwe controlled for the interactions of age ofchildren and partner support by the respondent’sand partner’s schedule, the main effects becameonly marginally significant. Only varying hourshad a stronger negative effect for women and astronger positive effect for men, which providesmixed support for Hypothesis 3. Weekend workalso had a negative effect on men’s satisfactionwhen they received less partner support, a resultwe return to shortly.

We then turned to the qualitative inter-views to understand why nonstandard schedules,and particularly night shifts, did not appear tohave the negative impact on partnership qual-ity, as had been found in previous research.The first explanation was that working regu-lations, conditions, and subsequent perceptions

of nonstandard schedules for Dutch workerswere not overwhelmingly negative. Those whoworked for the police and medical services, forinstance, discussed extensive training and coun-seling about the impact of nonstandard sched-ules on family life. Respondents mentionedagreements such as the five-shift schedule; thesenior regulation, under which workers olderthan 55 years no longer are required to worknight shifts; labor regulations; and higher pay.The five-shift schedule—rotating shifts betweenmorning, afternoon, evening, and night shifts,followed by 4 days off—was a prominent topicof discussion. A factory worker at an energyplant described how the introduction of the five-shift schedule brought clarity and regularity tothe extent that he could calculate his scheduleuntil the day that he plans to retire in March2033. Pay was also important: ‘‘[Shiftwork] isperfect for me. In terms of income, freedom, thedays that you have free. I find it ideal. . . . In thenightshifts it is all calculated in. Your wage isadjusted. Because we are in the five-shift system,we get a 90% bonus. Someone in the three-shiftsystem gets I think around 20%’’ (male processoperator in a laboratory).

A police officer maintained that the increasedwork regulations he experienced over the pastfew decades were so protective that it impingedon his work: ‘‘A big problem is that the newwork regulation law strangles us. It says verystrictly that you can only work so many shiftsand that you must have so many free hours.Before we just had that you worked 10 days onand 10 days off. Actually quite ideal, perfect,because in those 10 days you could finish your

868 Journal of Marriage and FamilyT

able

2.Su

mm

ary

ofO

rder

edLo

gist

icR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

sis

for

Var

iabl

esP

redi

ctin

gth

eP

erce

ptio

nof

Par

tner

ship

Con

flict

and

Dis

satis

fact

ion

With

the

Par

tner

ship

for

Men

(n=

1,31

1)an

dW

omen

(n=

1,70

5),C

ontr

ollin

gfo

rB

ackg

roun

dV

aria

bles

Part

ners

hip

Con

flict

Part

ners

hip

Dis

satis

fact

ion

Men

Wom

enM

enW

omen

BSE

BeB

BSE

BeB

Dif

f.B

SEB

eB

BSE

BeB

Dif

f.

Res

pond

ent’

sem

ploy

men

tN

ot/li

mite

dem

ploy

ed0.

640.

351.

89−.

120.

200.

88∗

−.49

0.41

0.61

−.01

0.23

0.99

Part

-tim

eem

ploy

ed0.

37∗

0.16

1.45

−.13

0.14

0.88

∗∗∗

−.11

0.18

0.90

0.06

0.16

1.06

Res

pond

ent’

ssc

hedu

leFi

xed

even

ing

shif

t0.

450.

491.

570.

510.

371.

66−.

080.

540.

92−.

610.

440.

54Fi

xed

nigh

tshi

ft−.

981.

64.3

7−.

140.

660.

872.

382.

7310

.85

−.29

0.81

0.75

Hou

rsva

ry−1

.85∗

∗0.

72.1

6−.

030.

440.

98∗∗

1.26

0.77

3.54

0.81

∗0.

482.

25W

eeke

ndem

ploy

men

t0.

060.

201.

07−.

100.

220.

910.

150.

231.

16−.

040.

270.

96Pa

rtne

r’s

empl

oym

ent

Not

/lim

ited

empl

oyed

0.12

0.23

1.13

0.98

∗∗0.

322.

65∗∗

−.25

0.27

0.78

−.40

0.37

0.67

Part

-tim

eem

ploy

ed0.

150.

151.

16−.

030.

150.

98−.

090.

180.

910.

010.

171.

