Division of Labor Among Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents: Associations with Children's Adjustment Raymond W

Division of Labor Among Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents: Associations With Children's Adjustment Raymond W. Chan and Risa C. Brooks Barbara Raboy University of Virginia The Sperm Bank of California Charlotte J. Patterson University of Virginia

This study compared lesbian and heterosexual parents' division of household labor, satisfaction with division of labor, satisfaction with couple relationships, and associations of these variables with psychological adjustment of children. Participat- ing lesbian (n = 30) and heterosexual (n = 16) couples all became parents by using anonymous donor insemination and had at least 1 child of elementary-school age. Although both lesbian and heterosexual couples reported relatively equal divisions of paid employment and of household and decision-making tasks, lesbian biological and nonbiological mothers shared child-care tasks more equally than did heterosexual parents. Among lesbian nonbiological mothers, those more satisfied with the division of family decisions in the home were also more satisfied with their relationships and had children who exhibited fewer externalizing behavior problems. The effect of division of labor on children's adjustment was mediated by parents' relationship satisfaction.

In recent years, increasing numbers of lesbian With the increase in lesbian parenting, questions women have used donor insemination to be- have been raised about the family structure of come parents within the context of lesbian Lesbian-headed homes and about potential im- relationships (Patterson, 1992, 1995a, 1995b). pacts of lesbian-headed households on children's adjustment and functioning. Previous research suggests that children of divorced lesbian mothers are developing within normal Raymond W. Chan, Risa C. Brooks, and Charlotte parameters (e.g., Tasker & Golombok, 1997), J. Patterson, Department of Psychology, University of but less is known about factors affecting Virginia; B arbara Raboy, The Sperm B ank of California, Berkeley. Risa C. Brooks is now at the development of children born to lesbian mothers Behavioral Medicine Center, Department of Psychiat- (Patterson, 1992). ric Medicine, University of Virginia Health Sciences Research on lesbian-headed families has Center. provided insight into lesbian-parenting-couples* We gratefully acknowledge the Lesbian Health relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992) Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association for and into their distribution of labor within the support of this work. We thank all of the participating families for their invaluable contributions. We also family (e.g., Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & thank Robin Kristufek for her help in collecting the Joseph, 1995; McCandlish, 1987; Patterson, data and David W. Irby for his help in coding the data 1995a). Initial studies have reported relationship for this study. Portions of this article were based on an satisfaction among lesbian mothers to be undergraduate distinguished majors research project generally high (Flaks et al., 1995; Koepke et al., by Risa C. Brooks under the direction of Charlotte J. 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Lesbian mothers have Patterson. also reported greater satisfaction with the Correspondence concerning this article should be allocation of family labor (e.g., housework, addressed to Raymond W. Chan, Department of Psychology, Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, child care, decision making) than heterosexual Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2477. Electronic mail mothers, especially when tasks were shared may be sent to [email protected]. relatively equally between partners (Patterson,

