Gender differences in predictors of anticipated division of household labor in Christian students.

Chan, Catherine S. ; Hall, M. Elizabeth Lewis ; Anderson, Tamara L. 等

The factors leading to the division of household labor in marriage has been the subject of research for many years. Historically, the division of household labor has been influenced by factors such as the industrial revolution, which moved economic productivity out of the home and resulted in a split between household labor and economic productivity, with women taking on the larger part of household labor. In recent decades, research has documented the existence of gender divisions in the types of household labor performed (Berk & Berk 1979). Blair and Lichter (1991) divided household tasks into gender stereotypical categories based on data from the 1988 National Survey of Families and Households, which asked 3,190 married and cohabiting couples about their time spent on eight household chores. Women were found to spend more time preparing meals, washing dishes and cleaning up after meals, cleaning house, and washing, ironing, and mending clothes. Men were found to spend more time doing outdoor and household maintenance, and auto maintenance and repair. Men and women were found to spend a similar amount of time grocery shopping, and paying the bills. The present study explores how religiously-influenced views on household labor intersect with contemporary gender threat theory in predicting anticipated division of household labor in a sample of Christian undergraduate students.

Past research focused on theories that explain the division of household labor based on external resources like time and money, with inconsistent results. However, more recently Brines (1994) and Greenstein (2000) introduced an alternative explanation for household division of labor: gender performance theory. Gender performance theory argues that the division of household labor is determined by efforts to maintain one's masculinity or femininity. As such, the theory suggests that an individual will perform the household tasks that would secure his or her identity as a man or woman. The gender performance process suggests that couples who stray from their stereotypical gender roles compensate for their role deviation by exaggerating stereotypical behaviors. When couples stray from their stereotypical gender roles their identity as a woman/wife or as a man/husband is threatened. To compensate for the deviation from the stereotype, they adjust their household behaviors to divide the chores in a more stereotypical manner. This theory is consistent with compensatory masculinity theory (Babl 1979), which states that men defensively exaggerate their masculinity when their sex-roles are threatened.

In support of this theory, both Brines (1994) and Greenstein (2000) found that the division of housework became more traditional when stereotypical roles were breeched. As wives' income increased beyond that of the husbands, wives' hours of housework increased, and husbands' hours of housework decreased. Furthermore, Brines (1994) found that husbands' hours of housework increased initially when they lost their jobs, but when husbands were unemployed long term, their hours of housework decreased. Schneider (2011), in contrast, found in a large, contemporary, time-diary study that women did perform their prescribed gender roles in a more stereotypical fashion when gender roles were breached; however, men did not. Schneider noted that re-analysis of Brines' and Greenstein's data found that when the 2%-3% of lowest earning men were excluded from the samples, their data did not support gender performance theory in men. He concluded that women perform gender through housework, but men do not.

Qualitative research has also found evidence of gender performance theory in other aspects of domestic life (Kroska 2008; Tichenor 2005; Zuo & Bian 2001). One qualitative study found that men were considered incapable and lacking in ambition when they were not providing the main financial support (Zuo & Bian 2001). To minimize the amount of gender deviation within a couple, wives that were earning more than their husbands downplayed their financial contribution, and increased their housework contribution and child care so as to combat opinions of being a "bad mother" or being selfish, non-feminine, and irresponsible. In addition, the term provider was limited to financial contribution when wives were earning more than their husbands, but expanded to include emotional needs when husbands were not the main financial contributor (Tichenor 2005). To compensate for their gender deviant behaviors, men and women attempted to minimize their deviant behaviors and emphasize traditional behaviors.