01Pa

rtne

r’s

sche

dule

Fixe

dev

enin

gsh

ift

−.19

0.41

0.83

−.46

0.36

0.63

0.27

0.47

1.31

−.10

0.43

0.91

Fixe

dni

ghts

hift

−.03

0.85

0.97

0.71

0.59

2.03

−.75

0.99

0.47

0.28

0.64

1.32

Hou

rsva

ry0.

290.

501.

33−.

240.

510.

79−.

530.

580.

590.

000.

591.

00W

eeke

ndem

ploy

men

t−.

140.

260.

870.

170.

181.

190.

000.

291.

00−.

380.

210.

69A

geof

youn

gest

child

−.02

0.01

0.98

−.03

∗∗0.

010.

97−.

020.

010.

980.

000.

011.

00Pa

rtne

r’s

supp

ort

−.28

0.19

0.76

−.23

0.15

0.79

−2.4

0∗∗

0.21

0.09

−2.3

3∗∗∗

0.17

0.10

Age

child

×R

esp.

sche

dule

Age

×N

ot/li

mite

dem

ploy

ed−.

030.

020.

970.

010.

011.

010.

030.

021.

03−.

020.

010.

98∗

Age

×E

veni

ngsh

ift

−.01

0.04

0.99

0.00

0.03

1.00

0.05

0.04

1.05

0.02

0.04

1.02

Age

×N

ight

shif

t0.

120.

101.

130.

030.

051.

03−.

250.

220.

78−.

040.

060.

96A

ge×

Var

ying

shif

t0.

17∗∗

∗0.

051.

18−.

040.

040.

96∗∗

∗−.

11∗

0.05

0.90

−.02

0.04

0.98

Age

×W

eeke

ndda

ys−.

010.

010.

990.

010.

021.

010.

020.

011.

02−.

010.

020.

99


Tab

le2.

Con

tinue

d

Part

ners

hip

Con

flict

Part

ners

hip

Dis

satis

fact

ion

Men

Wom

enM

enW

omen

BSE

BeB

BSE

BeB

Dif

f.B

SEB

eB

BSE

BeB

Dif

f.

Age

child

×Pa

rtn.

sche

dule

Age

×N

ot/li

mite

dem

ploy

ed−.

010.

010.

99−.

03∗

0.02

0.97

−.01

0.01

1.00

0.02

0.02

1.02

Age

×E

veni

ngsh

ift

0.00

0.03

1.00

0.01

0.03

1.01

0.02

0.04

1.02

0.04

0.03

1.04

Age

×N

ight

shif

t0.

010.

051.

01−.

030.

060.

970.

010.

051.

01−.

040.

070.

96A

ge×

Var

ying

shif

t−.

030.

030.

970.

090.

051.

09∗

0.05

0.04

1.05

−.01

0.05

0.99

Age

×W

eeke

ndda

ys0.

000.

021.

000.

000.

011.

000.

010.

021.

010.

010.

011.

01Su

ppor

t×R

esp.

sche

dule

Supp

ort×

Not

/lim

ited

empl

oyed

0.15

0.41

1.16

−.11

0.20

0.89

−.12

0.46

0.89

0.29

0.23

1.33

Supp

ort×

Eve

ning

shif

t0.

310.

841.

36−.

720.

550.

490.

920.

872.

50−.

300.

660.

74Su

ppor

t×N

ight

shif

t−.

451.

850.

64−.

680.

770.

510.

553.

331.

730.

240.

961.

28Su

ppor

t×V

ary

shif

t0.

640.

771.

90−.

350.

720.

71−.

670.

920.

510.

180.

781.

19Su

ppor

t×W

eeke

ndsh

ift

−.10

0.28

0.90

0.28

0.31

1.33

0.71

∗0.

302.

04−.

420.

370.

66∗

Supp

ort×

Part

n.sc

hedu

leSu

ppor

t×N

ot/li

mite

dem

ploy

ed0.

450.

251.

56−.

070.

370.

93−.

090.

300.

92−.

240.

420.