402 DIVISION OF LABOR 403

1995a). In addition, research has focused on edness. The main purpose of our study was to how mothers' biological relatedness to the child compare the allocation of paid employment, the might be associated with a lesbian mother's role allocation of unpaid family labor (e.g., house- within the family (Hand, 1991; Patterson, hold tasks, decision making, and child care), 1995a). Biological mothers have reported some- satisfaction with the division of labor, and what more involvement than nonbiological satisfaction with couple relationships among mothers in child care, whereas nonbiological lesbian and heterosexual parents. The family- mothers have reported working more hours in systems perspective posits that subsystems paid employment than biological mothers (Hand, within a family do not function separately from 1991;Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a). each other; thus, we also explored associations Early findings suggest that allocation of between parental division of labor and chil- family labor may be accomplished differently in dren's adjustment in both lesbian and hetero- lesbian-parent versus heterosexual-parent house- sexual families. holds. Hand (1991) found that lesbian mothers Research on heterosexual families consis- who conceived via donor insemination shared tently describes shifts toward more traditional parenting more equally than did heterosexual divisions of family labor during the transition to parents who conceived children via the conven- parenthood (C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992; tional means. Although Osterweil (1991) and MacDermid, Huston, & McHale, 1990), and this Patterson's (1995a) studies did not involve pattern continues through the childhood years heterosexual comparison groups, they remarked (e.g., fourth and fifth grades; Perry-Jenkins & on lesbian mothers' generally egalitarian distri- Crouter, 1990). Parenting couples have reported bution of housework and contrasted this finding a steep decline in joint activities (Kurdek, with results from research among heterosexual families that have shown women to be respon- 1993b) and that mothers take on more house- sible for more of the child care and housework work and child-care duties than do fathers; than men (e.g., C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992; fathers in turn are described as spending more Hochschild, 1989). Thus, although indications time in paid employment (Belsky & Pensky, from early research are that lesbian parents 1988; C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Perry- divide both paid and unpaid labor differently Jenkins & Crouter, 1990). In addition, wives than do heterosexual parents, it remains possible have generally been found to experience greater that observed differences are attributable to marital dissatisfaction than their husbands (Benin differing methods of conception (i.e., donor & Agostinelli, 1988; C. P. Cowan & Cowan, insemination vs. conventional conception) rather 1992; Hackel & Ruble, 1992; Ruble, Hackel, than parental sexual orientation. For instance, Fleming, & Stangor, 1988). One hypothesis Golombok and her colleagues documented suggests that when husbands do not share differences in the quality of parenting as a child-care and household duties to the extent function of the mode of conception among a that wives anticipated during pregnancy, the sample of heterosexual-headed families (Golom- wives' expectations are violated, and marital bok, Cook, Bish, & Murray, 1995). dissatisfaction may result (P. A. Cowan, Cowan, & Kerig, 1993; Hackel & Ruble, 1992; Huber & In the current study, we compared division of Spitze, 1980; Ruble et al., 1988). family labor among a group of lesbian-headed families and a comparable group of heterosexual- In contrast to heterosexual couples, lesbian headed families, all with school-age children. couples in general report remarkably equal All mothers in the current study used anony- divisions of household duties (Kurdek, 1993a; mous donor insemination to become pregnant. Peplau & Cochran, 1990; Peplau, Veniegas, & For this reason, both heterosexual and lesbian Campbell, 1996). Lesbian couples are likely to families included one parent who was biologi- avoid traditional gendered divisions of house- cally related to the child (i.e., the biological hold tasks and, instead, divide household labor mother) and one who was not (i.e., the according to personal factors, such as interest, nonbiological lesbian mother or the father). This ability, and time availability (Kurdek, 1993a; unique family structure allowed us to address Peplau & Cochran, 1990; Peplau et al., 1996). questions regarding sexual orientation sepa- Research findings suggest that lesbian couples rately from questions regarding biological relat- place higher value on equality in their relation- 404 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON ships than do heterosexual or gay-male couples what more child care, and nonbiological moth- (Kurdek, 1993a, 1995a, 1995b). ers worked somewhat longer hours in paid Given the family-systems perspective, re- employment. Although nonbiological mothers search on the division of household labor among did spend more hours in paid employment, both lesbian couples can be seen as raising questions partners nevertheless rated the nonbiological about the possible impact these arrangements mother as actively involved in child care. Both might have on children. Especially in view of mothers also expressed the desire for equal the data on transition to parenthood and sharing of child-care tasks. Even with the added subsequent changes in the distribution of family demands of child rearing, lesbian parents labor among heterosexual couples (e.g., C. P. apparently continued to share many if not most Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Perry-Jenkins & family responsibilities equally (Patterson, 1995a). Crouter, 1990), questions can be entertained These findings suggest that at least some lesbian about the impact of parenthood on lesbian parents have managed to balance the distribu- partners* division of labor in the family. Do the tion of family and paid labor in such a way as to demands of parenthood lessen the importance of largely avoid the second shift (Hochschild, an ethic of equality among lesbian parents and 1989). result in division of family labor that is more like that in heterosexual parented families? Does In research on heterosexual parents, an the lesbian biological mother experience a association between marital satisfaction and "second shift," the work of caring for children satisfaction with the division of family labor has and maintaining the home in addition to been clearly established (e.g., Belsky & Pensky, full-time work outside the home, which some 1988; C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1987, 1992; heterosexual mothers experience (Hochschild, Hackel & Ruble, 1992; Suitor, 1991; Ward, 1989)? 1993). In particular, wives report greater marital satisfaction when their husbands share house- Initial research with lesbian-headed families work and child care more equally (Belsky & suggests that lesbian partners continue to share Pensky, 1988; C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1987, family labor to a great extent after the transition 1992; Ross, Mirowsky, & Huber, 1983). Greater to parenthood (Hand, 1991; Osterweil, 1991; relationship satisfaction has itself been shown to Patterson, 1995a). It is interesting that in one be associated with more favorable adjustment study lesbian biological mothers viewed their among children (P. A. Cowan et al., 1993; parental roles as more salient than did hetero- Emery, 1982; Erel & Burman, 1995). Thus, sexual or nonbiological lesbian mothers (Hand, among heterosexual families, associations be- 1991). Heterosexual fathers viewed their occupa- tween parental division of labor and child tional roles as more salient than did any of the functioning have been reported. lesbian or heterosexual mothers (Hand, 1991). Taken together, the studies by Hand and by Lesbian couples with children have described Osterweil suggested that lesbian parents with average to high levels of relationship satisfac- young children reported considerable sharing of tion (Chan, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998; Flaks et family tasks, with biological mothers perform- al., 1995; Koepke et al., 1992; Patterson, 1995a) ing somewhat more child care than nonbiologi- and have reported considerable satisfaction with cal mothers. In addition, lesbian-headed fami- their division of family labor when tasks are lies with young children shared parenting to a shared between partners. In turn, lesbian moth- greater extent than heterosexual-headed families ers' greater relationship satisfaction has been with children of the same age (Hand, 1991). shown to be associated with better adjustment In her study on the division of family labor in among children (Patterson, 1995 a). Through lesbian-headed families who have experienced what processes do such associations occur? the transition to parenthood, Patterson (1995a) Research among heterosexual families experienc- reported similar findings. Consistent with the ing the transition to parenthood (e.g., P. A. results of Hand (1991) and Osterweil (1991), Cowan et al., 1993) has suggested that associa- lesbian parents in Patterson's study also reported tions between children's adjustment and parents' dividing housework and family decision making division of household labor are mediated by equally. In the area of child rearing, however, parents' marital relationship. In the present biological mothers reported performing some- study, we sought to examine the degree to which DIVISION OF LABOR 405 this might also be true of lesbian-mother To evaluate the degree to which families who could families. be reached were representative of the population from Overall, this study examined lesbian-headed which they were drawn, we followed the procedures and heterosexual-headed families' division of suggested by Berk and Ray (1982), and we conducted logistic regression analyses. Results indicated that household labor, their satisfaction with the there were no differences in success of contact as a distribution of labor, their satisfaction with function of children's age, x2(li N = 81) = 9.1, ns, or couple relationships, and their children's func- gender, x2U. N— 81) < 1, ns. However, families tioning among families formed via donor headed by lesbian mothers were more likely to have insemination. From the existing literature, our been successfully contacted than were those headed main expectations were that lesbian parents by heterosexual parents, x^l, N = 81) = 20.1,p < .05. would report more equal distributions of both Out of the pool of 57 families we were able to paid and unpaid labor than would heterosexual contact, 46 families (80.7%) agreed to participate in parents. We also expected nonbiological lesbian the research. To evaluate the degree to which families mothers and nonbiological heterosexual fathers who agreed to participate were representative of those to be less involved in child care and to spend who had been contacted, we conducted logistic more hours per week in paid labor than lesbian regression analyses (Berk & Ray, 1982). Results revealed that there were no differences in the and heterosexual biological mothers, although agreement to participate as a function of children's results of earlier work have suggested that these age, X*(l> N=51) = 8.1, ns, or gender, jftl. # = 57) = differences may be less pronounced for lesbian 3.6, ns. Differences in families' agreement to participate than heterosexual parents. Finally, in a more did emerge, however, as a function of parental sexual exploratory vein, we examined whether arrange- orientation, x*0' W=57) = 15.1, p < .05. Families ments about the division of household labor headed by lesbian mothers were more likely to participate among this sample of families would be man were those headed by heterosexual parents. Among associated with outcomes for children within the those who chose not to participate, the most common family system such that, as in families formed reason given was lack of time. by traditional means, better outcomes for The final sample included 46 families headed by couples (16 heterosexual and 30 lesbian couples), children would occur in families in which 2 parents shared labor evenly and were more with 30 boys and 16 girls. Initial analyses revealed no significant differences as a function of child's satisfied with their couple relationships. gender or child's age among the variables of interest; thus, we are able to rule out any potential main effects from these variables. All analyses reported in this Method article were collapsed across children's gender. Recruitment and Participants Children ranged from 5 to 11 years of age (M = 7.4, SD = 1.7), and biological mothers ranged from 33 to Participating families were drawn from among the 47 years of age (Af = 40.9, SD = 3.7). Parents were former clients of The Sperm Bank of California mostly well educated, employed at least part time, (TSBC). This sperm bank is a provider of reproduc- and partnered on average 8.6 years (SD = 4.0). The tive technologies that has been supplying services to families were, on average, relatively affluent, with clients regardless of sexual orientation or relationship family incomes well above national averages (see status for more than 15 years. From TSBC files, Table 1). clients who conceived and gave birth to children prior We explored the possibility that demographic to July 1990 (and who thus had children at least 5 differences existed between the two family types by years of age at the beginning of data collection1) were using a 2 (lesbian vs. heterosexual) X 2 (biological selected and invited to participate in the current study. From this pool, 6 families headed by lesbian couples who had already participated in the Bay Area 1 Families with infants and very young children Families Study (e.g., Patterson, 1994) were excluded were not invited to participate in this study so that our in order to maintain independence of data between the division-of-labor findings would not be confounded two studies. After these exclusions, we were able to by inclusion of child-care tasks that cannot be contact 108 families. From this group, 81 families divided, such as breast feeding. were headed by couples; the present research focused 2 The high ratio of boys to girls in this sample is on these families headed by couples (information on representative both of the population of children bom the complete sample is available in Chan et al., 1998). via donor insemination during the 1980s and also of Using letters and telephone calls, TSBC was able to the specific population from which we recruited our contact 57 (70.4%) of the 81 eligible couple-headed participants (B. Raboy, personal communication, families. October 1,1997). 406 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON

e 1 6

5 I oo DIVISION OF LABOR 407 mother vs. nonbiological mother/father) multivariate 3 = / have more influence), and involvement in child analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated care (1 = none, 2 = secondary, 3 = shared, 4 = pri- measure on the second variable. We found a mary, 5 = sole). significant multivariate main effect for sexual orienta- Parental-relationship qualities. To provide a glo- tion, F(4, 40) = 3.8, p < .05. Follow-up univariate bal assessment of relationship quality, we used the tests indicated that only one significant demographic Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test (LWMAT; difference emerged between lesbian- and heterosexual- Locke & Wallace, 1959). The LWMAT is a 15-item headed families. Lesbian mothers, on average, had self-report test designed to measure marital adjust- attained higher levels of education when compared ment of spouses in heterosexual marriages. Minor with heterosexual parents, F( 1,40) - 13.1,p< .001. semantic adjustments were required to make the No significant difference emerged between biological LWMAT suitable for use with same-sex as well as and nonbiological parents from these analyses (see different-sex couples (Patterson, 1995a). Possible Table 1). In short, lesbian- and heterosexual-parented scores on the LWMAT range from 2 to 158; higher families were quite well matched on a number of scores indicate greater satisfaction. demographic variables, including length of relationship, For ratings on more specific aspects of the couples' age, income, and hours spent in paid employment relationships, we administered the Braiker and Kelley Partnership Questionnaire (Braiker & Kelley, 1979). Materials The Partnership Questionnaire is a 25-item instrument that assesses components of a close relationship; Division of labor. To assess division of labor in in this study we used two scales: (a) Love (i.e., caring the household and satisfaction with the division of and emotional attachment, 10 items), and (b) Conflict labor, we used C. P. Cowan and P. A. Cowan's (1990) (i.e., problems and arguments, 5 items). Each partner Who Does What? test. The Who Does What? (C. P. indicates agreement or disagreement on a 9-point Cowan & Cowan, 1988, 1990) provides a way of scale (1 = not at all or very little to 9 = very much or assessing the division of household tasks, decision very often) in response to each item; higher scores making, and child care within a couple. This indicate more love and more conflict (Braiker & instrument enables researchers to understand each Kelley, 1979; Burger & Milardo, 1995). partner's perception of the current and ideal distribu- Child adjustment. Children's social competence tion of family labor and parents' satisfaction with and behavioral adjustment were used as indices of allocation of family tasks. Spearman-Brown split- children's functioning and were assessed by using the half reliability and Cronbach's alpha have been Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991a) reported in the .92 to .99 range for all subscales (C. P. as well as the Teacher Report Form (TRF; Achen- Cowan & Cowan, 1988,1990). bach, 1991b). The CBCL uses parent reports and The Who Does What? test (C. P. Cowan & Cowan, yields scores for three broadband scales (Social 1990) is divided into three sections. We made minor Competence, Internalizing, Externalizing) and a adjustments in the wording of questions to make them total-behavior-problems score (Total Behavioral Prob- suitable for lesbian mothers (e.g., partner instead of lems). Social competence is measured by a series of spouse, see Patterson, 1995a). The beginning of each questions about the frequency of the child's participa- section instructs participants to rate on a scale, tion and performance in various social arenas (e.g., ranging from 1 to 9, their actual and ideal distribution sports, hobbies, friendships, sibling relationships, and of particular family tasks (1 = my partner does it all, school). Internalizing, externalizing, and total behav- 5 = we both do this about equally, 9 — I do it all). ior problems are assessed by using 118 items rated on Section 1 includes 13 household tasks (e.g., meal a scale from 0 to 2 (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or preparation and cleanup, writing letters, car care), sometimes true, 2 — very true or often true). The Section 2 includes 12 family decision-making areas Internalizing scale score summarizes the child's (e.g., making financial decisions, deciding about withdrawn behaviors, somatic complaints, anxiety, religious practices, deciding about community involve- and depression. The Externalizing scale score summa- ment), and Section 3 includes 20 child-care tasks rizes aggressive, disruptive, and delinquent behav- (e.g., reading to child, bathing, feeding, choosing iors. Finally, the score for the Total Behavioral toys, visiting parks and playgrounds). Problems scale takes into account internalizing and The end of each section of the Who Does What? externalizing behaviors, as well as social, thought, test (C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1990) asks each partner and attention problems (Achenbach, 1991a). to indicate his or her overall satisfaction level with the The TRF is similar to the CBCL but was designed specific area of family labor (1 = very dissatisfied to to use reports by a teacher or child-care provider. 5 = very satisfied). In addition, in the decision- Although 22 symptoms that appear on the TRF are making and child-care sections, respondents are specific to the classroom situation (e.g., afraid to asked to provide global ratings of both partners' make mistakes, fails to finish, talks out of turn), the influence over family decisions (1 = my partner has broadband scales (i.e., Internalizing and Externaliz- more influence, 2 = we have about equal influence, ing) are similar to those on the CBCL. In addition, on 408 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON the TRF, an Academic Performance and Adaptive SD = 1.1) and fathers less (M = 3.8, SD = 1.0) Functioning scale (e.g., how happy is the child) of the labor involved in child care. replaces the Social Competence scale on the CBCL Using a 2 (lesbian vs. heterosexual) X 2 (Achenbach, 1991b; McConaughy, 1993). The TRF (biological mother vs. nonbiological mother/ and CBCL were chosen for use in the present study father) MANOVA with repeated measures on because they are highly regarded child-assessment instruments for which national norms are available the second variable, we compared the actual and for both clinical and nonclinical (i.e., normal) ideal distribution of labor among parents. populations. Furthermore, raw scores can be con- Multivariate tests indicated a significant within- verted to standard T scores that allow comparisons families reporter main effect, F(6, 27) = 6.0, across age and gender (Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b; p < .01, as well as a significant Reporter X Patterson, 1994). T scores are used in this article. Sexual Orientation interaction effect, F(6,27) = 3.9, p < .01. However, the between-families sexual orientation main effect was not statisti- Results cally significant, F(6, 27) = 2.5, ns. Follow-up The results are presented in three sections. univariate tests indicated that in both actual and The first section describes parental division of ideal levels of child care, there were significant labor within lesbian and heterosexual couples within-families reporter main effects, F(l, 27) — and compares parental division of labor between 27.8, p < .001, and F(l, 27) = 30.7, p < .001, lesbian and heterosexual couples. The second respectively. In areas of household tasks and family section reports data on satisfaction with the decision making, all parties reported sharing these division of labor among lesbian and hetero- responsibilities relatively equally and also prefer- sexual couples. The third section explores ring to share these responsibilitiesequally . associations among satisfaction with the divi- In the area of child care, differences did sion of labor, relationship satisfaction, and emerge. Inasmuch as there was a significant children's adjustment. Reporter X Sexual Orientation interaction effect for the actual level of child care, F(l, 27) = 15.6, p < .01, we compared parents' reports Parental Division of Labor Within Couple separately by sexual orientation and by reporter. Types Among heterosexual couples, but not among lesbian couples, parents' scores for actual Lesbian and heterosexual biological and division of labor differed significantly in the nonbiological parents' reports about actual and area of child care, F(l, 10) = 20.4, p < .01; as ideal division of family labor are summarized in expected, wives were more responsible than Table 2. A score of 5 on the actual or the ideal husbands for child care. Among biological items indicates that both partners share tasks mothers, heterosexual mothers were performing equally. Scores above 5 indicate that the more child care when compared to lesbian respondent performs more work than her or his biological mothers, M — 6.6, SD = 1.1, and partner. Scores of less than 5 indicate that the M = 5.5, SD = 0.9, respectively, F(l, 27) = respondent's partner performs more of the work. 11.0, p < .01. Among nonbiological parents, Generally, correlations between partners' scores lesbian nonbiological mothers were performing range from .24 to .77. Overall, lesbian parents' more child care than heterosexual fathers, M = actual and ideal scores clustered around 5, 4.9, SD = 0.5, and M = 3.8, SD = 1.0, suggesting that in concert with parental wishes, respectively, F(l, 27) = 16.0, p < .001. household tasks, family decision making, and child care were all seen as being shared Similarly, for the ideal distribution of child relatively equally. Heterosexual couples' scores care, a significant Reporter X Sexual Orienta- showed somewhat more variation. Heterosexual tion interaction effect emerged, F(l, 27) = 30.7, couples reported sharing many tasks relatively p < .001. Consistent with the actual distribution evenly, with scores ranging from 4.5 to 5.3 for of labor among heterosexual couples, ideal household tasks and family decision making. scores also differed significantly for child care, The main exception was child care, for which F(l, 10) = 13.1, p < .01. Ideally, heterosexual heterosexual couples reported a distinctly gen- mothers indicated that they would prefer to dered division of labor; mothers, on average, share an almost equal portion of child-care tasks were reported to be doing more (M = 6.6, with their husbands, M = 5.5, SD = 0.8, but DIVISION OF LABOR 409