Expected Division of Household Labor

In addition to exploring actual division of labor, research has explored college students' attitudes about gender roles and anticipated division of household labor. This research has important implications, as gender role attitudes and anticipated roles influence educational factors such as the choice of majors and aspirations for further education. Gender role attitudes are becoming more egalitarian over time, especially among women and college students (Bryant 2003; Kaufman 2005). However, the trend toward egalitarian gender role attitudes does not always translate into more egalitarian anticipated division of household labor. One study found that college students who endorsed more egalitarian gender roles still reported traditional anticipated divisions of labor (Ferber & Young 1997). Participants reported desiring more equal gender roles, but expected reality to reflect more traditional and unequal divisions of labor. It is also possible that this discrepancy reflects a social desirability bias, as egalitarian gender roles are perceived as more acceptable in educational settings. If this is the case, the discrepancy in attitudes suggests that students continue to have fairly traditional expectations regarding the division of household labor (Askari et al. 2010; Fetterolf & Eagley 2011; Fulcher & Coyle 2011). However, to date no studies have specifically studied the relationship between gender performance theory and anticipated division of household labor.

Sanctification

Religious beliefs and values contribute additional complexity to the study of gender roles and division of household labor, as religion plays a significant role in structuring gendered beliefs and behavior (Davidman 1991; Hawley 1994; Yadgar 2006). Research among conservative Christians demonstrates that as a whole, they are more conservative in their views about gender roles than the general population (Brinkerhoff & MacKie 1985; Jensen & Jensen 1993; Lehrer 1995; Morgan 1987), although there is also considerable within-group variation in these views. Quantitative research shows that more conservative religious couples in general adhere to a more traditional division of household labor than non-conservative couples (Ellison & Bartkowski 2002). Qualitative research also illustrates this dynamic. For example, Bartkowski (1999), in an ethnographic study, found evidence that women continued to perform the majority of the housework, even when employed, in order to align themselves with the typical conservative Christian view that women should be in charge of the household.

Given the centrality of traditional gender roles in conservative Christianity, centering on men as breadwinners and women as homemaker roles, it is likely that the gender performance of individuals in this tradition are influenced by their religiously-driven beliefs and values on the topic. Mahoney et al. (1999) argued persuasively that proximal concepts and measures of religion are superior to distal concepts in understanding the influence of religion on areas of human functioning. Much research on religion involves only global indicators of religiousness (e.g., single items on religious affiliation). While the role of religion in the distribution of household tasks has been studied from a distal perspective, that is, in terms of affiliation with a religious tradition, it has not been studied through the lenses of proximal religious constructs. This is particularly problematic given indications that a great deal of variability with respect to gender roles can be found within conservative sectors of Christianity (Gallagher 2004).

The proximal construct of sanctification can contribute to the understanding of the relationship between religiosity and division of household labor, by taking into account how the division of household labor is perceived from a religious perspective, that is, how it is "sanctified." Mahoney et al. (2003) developed a theoretical model around this concept of sanctification, defining sanctification as a psychological process through which aspects of life are perceived by people as having divine character and significance. They proposed that when aspects of life are sanctified, people will invest more resources to preserve and protect them (Mahoney et al. 2005; Mahoney et al. 2003; Pargament & Mahoney 2005), will experience spiritual emotions with respect to those aspects of life, and will derive benefits such as greater satisfaction, meaning, pleasure, and better functioning from the sanctified area of life (Mahoney et al. 2003). Sanctification is divided into two constructs: perception of sacred qualities and manifestation of God. The perception of sacred qualities represents the degree to which an individual prescribes spiritual adjectives to a construct. The manifestation of God represents the degree to which a construct has divine and spiritual significance.

Although no research exists regarding the sanctification of the division of household labor, sanctification has been studied with respect to marriage. Mahoney et al. (1999) found that couples that sanctified their marriages, as measured by the perceived sacred qualities scale and manifestation of God scale, were more protective of their relationships and approached conflicts in a more collaborative manner. Similarly, Baker et al. (2009) showed that couples who perceived their marriage and responsibilities in marriage to be ordained by God, exhibited more traditional marriage roles. Though Baker et al. (2009) did not explicitly use the term sanctification of marriage, he described marriages to have divine qualities through descriptors like "ordained and accountable to God." Given that the sanctification of marriage impacts individuals' behaviors in the marriage context, sanctification, defined as the degree to which participants perceive anticipated division of household labor to be an expression of their religious and theocentric beliefs and experiences, may also influence anticipated behaviors in this area.