78Su

ppor

t×E

veni

ngsh

ift

−.54

0.75

0.58

0.28

0.52

1.32

−.23

0.84

0.80

0.00

0.59

1.00

Supp

ort×

Nig

htsh

ift

−.31

1.29

0.73

0.06

0.73

1.06

1.60

1.46

4.94

−.29

0.88

0.75

Supp

ort×

Var

ying

shif

t0.

660.

671.

940.

270.

711.

300.

140.

771.

15−.

380.

810.

68Su

ppor

t×W

eeke

ndsh

ift

−.16

0.37

0.86

−.03

0.22

0.97

0.06

0.41

1.06

0.20

0.26

1.22

χ2

325.

545

7.9

561.

192

6.8

Df

4040

4040

Not

e:C

ontr

ols

are

part

ners

’m

ean

age,

mea

ned

ucat

ion,

soci

oeco

nom

icst

atus

,dur

atio

nof

curr

ent

part

ners

hip,

part

ners

hip

diss

atis

fact

ion

(in

the

mod

elab

out

confl

ict)

and

confl

ict

(in

the

mod

elof

diss

atis

fact

ion)

,no

child

ren

(om

itted

from

the

tabl

e).e

B=

expo

nent

iate

dB

.‘‘D

iff.

’’in

dica

tes

the

stat

istic

alsi

gnifi

canc

ein

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

the

coef

ficie

nts

inth

em

odel

sfo

rm

enan

dw

omen

ofre

spec

tive

item

and

row

.Thr

esho

lds

omitt

edfr

omth

eta

ble.

Em

ploy

men

tan

dsc

hedu

lety

peco

ded

asdu

mm

ies.

For

both

men

and

wom

en,e

mpl

oym

ent

refe

renc

eis

full-

time

empl

oym

ent(

mor

eth

an36

hour

sa

wee

k);s

ched

ule

refe

renc

eis

wor

king

fixed

day

shif

tson

wee

kday

son

ly.

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.∗∗

∗ p<

.00.


work. Now you usually have 3 or 4 days for yourresearch, which you can never finish.’’

In comparison to previous accounts of suchjobs in the U.S. literature, Dutch workersdescribed some night and rotating shifts asphysically challenging, but they rarely—if atall—mentioned bad working conditions or pooreconomic benefits.

From the correspondence analysis, we werealso able to isolate groups of night-shift workers:the love-it-or-leave-it groups (i.e., left or lovedworking such schedules) and the involuntarilytrapped groups. The love-it-or-leave-it groupprovides a second explanation for the noneffectof nonstandard schedules. It may be a selectioneffect related to who remained or left certaintypes of nonstandard schedules by the time of theinterview. The qualitative interviews revealedmore intricate work histories with considerablevariation in different shifts and days over time.Those who abhorred the night shift often founda way to leave it and engage in more varied shiftwork, to work evenings only, or to minimize suchshifts. Such respondents worked night shifts andactively worked to leave them because of health,sleep, and psychological problems, as well asdissatisfaction with the high levels of irritabilityamong their family members. A female nursewho switched from rotating shifts to onlyevening and day shifts after 19 years describesthe night shift this way: ‘‘If you have never doneit, it is difficult to describe, but you always havea point during the night shift, I always say, thatyou have the idea that you are dying.’’

The qualitative interviews supported ourhypothesis that night shifts have a negativeimpact, and they provided a better understandingof the weak effect of such shifts. It may bethat individuals leave them before partnershipconflict or dissatisfaction emerges.

There were also workers, however, who lovednonstandard schedules, actively pursued suchschedules, and related employment during suchshifts to relaxed work conditions and freedom.A male factory worker commented: ‘‘Duringthe night, the day and contract staff is all gone.You are just there with your colleagues with nointerruptions and no hassle. That is beautiful. . . .You have the freedom to do what you like, nohassle.’’

These workers often focused on the advan-tages of having more autonomy, being freeduring times when others work, and avoid-ing traffic jams and busy shops. They also

reported more positive outcomes of nonstandardschedules, such as being able to help more in thehousehold and engage in more activities withtheir children and partner. This group thereforecould contribute to the lack of negative effectsof night shifts that we found.