•2 s o I 1 .8 a

fi 1 I IN 410 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON husbands preferred that wives assume more logical mother/father) MANOVA yielded a responsibility for child care, M = 4.0, SD = 0.4. significant between-families sexual orientation When compared across families, lesbian nonbio- main effect, F(3, 27) = 2.9,/? < .05; however, logical mothers desired a more equal distribu- follow-up univariate tests indicated no signifi- tion of child care than did heterosexual fathers, cant difference between heterosexual and les- M = 5.0, SD = 0.3, and M = 4.0, SD = 0.4, bian couples on any of the relationship satisfac- respectively, F(l, 27) = 46.1, p < .001; tion measures. Similarly, multivariate tests biological mothers from both types of families suggested a significant within-families reporter desired relatively equal distribution of child main effect, F(3, 27) = 4.1, p < .05; follow-up care, F(l, 27) = 4.1, ns. Inasmuch as lesbian univariate tests revealed no significant differ- parents, on average, received more education ences between reporters on individual relation- than heterosexual parents, we reanalyzed these ship satisfaction measures. No significant Re- data by using parental education as a co van ate. porter X Sexual Orientation interaction effects Results were largely the same, except that when emerged from these analyses, .F(3, 27) = 1.0, education was statistically controlled, the within- ns. Thus, on average, lesbian and heterosexual families reporter main effect was no longer couples reported about the same levels of love, significant. All other results remained exactly as conflict, and satisfaction in their relationships. reported above. Thus, the main results suggest that regardless of sexual orientation, mothers Child Adjustment desired a more equal division of child care than did fathers. In other words, lesbian parents both Children's psychosocial functioning as re- wanted and practiced more egalitarian division ported on the CBCL by parents and on the TRF of the labor involved in child care than did by teachers revealed that, on average, children heterosexual parents. in the present sample were well adjusted. Means and standard deviations for children's adjust- Summary statistics for parents' reports on ment scores are presented in Table 4. On satisfaction with the division of labor are average, even though agreement between report- presented in Table 3. Regardless of how the ers was modest (e.g., biological mother- actual division of labor was accomplished by nonbiological parent average was r = .44; these couples, all parties reported that they were parent-teacher average was r = .21; see also satisfied with the division of labor in their Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987), all families. Multivariate tests from a 2 (lesbian vs. reporters (i.e., biological mothers, nonbiological heterosexual) X 2 (biological mother vs. nonbio- parents, and teachers) agreed that children in logical mother/father) MANOVA with repeated both lesbian and heterosexual parented families measure on the second variable yielded no were functioning well. Average scores on the significant between-families sexual orientation Internalizing, Externalizing, and Total Behavior main effect, F(4, 26) = 0.7, ns, no significant Problems scales were substantially below clini- within-families reporter main effect, F(4, 26) = cal cutoffs (T score of 65 or above; Achenbach, 2.2, ns, and no significant Sexual Orientation X 1991a, 1991b). In addition, the average Social Reporter interaction effect, F(l, 26) = 1.2, ns. Competence and Academic Performance and Summary statistics for couples' relationship Adaptive Functioning scores for all children satisfaction from the Locke-Wallace (1959) were substantially and significantly above the Marital Adjustment Test and the Braiker-Kelley clinical cutoffs (T score of 30 or below; Love and Conflict (1979) scores are also Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b). As we have reported presented in Table 3. Lesbian as well as elsewhere (Chan et al., 1998), children's adjust- heterosexual couples' average relationship adjustment did not differ as a function of parental ment scores exceeded the mean score of 100 on sexual orientation. the LWMAT (Locke & Wallace, 1959), and all parents reported relatively high levels of love Division of Labor and Children's and low to moderate levels of conflict in their relationships, suggesting that parents were Adjustment generally satisfied with their couple relation- To explore possible associations among par- ships. Multivariate tests from a 2 (lesbian vs. ents' satisfaction with the division of household heterosexual) X 2 (biological mother vs. nonbio- labor, parents' relationship satisfaction, and DIVISION OF LABOR 411 I