The Present Study

The current study contributes to the literature on division of household labor in two ways. In the first place, it extends the study of gender performance theory to the anticipated division of household labor, using a sample of unmarried college students. Within this context, based on previous research, it is hypothesized that threats to masculinity and to femininity will produce more traditional gender displays in men and women, respectively. Given evidence that men and women may show differences in their performance of gender, with mixed results for men, gender differences will be explored.

A second objective in this study is to extend our understanding of the relationship between religion and anticipated division of household labor, by examining the influence of sanctification of the division of household labor on students' expected division of household labor. Sanctification of the division of household labor is hypothesized to moderate the relationship between gender identity threat and college students' expected division of household labor. The more individuals perceive their roles to have divine influence, the less influence gender identity threat will have on college students' expected division of household labor. Religiously-based attributions for behavior set clear and divinely-sanctioned standards for gender performance, and may provide a protective influence against threats to gender identity.

Method

Participants

A total of 133 participants were recruited from a Christian liberal arts university on the west coast. This university requires all students to sign a statement of faith and code of conduct consistent with its evangelical Christian commitments, and attendance at religious services. Seven participants were removed from the dataset as they did not meet the inclusion criteria of age (>18) and relationship status (single). of the remaining 126 participants, 48 (38%) were men and 78 (62%) were women ranging from the ages of 18-36 (M = 20.13, SD = 2.68). Of the 126 participants, 47 (37.3%) were freshman, 21 (16.7%) were sophomores, 29 (23%) were juniors, 23 (18.3%) were seniors, and 6 (4.8%) were 5th years. The participants were predominantly European American (80, 63.5%), with 24 (19%) participants identifying as Asian/Asian American, 12 (9.5%) as Hispanic/Latino/a, 2 (1.6%) as African American, 6 (4.8%) as Other, and a remaining 6 (1.6%) participants did not indicate their ethnicity. Forty participants (32%) reported being in a current relationship, while 86 (68%) indicated that they were not currently in a relationship. Of the participants that were in a relationship two (5%) were engaged. Participants were compensated with course credit in an introductory psychology course or extra credit for other undergraduate psychology courses.

Measures and Experimental Manipulation

Gender identity threat. To produce gender identity threat, the Masculine/Feminine Knowledge Test (Rudman & Fairchild 2004) was administered. This measure consists of two forms, a masculine knowledge test and a feminine knowledge test. Each test contains 29-30 multiple choice questions evaluating broad stereotypical masculine or feminine knowledge. Participants were randomly assigned to take either the version of the test corresponding to their own gender, or to the opposite gender. Despite how participants performed, all participants were informed that they did well, indicating a high degree of knowledge about stereotypically masculine or feminine topics. Participants were given the following results, "Congratulations! You scored in the 96 percentile! This means you scored higher than 96 out of 100 past test takers on this masculine/feminine knowledge test." Participants received either gender consistent feedback or gender contradictory feedback. For example, for women, gender consistent feedback involved women taking the feminine knowledge test, and being told that they knew a large amount about stereotypically feminine topics. Gender contradictory feedback involved women taking the masculine knowledge test, and being told that they knew a large amount about stereotypically masculine topics which is contrary to their own gender. This experimental manipulation has been shown to produce gender threat (Rudman & Fairchild 2004).