The last group appeared to be involuntarilytrapped in night shifts, a complaint that weheard from lower educated and manual workerswho had fewer alternative employment options.A male Turkish factory worker who had workeddifferent types of nonstandard schedules formore than 21 years described the night shiftsand shift work as something he wanted toescape but had difficulty doing so because ofthe economic benefits: ‘‘The night shift breaks aperson. Really, I have older colleagues who workthree different rotating shifts, but they can’t bearthe night shifts. That’s why I say to my son, getyour diplomas and study hard so that you don’thave to work in shifts to earn a decent wage.’’

Correspondence analyses (available onrequest) showed a clustering of responses fornight-shift workers related to health problems,tiredness, and irritability. Those who workedvarying hours reported a time crunch thatresulted in more stress, limited leisure activi-ties and time for friends, and less time withtheir partner and children. Contrary to the physi-cal complaints of night-shift workers, those withshift work and varying schedules focused almostexclusively on logistical issues related to arrang-ing child care and activities, particularly whenschedules varied from week to week. A femalehome care worker whose husband is a factoryshift worker commented: ‘‘If I had to start at 7a.m. and my husband had to start at 6 a.m. inDeventer, I needed to bring [my child] to theneighbors at 6 a.m. and then needed to ask. ‘Willyou make sure that she gets to school at 8:30?’And if your child is sick? What do you do then?That was just very difficult.’’

A third potential reason for the lack of astrong negative impact of nonstandard schedulesis that couples and families develop effectivecommunication and coordination strategies.Couples often used a joint message board, shareda family agenda, or left voice messages andsent text messages. A nurse with rotating shiftscharacterized her relationship as an ‘‘answeringmachine relationship,’’ a strategy the coupledeveloped to coordinate and hear each other’svoices each day. Respondents often made clearappointments with each other to purposely


ensure that they spent time together. One couple,both of whom worked nonstandard schedules,found this particularly important after theyrealized after several months that they hadboth been feeding the fish. Others suggestedthat, because they spent less time together, theyactually cherished their time together more. Suchcouples positioned freedom as a central featureof a good relationship.

The Role of Partner Support

Two additional expectations were that highlevels of partner support would diminishthe negative effect of nonstandard scheduleson partnership quality, which would havea stronger effect for women. When partnersupport was high, the levels of both conflictand dissatisfaction decreased, which providessupport for the initial hypothesis. We alsoobtained support for our second expectation.Turning to the interactions at the bottom ofTable 2, we observed that the level of partnersupport varied by the respondent’s and thepartner’s schedule. There was a significant,negative impact on relationship dissatisfactiononly when men worked during the weekend.Here, we also found a significant differencebetween men and women (see ‘‘Diff.’’ column,Table 2). For women, the positive support effect(in terms of the sign of the effect) was evenstronger when they worked on the weekend,which was opposite for men. Further scrutiny ofthe quantitative data showed that men’s weekendwork was often related to overtime or shift workwith substantially more hours, whereas women’sweekend work was fewer hours and arrangedaround her partner and family.

The interviewees echoed the importance ofpartner support. A man who had been divorcedsince the time of the first survey related weekendwork and a general lack of understanding andsupport to the demise of his marriage: ‘‘I had arelationship where my wife was always home,she didn’t work and she always said ‘You haveto work again, again a late shift,’ and then theweekend of course. Spending a nice weekendtogether . . . no, you needed to work again.. . . There was a lack of understanding thatwas difficult at times.’’ Men who were themain breadwinners also referred to problemswith weekend work. One restaurant worker whoworks 7 days a week said, ‘‘The children hatethat I have to work in the weekends. But that’s

part of it. My wife also hates it, especially if Ihave the afternoon shift in the weekend.’’

High levels of partner support not onlyincreased partnership quality but also weakenedthe potentially negative effects of nonstandardschedules.

Presence of Young Children

The final set of hypotheses predicted that indi-viduals with young children would experiencea more negative impact of nonstandard sched-ules than those with older children, and that thiswould be stronger for women. Looking first atthe main effects in Table 2, we found that theage of the youngest child had a significant, neg-ative effect on relationship conflict for women.In other words, women experienced morerelationship conflict when children were veryyoung, and there was no significant main effectfor men.