~~1 •a~~

~~V V V V V~~

~~1 f •S* 09 \qooq co oq oo so n; o\ f en r-» i o ^3 •a 3 O O ' s .2 S S M~~

~~ON O O\ O Q SO '~~

~~J2 3 8-~~

~~11 QU U PO CQ 412 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON~~

Table 4 Average T Scores From the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and Teacher Report Form (TRF) Lesbian-couple families Heterosexual-couple families Biological Nonbiological Biological mother mother Teacher mother Father Teacher Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD No. of reporters 29 22 19 16 12 10 Social Competence/Academic Perfor- mance'1 46.2 10.6 46.8 9.5 54.7 8.4 47.2 8.5 47.8 10.7 56.7 8.4 Total behavior problems 49.1 10.5 50.8 11.5 49.1 12.0 50.8 9.5 45.0 11.1 52.8 9.0 Internalizing behavior problems 47.8 9.4 49.5 9.1 46.6 9.9 51.1 9.8 43.2 9.7 48.6 11.0 Externalizing behavior problems 49.2 10.9 50.6 11.2 50.8 11.6 47.6 6.4 45.0 9.1 52.3 63 aThe Social Competence subscale is from the parents' reports on the CBCL; the Academic Performance and Adaptive Functioning subscale is from the TRF.

children's adjustment, we computed Pearson finally for families headed by lesbian mothers. product-moment correlations among the vari- For all families, teachers' reports of lower levels ables of interest. Initial data analyses revealed of children's externalizing problem behaviors different relations among these variables for were associated with nonbiological parents' heterosexual- and lesbian-headed families. Thus, report of greater satisfaction with the division of analyses were performed separately for the two household tasks, R2 = .31, F{2, 21) = 4.28,/? < groups of families. .05. To explore associations between parents' Among families headed by heterosexual satisfaction with the division of labor, parents' parents, biological mothers' reports of lower relationship satisfaction, and children's adjust- levels of externalizing behavior problems were ment, we computed simultaneous regression associated with fathers' (i.e., nonbiological equations. The question of interest was whether parents') reports of greater satisfaction with the parents' satisfaction with the division of labor division of family decision making but lower accounted for the variance in children's adjust- satisfaction with the division of household tasks, ment; thus, children's externalizing behavior R2 = .53, F(2,10) = 4.57, p < .05. problems were regressed on parent's satisfaction Among families headed by lesbian mothers, with the division of household tasks, decision several interesting associations emerged. First, making, and child care. Although many interac- biological mothers' reports of lower levels of tion effects can be entertained in these models, children's externalizing behavior problems were given the modest sample size and the fact that associated with biological mothers' reports of we had no a priori hypotheses that would predict greater satisfaction with the division of house- significant interactions, we elected to focus our hold tasks, R2 = .27, F(2, 23) = 3.39, p < .05. current analyses on uncovering main effects in Second, nonbiological mothers' reports of lower each of our regression models. Although both levels of children's externalizing behavior prob- within- as well as cross-reporter associations lems were associated with biological mothers' were examined, because of the restrictions reports of greater satisfaction with the division imposed by sample size and for the sake of of household tasks, as well as nonbiological clarity in presentation, we excluded all nonsig- mothers' reports of greater satisfaction with the nificant predictors in our final regression models division of family decision making, R2 = .61, and present only the most parsimonious models F(4, 17) = 9.61, p < .001. Third, teachers' in this article. Thus, these regression models are reports of lower levels of children's externaliz- exploratory in nature and should be interpreted ing behavior problems were associated with with caution. biological mothers' reports of greater satisfac- Results from the simultaneous regression tion with the division of family decision making, 2 analyses are presented first for all families, then R = .69, F(4, 12) = 4.39, p < .05. It is worth for families headed by heterosexual parents, and mentioning here that results from these regres- DIVISION OF LABOR 413