Expected division of household labor. To measure participants' expected division of household labor, Blair and Lichter's (1991) stereotypically divided household tasks were rated on a 5-point Likert scale on how often a participant expected to perform that task (1 = never, 5 = always). Stereotypically feminine tasks included preparing meals, washing dishes and cleaning up after meals, cleaning house, and washing, ironing, and mending clothes. Stereotypically masculine tasks included outdoor and other household maintenance, auto maintenance and repair, and breadwinning. Neutral tasks included shopping for groceries, driving other household members to work, school, other, and paying bills and keeping financial records. For women, the stereotypically masculine items were reverse-scored; for men, the stereotypically feminine items were reverse-scored. The neutral items were not used for the calculation of item totals. The items were then summed, resulting in a possible range from 7 to 35. High scores indicate an expected traditional division of household labor and low scores indicate a more expected egalitarian division of household labor. The alpha coefficient for the present study was .79.

Sanctification. Mahoney et al.'s (2005) Manifestation of God in Strivings measure was used to assess participants' sanctification of their expected division of household labor. While scales are available for both Perceived Sacred Qualities and Manifestation of God, only the Manifestation of God measure was used due to the inapplicability of the adjectives such as blessed, cursed, heavenly, earthly, etc., in the Perceived Sacred Qualities to anticipated division of household labor. This self-report measure used a 5 point Likert scale (1strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree) to indicate the degree to which participants perceived a divine being playing a role in their division of household labor. Items were edited to apply to participants' expected division of household tasks. Participants indicated their level of agreement to the following five questions: "God played a role in how I expect my spouse and I to divide up household tasks," "God is present in how my spouse and I expect to divide up household tasks," "My anticipated division of household tasks is a reflection of God's will," "I expect to experience God through the way my spouse and I divide up household tasks," "My anticipated division of household tasks reflects what God wants for me." Mahoney et al. (1999) reported a coefficient alpha for the original scale of .96. The coefficient alpha for the current study was .85. Scores were summed to obtain a total score, and possible scores ranged from 5 to 25 with high scores representing a high degree of sanctification of anticipated household labor and low scores indicating a low degree of sanctification of one's anticipated household labor.

Additional items. In order to further understand the influence of religiosity on anticipated division of household labor, two additional items were included. These items were intended to address how household labor should be divided from a religious perspective: according to the preferences of the marriage partners ("My future spouse and I will divide up our household tasks depending on giftedness and time availability"), and according to divine prescription ("My future spouse and I will divide up household tasks according to how God has prescribed").

Procedure

Participants accessed the study online. They were randomly assigned to either the gender contradictory group (men taking the feminine knowledge test, and women taking the masculine knowledge test) or gender consistent group (men taking the masculine knowledge test, and women taking the feminine knowledge test): 66 (52%) were in the gender contradictory group, and 60 (48%) were in the gender consistent group. After agreeing to the informed consent, participants completed the masculine or feminine knowledge test, expectation of the division of household labor measure, sanctification measure, and a demographics questionnaire.

Results

Descriptive Results

Regarding Sanctification, men had a mean of 18.75 (SD=3.52), and scores ranged from 12 to 25. Women had very similar results, with a mean of 19.08 (SD=3.56), and a range from 5 to 25. On the Expected Division of Household Labor scale, men had a mean of 25.53 (SD=1.48), and scores ranged from 16 to 31. Women had very similar results, with a mean of 26.53 (SD=2.87), and a range from 18 to 34.

First Hypothesis

In the first hypothesis it was predicted that threats to one's gender identity would result in a more traditional display of household labor. Participants who received the gender contradictory knowledge test were predicted to have higher scores on the expected division of household labor measure, indicating a more traditional expectation of the division of household labor. Independent t-tests were conducted by gender comparing means between gender identity threat and no threat on expected division of labor. There was not a significant difference for men, t(45) = -.31, p = .38 (threat group, M=23.35, SD=3.10, no-threat group, M=23.67, SD=3.65). However, there was a significant difference for women, t(73) = 1.65, p = .05, indicating that women whose gender identity was threatened (M=27.08, SD=2.91) expected to divide household labor in a more traditional manner than the no-threat group (M=26, SD=2.76).