The interaction effects of the age of theyoungest child and the respondent’s scheduleprovided mixed support for our general expecta-tion and more support for our gender hypothesis.Women had significantly higher levels of part-nership dissatisfaction when they had youngchildren and worked schedules with varyinghours. Conversely, when children were young,men experienced less relationship conflict whenthey worked varying shifts. The effect of theage of children and the respondent’s schedulesignificantly differed between men and women,which provides support—at least for varyingschedules—of our second expectation. This is amore complex finding than the original hypoth-esis, which predicted that the effect would bestronger for women. The effect was strong forboth men and women but in different directionsand for different reasons.

The qualitative interviews provided a nuancedunderstanding of how the age of childrenaffected couples, why they engaged in tag-team parenting, and how doing so affected theirown relationship. First, couples reported usingnonstandard schedules as one of the only feasi-ble means of work – family reconciliation. Onefemale nurse stated: ‘‘I don’t think that it is pos-sible to combine care and regularity.’’ A policeofficer called the combination of regular worktimes and child care an ‘‘insane, chaotic option.’’A correspondence analysis (not shown) showedthat those with young children reported usingnonstandard schedules as a way to spend more


time with children; avoid institutionalized daycare; and for men, to actively engage in childcare.

A second finding was the recurrent narrativeof employed mothers who had a strong desire tobe perceived as a full-time caregiving mother.A female nurse and mother of two deliberatelychose night shifts to avoid her children remainingat school over the lunch hour and participatingin any after-school care, and to maintain theperception of being a good at-home mother:‘‘An advantage is that I see the children over theentire day, regardless of the fact that I work . . . atnight there is no conflict since they are sleepingwhile I work. During the day I am still there ina different way, even if I am sleeping. . . . It isabsolutely wonderful because at the school theyask if I even work because I am always at schoolyou know?’’

A third prominent narrative of men (and theirpartners) was that men with young childrenreported working varied or flexible hours toengage in more care duties, primarily bringingtheir children to school or other activities. Thiswas related to the previous finding that men whoworked varying hours reported reduced partner-ship conflict. When women worked nonstandardschedules, men (and their partners) discussedhow fathers engaged in more household andcaregiving activities. One woman with rotatingshifts and two young children reported: ‘‘Hedoesn’t mind helping in the house at all. Hegenerally does the ironing; it is ideal. . . If Iwork the night shift, then I do absolutely noth-ing, then he does everything, the washing, theironing. He doesn’t mind; he actually lovesthe weekends when he gets to be alone withthe boys.’’

We found a final salient difference in thereasons associated with working nonstandardschedules between those with and withoutchildren. Whereas parents almost exclusivelymentioned caregiving duties, individuals withno or older children referred to personal reasonssuch as freedom, flexibility, and the desire toavoid busy roads and shops. Busy shops andtraffic jams are a real issue in The Netherlands,which has one of the highest population densitiesin Europe (397 persons per square kilometercompared to 33 persons per square kilometer inthe United States). The fact that most shops areonly open during standard daytime hours resultsin extreme peaks of busy periods on Saturdaysand between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

DISCUSSION

This study applied a mixed-method approachto examine the impact of nonstandard sched-ules on partnership quality (level of conflict anddissatisfaction) on partnerships in The Nether-lands. The first key finding was that onlyschedules with varying hours had a clear impacton relationship quality. Contrary to previousfindings (Davis et al., 2008; Perry-Jenkins et al.,2007; Strazdins et al., 2006; Weiss & Liss, 1988;White & Keith, 1990), there was not only anabsence of any overwhelmingly negative effectof nonstandard schedules but also a positiveeffect of such schedules for men. The results lendsupport to more recent findings that show a weakimpact or even a positive effect of nonstandardschedules on relationships (Barnett, Gareis, &Brennan, 2008; Han & Waldfogel, 2007).

A second major finding was that scheduleswith varying hours had a negative impact onwomen’s relationship quality and a positiveimpact on men’s relationship quality. Suchschedules increased relationship dissatisfactionfor women but decreased the level of conflictin relationships for men. We controlled for thenumber of hours, which means that men’s variedhours appeared to be due not to overwork but toa strategic choice to build more flexibility intoa schedule and engage in tag-team parenting, afinding which our in-depth interviews support.As opposed to previous studies that have focusedon women adapting their schedules around otherfamily members (e.g., Presser, 1986), Dutchmen with young children appear to work flexiblehours to help with child care and other householdduties. Many studies have focused exclusivelyon mothers’ or women’s schedules (e.g., Barnett,Gareis, & Brennan, 2008; Presser, 1986) andhave not examined detailed types of nonstandardshifts (e.g., Davis et al., 2008), thus potentiallymissing the types of findings we have here.