~~sion models are largely based on cross-rater~~

i—i reports; furthermore, the most parsimonious r4 models presented here accounted for a substan- 1 1 tial proportion of the variance in each case. Finally, we also examined the impact of the O m CO. actual levels of household labor cm children's r r adjustment. In contrast to results for parents* satisfaction with the division of labor, only one significant association emerged for the actual S g> O rs * ci level of household labor. Consistent with the —^ # U" results reported by Patterson (1995a), among 11 11 lesbian mother families, when nonbiological (^ 00 t r- mothers participated in more child-care tasks, -- biological mothers reported the child as having 1 '•_• r fewer externalizing behavior problems,,/?2 = .48, 7) = 4.33,p<.05. * * II # II * * Q? Relationship Satisfaction, Division of O\ Labor, and Children's Adjustment To test the hypothesis that associations ft; 1 CO. between children's adjustment and parents "s division of household labor were mediated by parents' relationship satisfaction (P. A. Cowan et al., 1993), we followed the procedures for .3 =3 testing mediation models suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). To test this model, we calculated three simultaneous regression equa- 1 ) tions using nonbiological mothers' reports: (a) 8% 2 Nonbiological mothers' relationship adjustment (LWMAT) was regressed on their satisfaction with the division of family decision making; (b) nonbiological mothers* reports of children's externalizing problem behaviors was regressed on their satisfaction with the division of family decision making; and finally (c) nonbiological 1 ca mothers' reports of children's externalizing e problem behaviors was regressed on both their If ratings of relationship adjustment and their 60 ratings of satisfaction with the division of family decision making. The mediation model was tested with nonbiological mothers' reports only .5- because initial correlation analyses indicated •is that in this sample of families formed by means I of donor insemination, the association between 3 g couples' relationship satisfaction and satisfac- fie; tion of the division of household labor was found only among nonbiological mothers. Fur- J3 -S thermore, the mediation model was not predictive of biological mothers' or teachers' reports of I children's externalizing behaviors. Summary Vmtrt statistics for these regression models are pre- p sented in Table 5. ^ V Si Results indicated that, as expected, nonbiologi- 414 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON cal mothers reported higher relationship adjust- distributions of unpaid family labor than did ment when they were satisfied with the division heterosexual parents, even though all parents of family decision making, Z?2 = .66, F(l, 17) = worked similar hours in paid employment Both 30.5, p < .001 (see Figure 1). Furthermore, lesbian and heterosexual parents shared house- when biological mothers reported higher levels hold tasks and family decision making relatively of satisfaction with the division of family evenly, but differences arose in the area of child decision making, they described their children care. Lesbian couples shared the work involved as having fewer externalizing behavior prob- in child care more evenly than did heterosexual lems, R2 = .56, F(h 17) = 20.3, p < .001. couples. Parental satisfaction with these arrange- Finally, when the effects of relationship adjustments, rather than the actual levels of labor, was ment as well as satisfaction with the division of associated with more favorable adjustment family decision making were considered simul- among children of lesbian mothers. taneously, only the relationship-adjustment vari- 2 Consistent with the findings of earlier re- able retained its predictive power, R = .68, search (Hand, 1991; Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, F(2, 17) = 15.9, p < .001. In summary, as 1995a), we found that heterosexual mothers shown in Figure 1, our results showed that the performed the majority of the child-care tasks association between parental satisfaction with within their families, whereas lesbian biological division of labor and child adjustment was and nonbiological mothers shared child-care mediated by parental relationship satisfaction; tasks more equally. Because parents in the children of lesbian mothers were rated as better heterosexual comparison groups in earlier re- adjusted when their parents reported greater search (e.g., Hand, 1991) did not conceive relationship satisfaction. through donor insemination, it was unclear whether lesbian couples shared parenting more evenly because they were lesbian parents or Discussion because shared parenting is characteristic of How do lesbian and heterosexual parents couples who use donor insemination. Hetero- compare in their division of family labor? We sexual couples who conceived through reproduc- found that lesbian parents reported more equal tive technology (e.g., anonymous donor insemi-

Relationship Adjustment (LWMAT) 17.6 1.8]*

~~Satisfaction Children's with Division -10.9 [-. Externalizing of Family Behavior Decisions -3.9 [-. Problems~~