This is related to our third main finding:The divergent, gendered impact of scheduleswith varying hours is tied to the presenceof young children. When men with youngchildren had more varying hours, there wasa significant reduction in relationship conflict.Parents reported adapting their schedules toengage in tag-team parenting to ensure thatone parent was home with the children. Fatherswho adapted their schedules and those who hadpartners who worked nonstandard schedulesreported being more involved in child care,which supports previous findings (Le Binah &


Martin, 2004; Wight et al., 2008). Women,however, were less satisfied in their relationshipswhen they had young children and engagedin varied hours, which could be related tohigher levels of stress and guilt (Joshi & Bogen,2007; Perry-Jenkins et al., 2007; Strazdins et al.,2006). Considering the strong narrative in theinterviews from mothers about their desire to beperceived as full-time mothers and the resilientnorms about limited institutionalized care forinfants, women may be more dissatisfied withtheir relationships when they feel forced to workunpredictable schedules.

This is related to the final major finding of thisstudy: Partner support is a key factor in enablingindividuals to work nonstandard schedulesand maintain good relationships. Men whoreceived less partner support and worked duringweekends experienced more dissatisfaction intheir relationship. On the contrary, womenreceived more support and were more satisfiedwith their relationships when they worked onthe weekend. This is related not only to partnersupport but also to the fact that men’s weekendwork is often attributed to overwork or shiftwork, whereas women’s weekend employmentconsists of fewer hours, likely is voluntary, andis preplanned around family schedules.

Future research might extend this study byusing longitudinal data. This would allow usto examine how nonstandard schedules andthe level and impact of such schedules onpartnership quality fluctuate over time. Otherextensions might examine longer-term relation-ship outcomes, such as dissolution of nonmaritalcohabiting unions or divorce, or the impact ofnonstandard schedules on other areas of life,including children’s educational attainment orparent – child interaction and interaction withfamily and friends. Recent studies on time-usedata (Wight et al., 2008) offer promising inno-vations in these directions.

This study has made several key contribu-tions. First, by using a nationally representativequantitative survey and an in-depth qualitativeapproach, we were able to obtain a more nuancedapproach to answering our hypotheses. Previousqualitative studies have often examined spe-cific occupations (e.g., nurses, security guards),generally among shift workers, which has ledto more restrictive conclusions (e.g., Hertz &Charlton, 1989; Wooddell, Forsyth, & Gramling,1994). The large number of representative quan-titative studies can answer what is occurring,

but they often grapple with the why and how ofnonstandard schedules’ impact on families.

Second, we tested whether the largely nega-tive impact of nonstandard schedules on familylife, found almost exclusively in the UnitedStates, is universal or highly dependent on insti-tutional context. As has previous literature, weestablished that certain types of nonstandardschedules (varying schedules) are detrimentalto relationship quality, and that this effect wasstronger for women. We also demonstrated thatvaried schedules in combination with havingyoung children could be detrimental to women’spartnership quality (Perry-Jenkins et al., 2007).In the absence of partner support, men’s week-end work negatively affected relationship quality(Davis et al., 2008). Another similarity was thatnonstandard schedules meant that men spentmore time with children (Le Binah & Martin,2004; Wight et al., 2008).