Figure 1. Pictorial representation of the mediational model. Regression coeffi- cients are given in the form B[p]. LWMAT = Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. "Model 1: Relationship adjustment regressed on satisfaction with division of decision making, R2 = .66, F(l, 17) = 30.5, p < .001. bModel 2: Children's externalizing behavior problems regressed on satisfaction with division of decision making, R2 = .56, F(\, 17) = 20.3,/? < .001. cModel 3: Children's externalizing behavior problems regressed on relationship adjustment and satisfaction with division of decision making, R2 = .68,F(2,17) = 15.9,p < .001. *p<.05. ***p< .001. DIVISION OF LABOR 415 nation) have been found to be more motivated child-care and household tasks. Chodorow parents than couples who conceived naturally (1978) and Gilligan (1982) proposed that (Golombok et al., 1993, 1995), and this women's identity formation is characterized by motivation might result in more equal participa- attachment and emotional relatedness, whereas tion in child care by nonbiological parents. men's identity formation is characterized by Results from the present study, which included a differentiation from others. Such a socialization- matched comparison group of heterosexual developmental framework might predispose parents who also used anonymous donor insemi- women to embody nurturing, caregiver roles nation, suggest that shared parenting is a within their relationships. Thus, lesbian nonbio- distinguishing feature of lesbian parenting logical mothers* desire for equal participation as rather than simply a characteristic of parents a family caregiver and men's lesser concern who utilize reproductive technology. with equal participation in family labor coin- cides with Chodorow's and Gilligan's theories The child-care findings for heterosexual about the importance of interpersonal responsi- parents were very clear. Consistent with previ- bility to women and the importance of individu- ous findings (Blair & Lichter, 1991; Dancer & ation to men. Although women have tradition- Gilbert, 1993; Hochschild, 1989; Ishii-Kuntz & ally been defined by their unpaid familial role, Coltrane, 1992; Presser, 1994; Starrels, 1994), men have been defined by their status in the heterosexual mothers took on the responsibility paid-labor market. As a result of this socializa- for the majority of child care, including direct tion, fathers may not incorporate the caregiver (e.g., bathing and feeding), indirect (e.g., role into their self-concept to the same extent as choosing toys for child, doing child's laundry), do women (Hall, Walker, & Acock, 1995; and recreational (e.g., taking child out to parks Hochschild, 1989). However, observers have and playgrounds, reading to child) tasks. Hetero- also argued that some fathers may interpret their sexual mothers wanted their husbands to take involvement in paid employment as caregiving more responsibility for child care so that fathers for the child. Consistent with this gender would assume responsibility for almost half of socialization perspective, a number of research- the child care. In contrast, fathers did not wish to ers have reported that women place greater expand their child-care involvement to the importance on their role as parents, whereas degree preferred by their wives. Thus, although fathers view their role in paid employment as fathers were quite satisfied, mothers continued to more salient (C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992; wish for more egalitarian child-care arrangements. Hand, 1991). Consistent with expectations, our results In this sample of relatively highly educated showed that lesbian parents, like lesbian couples parents, we also observed that educational without children (Kurdek, 1993a, 1995a), placed attainment attenuates the discrepancy between high value on equality in the domestic sphere fathers' and mothers' reports of actual and ideal and expressed a greater desire than did hetero- levels of child-care responsibilities. This finding sexual parents for an equal division of family may suggest that more highly educated fathers labor. Differences between parents in preference share child-care responsibilities to a more equal for equality were not as pronounced in lesbian extent with their wives than do fathers with couples as they were in heterosexual couples. lower levels of educational attainment. Indeed, Regardless of sexual orientation, all of the the impact of parental education on the arrange- women tended to want child care to be shared ment of household labor is an interesting topic relatively equally between partners. The impor- of investigation for future research. tance of equality to lesbian couples may thus be Contrary to earlier findings (e.g., Patterson, a function of their female gender rather than a 1995a), the present data revealed that lesbian function of their sexual orientation. nonbiologicai mothers did not work signifi- A gender socialization perspective provides cantly longer hours than lesbian biological one theoretical explanation for lesbian nonbio- mothers in paid employment. Lesbian and logical mothers' greater preference for involve- heterosexual biological mothers reported similar ment in the caregiver role (i.e., parent and home numbers of hours spent in paid work as did caretaker) in comparison with fathers' prefer- lesbian nonbiological mothers and heterosexual ence for lesser involvement in day-to-day fathers. Because of the equal involvement of 416 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON both lesbian mothers in family tasks and paid children's adjustment revealed that children's work, neither of these women appeared to adjustment was more often associated with assume the second shift of household labor and parents' satisfaction with the division of labor child care that heterosexual mothers in the rather than with how much each parent was present sample seemed to shoulder (Hochschild, actually doing. Although mean differences 1989). emerged in the domain of child care, reflecting Satisfaction levels indicate that lesbian and quantitative differences between lesbian- and heterosexual parents showed equally high satis- heterosexual-couple families in the division of faction with their involvement in family tasks labor, we also observed process or qualitative and with their couple relationships. Despite differences between lesbian- and heterosexual- differing arrangements for the division of child couple families in that among lesbian families, care between lesbian and heterosexual couples, satisfaction with family decision making was consistently high satisfaction levels suggest that associated with couple's relationship satisfac- thei? differing child-care arrangements were tion and children's adjustment. More specifi- acceptable to parents in both lesbian and cally, it was among reports from lesbian heterosexual couples. One explanation for het- nonbiological mothers that we found an associa- erosexual wives' satisfaction with unequal tion between satisfaction with the division of distributions of family labor relies on a distribu- household labor and satisfaction with couple tive justice perspective in which women's relationships; nonbiological mothers who were perceptions of fairness determine their satisfac- more satisfied with the division of family tion with the labor division (Hawkins, Marshall, decision making also rated their children as & Meiners, 1995). The heterosexual women in exhibiting fewer externalizing behavior prob- the present study may have interpreted their lems. Using a mediational model (Baron & husbands1 greater earnings as sufficient justifica- Kenny, 1986), we were able to demonstrate that tion for wives' additional child-care responsibili- the association between nonbiological mothers' ties (Hawkins et al, 1995; Thompson, 1991). satisfaction with the division of family decision Ruble and her colleagues (Hackel & Ruble, making and children's adjustment was mediated 1992; Ruble et al., 1988) have suggested that by their satisfaction level with couple relation- heterosexual mothers' satisfaction with child- ships. This finding is consistent with those in the care arrangements and with their marriages may current literature for heterosexual families be mediated by the degree to which their showing that associations between children's expectations are confirmed or violated. Maternal outcome and parental division of labor are dissatisfaction may emerge if paternal child-care mediated by parents' levels of satisfaction in the participation does not meet mothers' expecta- marital relationship (e.g., P. A, Cowan et al., tions. Thus, an interpretation for bom lesbian 1993). and heterosexual couples' reports of high satisfaction may be that confirmed expectations Associations between division of household mediate satisfaction (Hackel Sc Ruble, 1992; labor and couples' relationship satisfaction were Ruble et al., 1988). Lesbian parents expect an not found among heterosexual parents or among equal division of child care, whereas hetero- lesbian biological mothers in this sample. sexual parents may expect a traditional gendered Indeed, for biological mothers as well as for division of labor (Hackel & Ruble, 1992; Ruble fathers, satisfaction with the division of house- et al., 1988). Although the present study could hold labor and couples' satisfaction seem to be not identify the factors that mediate lesbian and unrelated. However, consistent with previous heterosexual parents* satisfaction, our results findings (Chan et al., 1998; Emery, 1982; Erel & revealed that satisfaction with family division of Burman, 1995; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, labor did not vary substantially despite impor- 1994), reports of couples' satisfaction were tant differences in the actual division of labor related to children's adjustment in that children among lesbian-headed and heterosexual-headed from both lesbian- and heterosexual-parented families. families were more competent and exhibited fewer behavior problems when their parents Examination of the associations among par- reported greater relationship adjustment, more ents' satisfaction with the division of household love, and less conflict in their relationship. Thus, labor, parents' relationship satisfaction, and in light of the family-systems perspective, DIVISION OF LABOR 417 satisfaction between parents in the parental dyad problems. These findings contribute to under- influences the relationship between parents and standing of the role that sexual orientation plays child and may ultimately promote more positive in family life and suggest the importance of adjustment among children. Of course, numer- examining both similarities and differences ous other factors in addition to those examined among varied types of families. in this article, both within and outside the family system, contribute to children's competence and functioning. The findings from this study, References nonetheless, extend the generalizability of earlier work (e.g., C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992) on Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child the association between parental division of Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burling- labor and children's adjustment from hetero- ton: University of Vermont, Department of Psychia- try. sexual families to lesbian-mother families. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Teacher's When interpreting the results of the present Report Form and 1991 Profile. Burlington: Univer- study, a number of limitations should be sity of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. acknowledged. The study relied solely upon Achenbach, T. M, McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. self-report measures of family distributions of T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emo- labor, and no observational or diary measures tional problems: Implication of cross-informant were used. The sample was predominantly correlations for situational specificity. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 101, 213-332. White, well educated, and relatively affluent. In Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The addition, although the study did include a moderator-mediator variable distinction in social matched heterosexual comparison group, fewer psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and heterosexual families than anticipated took part statistical considerations. Journal of Personality in this study, resulting in a small sample of and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. heterosexual parents. One possible methodologi- Belsky, J., & Pensky, E. (1988). Marital change cal concern with this study was the lower across the transition to parenthood. Marriage and participation rate of heterosexual parents as Family Review, 12, 133-153. compared with lesbian parents. The difference Benin, M. H., & Agostinelli, J. (1988). Husbands' and in participation rates may result in a hetero- wives' satisfaction with the division of labor. sexual sample that is not representative of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 249-361. population of heterosexual couples who use Berk, R. A., & Ray, S. C. (1982). Selection biases in anonymous donor insemination. Thus, these sociological data. Social Science Research, 11, 352-398. results should be viewed as exploratory until Blair, S. L., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Measuring the they can be replicated in an independent sample. division of household labor: Gender segregation of Although there were limitations of this sample, housework among American couples. Journal of findings were nevertheless consistent with Family Issues, 12, 91-113. previous research on the division of child-care Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the responsibilities among heterosexual families development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess (e.g., C. P. Cowan & Cowan, 1992; Hochschild, & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in 1989; Presser, 1994). developing relationships (pp. 135-168). New York: Academic Press. Overall, comparisons between lesbian and Burger, E., & Milardo, R. M. (1995). Marital heterosexual parents revealed that lesbian par- interdependence and social networks. Journal of ents not only shared family labor to a greater Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 403-415. extent than did heterosexual parents but also Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., & Patterson, C. J. (1998). expressed a greater preference for equality in Psychosocial adjustment among children conceived division of family labor than did heterosexual via donor insemination by lesbian and heterosexual parents. The present results suggest that despite mothers. Child Development, 69, 443-457. their differences, both types of families were Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mother- ing: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. relatively satisfied with their divisions of labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Among children growing up in lesbian- but not Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1987). Men's in heterosexual-parent households, nonbiologi- involvement in parenthood: Identifying the anteced- cal parents' satisfaction with couple relation- ents and understanding the barriers. In P. W. Berman ships was associated with fewer behavior & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men's transitions to 418 CHAN, BROOKS, RABOY, AND PATTERSON

parenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family Hackel, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1992). Changes in the experience (pp. 145-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. marital relationship after the first baby is born: Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1988). Who does what Predicting the impact of expectancy disconfirma- when partners become parents: Implications for tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, men, women, and marriage. Marriage & Family 62, 944-957. Review, 12, 105-131. Hall, L. D., Walker, A. J., & Acock, A. C. (1995). Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1990). Who does Gender and family work in one-parent households. what? In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 685-692. Straus (Eds.), Handbook of family measure tech- Hand, S. I. (1991). 77?* lesbian parenting couple. niques (pp. 447-448). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Professional Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1992). When partners School of Psychology, San Francisco. become parents: The big life change for couples. Hawkins, A. J., Marshall, C. M., & Meiners, K. M. New York: Basic Books. (1995). Exploring wives' sense of fairness about Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1988). Changes in family work: An initial test of the distributive justice marriage during the transition to parenthood: Must framework. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 693-721. we blame the baby? In G. Y. Michaels & W. A. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working Goldberg (Eds.), The transition to parenthood: parents and the revolution at home. New York: Current theory and research (pp. 114-154). Cam- "Viking Penguin. bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Huber, J., & Spitze, G. D. (1980). Considering Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Kerig, P. K. (1993). divorce: An expansion of Becker's theory of marital Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender instability. American Journal of Sociology, 86, differences in family formation and parenting style. 75-89. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. Skolnick, Ishii-Kuntz, M., & Coltrane, S. (1992). Predicting the & G, E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: sharing of household labor: Are parenting and Toward a new agenda for family research (pp. housework distinct? Sociological Perspectives, 35, 165-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 629-647. Dancer, L. S., & Gilbert, L. A. (1993). Spouses' Koepke, L., Hare, J., & Moran, P. B. (1992). family work participation and its relation to wives' Relationship quality in a sample of lesbian couples occupational level. Sex Roles, 28, 127-145. with children and child-free lesbian couples. Family Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the Relations, 41, 224-229. children of discord and divorce. Psychological Kurdek, L. A. (1993a). The allocation of household Bulletin, 92, 310-330. labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127-139. marital relations and parent-child relations: A Kurdek, L. A. (1993b). Nature and prediction of meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, changes in marital quality for first-time parent and 108-132. nonparent husbands and wives. Journal of Family Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H., & Osbome, L. N. Psychology, 6, 255-265. (1994). Does marital conflict cause child maladjust- Kurdek, L. A. (1995a). Developmental changes in ment? Directions and challenges for longitudinal relationship quality in gay and lesbian cohabiting research. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 128- couples. Developmental Psychology, 31, 86-94. 140. Kurdek, L. A. (1995b). Lesbian and gay couples. In Flaks, D. K., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, F, & Joseph, A. R. D'Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual Psychological perspectives (pp 262-290). New parents and their children. Developmental Psychol- York: Oxford University Press. ogy, 31, 105-114. Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychologi- marital-adjustment and prediction tests: Their reli- cal theory and women's development. Cambridge, ability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, MA: Harvard University Press. 27,251-255. Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. MacDermid, S. M., Huston, T. L., & McHale, S. M. (1993). Quality of parenting in families created by (1990). Changes in marriage associated with the the new reproductive technologies: A brief report of transition to parenthood: Individual differences as a preliminary findings. Journal of Psychosomatic function of sex-role attitudes and changes in the Obstetrics and Gynecology, 14, 17-22. division of household labor. Journal of Marriage Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. and the Family, 52, 475-486. (1995). Families created by the new reproductive McCandlish, B. (1987). Against all odds: Lesbian technologies: Quality of parenting and social and mother family dynamics. In F. Bozett (Ed.), Gay emotional development of the children. Child and lesbian parents (pp. 23-38). New York: Development, 66, 285-298. Praeger. DIVISION OF LABOR 419

McConaughy, S. H. (1993). Advances in empirically Perry-Jenkins, M., & Crouter, A. C. (1990). Men's based assessment of children's behavioral and provider-role attitudes: Implications for household emotional problems. School Psychology Review, 22, work and marital satisfaction. Journal of Family 285-307. Issues, 11, 136-156. Osterweil, D. A. (1991). Correlates of relationship Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among satisfaction in lesbian couples who are parenting dual-earner spouses and the division of household their first child together. Unpublished doctoral labor by gender. American Sociological Review, 59, dissertation, California School of Professional 348-364. Psychology, Berkeley/Alameda. Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Huber, J. (1983). Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay Dividing work, sharing work, and in-between: parents. Child Development, 63, 1025-1042. Marriage patterns and depression. American Socio- Patterson, C. J. (1994). Children of the lesbian baby logical Review, 48, 809-823. boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concept, and Ruble, D. N., Hackel, L. S., Fleming, A. S., & sex-role identity. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Stangor, C. (1988). Changes in the marital relation- Contemporary perspectives on lesbian and gay ship during the transition to first-time motherhood: psychology: Theory, research, and applications (pp. Effects of violated expectations concerning division 156-175). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. of household labor. Journal of Personality and Patterson, C. J. (1995a). Families of the lesbian baby Social Psychology, 55, 78-87. boom: Parents' division of labor and children's Starrels, M. E. (1994). Husband's involvement in adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 31, 115— female gender-typed household chores. Sex Roles, 123. 37,473-491. Patterson, C J. (1995b). Lesbian mothers, gay Suitor, J. J. (1991). Marital quality and satisfaction fathers, and their children. In A. R. D'Augelli & C. with the division of household labor across the J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the identities over the lifespan: Psychological perspec- Family, 53, 221-230. tives (pp. 262-290). New York: Oxford University Tasker, F. L., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in Press. a lesbian family: Effects on child development. New Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relational York: Guilford Press. perspective on homosexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, Thompson, L. (1991). Family work: Women's sense S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexu- of fairness. Journal of Family Issues, 12, 181-196. ality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orienta- Ward, R. A. (1993). Marital happiness and household tion (pp. 321-349). New York: Oxford University equity in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Press. Family, 55, 427-438. Peplau, L. A., Veniegas, R. C, & Campbell, S. M. (1996). Gay and lesbian relationships. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of Received June 17, 1997 lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults Revision received April 7, 1998 (pp. 250-273). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Accepted April 30, 1998 •