Yet there were many other findings that didnot hold in the European context and resultedin new insights. First, there was no significant,negative effect of evening or night shifts onpartnership quality. This is likely because of themore favorable working conditions and labormarket regulations in The Netherlands and morestringent opening hours, which means that only alimited amount of services are offered around theclock. The high number of nonstandard jobs inthe personal service industry (Presser, 2003) andthe 24/7 economy is apparently not universal.Interviews also revealed that people who didnot like night or rotating shifts actively leftthem (and had the protection and option to doso), whereas others who liked the freedom andflexibility of such schedules sought them out,leaving a generally satisfied group. Manual andless educated workers had clearly negative viewsof night and rotating shifts; they felt trappedthough relatively highly paid and protected.Collective wage agreements and employmentprotection legislation in the Dutch context oftenmeant that workers in nonstandard scheduleswere well paid. The more negative results inthe United States may result from a context inwhich workers have less employment protectionand in which more lower-paid service jobshave nonstandard schedules. This has also ledto a broader focus on studying the impact ofnonstandard schedules on low-income families(e.g., Joshi & Bogen, 2007), who have differentoptions and use different coping mechanisms.It is therefore important for future research


to examine the self-selection of workers whochoose to participate in nonstandard schedules.This likely varies between countries and mayinfluence results.

There appear to be some universal effectsof nonstandard schedules, such as a negativeimpact on mothers with young children andthe use of nonstandard schedules for tag-teamparenting. But some findings did not hold, suchas the lack of any negative effect of night shiftsor the positive effect of varied hours on men’srelationships, which signals that many of the‘‘universal’’ effects of such schedules may nothold outside of the United States. Thus, culture,poor working conditions, unequal opportunities,and a lack of employment protection—ratherthan nonstandard schedules—may hurt couples’relationships and families.

NOTE

The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research(NWO) funded this research via grant 457-3-24 in theTies That Bind (BKF) program. The Netherlands KinshipPanel Study (NKPS) is funded by grant 480-10-09 fromthe Major Investments Fund of the NWO, and by theNetherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI),Utrecht University, University of Amsterdam, and TilburgUniversity. The authors are grateful for comments onprevious versions of this article from Harry Ganzeboom,our local research groups, W. J. Han as discussant at thePAA, and inspiration from Harriet Presser.

REFERENCES

Barnett, R. C., Gareis, K. C., & Brennan, R. T. (2008).Wives’ shift work schedules and husbands’ andwives’ well being in dual-earner couples withchildren: A within-couple analysis. Journal ofFamily Issues, 29, 396 – 422.

Benzecri, J. P. (1973). Analyse des donnees (Vol.1 – 2). Paris: Dunod.

Breedveld, K. (1998). The double myth of flexi-bilisation: Trends in scattered work hours, anddifferences in time-sovereignty. Time and Society,7, 129 – 143.

Breedveld, K. (2006). Afwijkende arbeidstijden[Irregular work times]. Retrieved from http://www.tijdsbesteding.nl/wanneer/arbeid/afwijkend/20061018.html

Davis, K. D., Goodman, W. B., Pirretti, A. E., &Almeida, D. M. (2008). Nonstandard work sched-ules, perceived family well-being, and dailystressors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70,991 – 1003.

DeMaris, A. (2000). Till discord do us part: The roleof physical and verbal conflict in union disruption.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 683 – 692.

Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Halving it all: How equallyshared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M.,Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H.(2004). Codebook of the Netherlands KinshipPanel Study, Wave 1 (NKPS Working Papers).The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demo-graphic Institute.

Fenwick, R., & Tausig, M. (2001). Scheduling stress:Family and health outcomes of shift work andschedule control. American Behavioral Scientist,44, 1179 – 1198.

Fourage, D., & Baaijens, C. (2004). Changes ofworking hours and job mobility: The effect ofDutch legislation (OSA Working Papers). Tilburg:Organisatie voor Strategisch Arbeidsmarktonder-zoek.

Fouarge, D., & Baaijens, C. (2009). Job mobility andhours of work: The effect of Dutch legislation.Maastricht: Faculty of Economics and BusinessAdministration, Maastricht University.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., de Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D.(1992). A standard international socio-economicindex of occupational status. Social ScienceResearch, 21, 1 – 56.

Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families thatwork: Policies for reconciling parenthood andemployment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hamermesh, D. S. (1996). The timing of worktime: Evidence from the U.S. and Germany.Konjunkturpolitik, 42, 1 – 22.

Han, W.-J., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Parental workschedules, family process, and early adolescents’risky behavior. Children and Youth ServiceReview, 29, 1249 – 1266.

Hertz, R., & Charlton, J. (1989). Making family undera shift work schedule: Air force security guardsand their wives. Social Problems, 36, 491 – 507.

Jacobs, A. T. J. M. (2004). Labour law in theNetherlands. New York: Kluwer Law.

Joshi, P., & Bogen, K. (2007). Nonstandard schedulesand young children’s behavioral outcomes amongworking low-income families. Journal of Marriageand Family, 69, 139 – 156.

Le Binah, B., & Martin, C. (2004). Atypical workinghours: Consequences for childcare arrangements.Social Policy and Administration, 38, 565 – 590.

Long, S. (1997). Regression models for categoricaland limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1999). Designingqualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matthews, L. S., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, A. S.(1996). Work-family conflict and marital quality:Mediating processes. Social Psychology Quar-terly, 59, 62 – 79.

Mills, M. (2004). Demand for flexibility or generationof insecurity? The individualization of risk,


irregular work shifts and Canadian youth. Journalof Youth Studies, 7, 115 – 139.

Mills, M., & Hutter, I. (2007). NKPS qualitativemini-panel: The impact of nonstandard workingschedules on partnership quality and stability.Groningen: University of Groningen.

Mills, M., Mencarini, L., Tanturri, M. L., & Begall, K.(2008). Gender equity and fertility intentions inItaly and the Netherlands. Demographic Research,18, 1 – 26.

Mott, P. E., Mann, E. C., McLoghlin, Q., &Warwick, D. P. (1965). Shift work: The social,psychological and physical consequences. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment (OECD). (2006). OECD factbook 2006.Geneva: Author.

Peladeau, N. (2007). QDA data miner. Montreal:Provalis Research.

Perry-Jenkins, M., Goldberg, A. E., Pierce, C. P., &Sayer, A. G. (2007). Shift work, role overload, andthe transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriageand Family, 69, 123 – 138.

Portegijs, W., Cloın, M., Ooms, I., & Eggink, E.(2006). Hoe het werkt met kinderen. Moedersover kinderopvang en arbeidsparticipatie [Howit works with children: Mothers over daycare andlabor market participation]. The Hague: Sociaalen Cultureel Planbureau.

Presser, H. B. (1984). Job characteristics of spousesand their work shifts. Demography, 21, 575 – 589.

Presser, H. B. (1986). Shift work among Americanwomen and child care. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 48, 551 – 563.

Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy:Challenges for American families. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Presser, H. B., Gornick, J. C., & Parashar, S. (2008).Non-standard work schedules in 12 Europeancountries: a gender perspective. Monthly LaborReview, 131, 83 – 103.

Roberts, L. J. (2000). Fire and ice in maritalcommunication: Hostile and distancing behaviorsas predictors of marital distress. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 62, 693 – 707.

Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Bren-nan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gen-der, marital satisfaction, and the daily spilloverof workday experience into couple interactions.Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 250 – 263.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitativeresearch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strazdins, L., Clements, M. S., Korda, R., Broom,D. H., & D’Souza, R. (2006). Unsociable work?Nonstandard work schedules, family relationships,and children’s well-being. Journal of Marriageand Family, 68, 394 – 410.

Tijdens, K. (1998). Zeggenschap over arbeidstijden[Say over work times]. The Hague: Welboom.

Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demandsand resources on work-to-family conflict andfacilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66,398 – 412.

Waite, L. J., & Lillard, L. A. (1991). Children andmarital disruption. American Journal of Sociology,96, 930 – 953.

Weiss, M. G., & Liss, M. B. (1988). Night shiftwork: Job and family concerns. Journal of SocialBehavior and Personality, 3, 279 – 286.

White, L., & Keith, B. (1990). The effect of shiftwork on the quality and stability of maritalrelations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,453 – 462.

Wight, V. R., Raley, S. B., & Bianchi, S. M. (2008).Time for children, spouse, and self among parentswho work nonstandard hours. Social Forces, 87,243 – 274.

Wooddell, G., Forsyth, C. J., & Gramling, R. (1994).The impact of work schedule on the egalitarianism/life-satisfaction model: Offshore, shift work, andeight to five. International Review of ModernSociology, 24, 127 – 135.

nonstandard work schedules and partnership quality: quantitative and qualitative findings

Documents