Second Hypothesis

In the second hypothesis, it was predicted that sanctification of the division of household labor would moderate the relationship between gender identity threat and college students' expected division of household labor. This was assessed by using hierarchical multiple regressions for men and women separately. Sanctification was centered by subtracting the mean from each sanctification score. Gender identity threat and centered sanctification were entered in the first step. An interaction term was created by multiplying gender identity threat and centered sanctification, and the interaction variable was entered in the second step. Regression statistics results, using one-tailed significance, are presented in Table 1.

Sanctification of the division of household labor was found to moderate the relationship for men ([beta] = .31, p = .05), but not for women ([beta] = .06, p = .35). The moderation results indicated that at high levels of sanctification, men whose gender identity was threatened displayed a more traditional expected division of household labor than men whose gender identity was not threatened, while the opposite was true for men at low levels of sanctification of division of household labor (figure 1). Although sanctification did not moderate the relationship for women, the overall regression for women was significant (F = 2.76, p = .04), indicating that together, gender identity threat and sanctification contributed significantly to expected division of household labor for women. These results confirm that women whose gender identity is threatened show more traditional expected division of household labor, and indicate that women who sanctified their anticipated roles tended to have more traditional anticipated division of household labor.

Post-hoc analyses. Though the results showed that sanctification significantly moderated the relationship between gender identity threat and anticipated division of household labor in men, it did so in the opposite direction than predicted. In other words, sanctification was expected to serve a protective role against gender identity threat. Instead, those who sanctified anticipated division of household labor appeared much more susceptible to gender identity threats. In order to understand these results, correlations were run between the two items assessing how anticipated division of household labor is done from a religious perspective, and sanctification. While both the "preference" and the "divinely prescribed" items correlated positively with sanctification (r = .23, p. = .01 and r = .66, p. = .00), the "divinely prescribed" item correlated much more strongly, indicating that people who tend to sanctify the anticipated division of household labor, also tend to see the division of household labor as being divinely prescribed (indicating traditional gender roles).

Discussion

Previous literature has suggested that threats to one's gender identity result in a more traditional display of division of household labor (Brines 1994; Greenstein 2000). The current study explored gender differences in the relationship between gender identity threat and expected division of household labor. Gender identity threat only showed a main effect for expected division of household labor for women, confirming Schneider's (2011) findings of gender differences with actual division of household labor. However, the present study also contributes to our understanding of the influence of gender identity threat by demonstrating that when the moderating effects of sanctification are taken into account, gender identity threat does indeed contribute variance to anticipated division of household labor for men. This finding suggests that the effects of gender identity threat are not limited to women, but may manifest in more complex ways in men.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

These findings are further clarified by the results showing that those who sanctified their anticipated roles, also tended to see these roles as being divinely prescribed. This suggests that anticipated traditional divisions of household labor take on additional importance for people who sanctify them. This heightened sense of obligation to fulfill traditional gender roles may make these individuals more susceptible to gender identity threat, resulting in the pattern of results observed in this sample: more traditional anticipated division of household labor in the group that sanctified those roles and was threatened, than in the group that was not threatened. Consequently, perhaps Schneider's (2011) conclusions that men are not affected by gender identity threat with respect to division of household labor, must be qualified. While this may be true for men in general, perhaps men "act out gender" in household tasks when the performance of traditional gender roles is important to them. This possibility should be further explored in married couples and in populations other than Christian undergraduates for whom traditional roles are central for religious or cultural reasons.

The Christian affiliation of the sample lent itself to the exploration of ways in which their religious commitments influence their anticipated division of household labor. The level of sanctification did, in fact, influence participants' anticipated division of household labor. Sanctification of expected division of household labor was found to be a significant moderator of the gender threat-division of household labor relationship for men, as noted above, and showed a main effect for women. The pattern of correlations between the measure of sanctification, and the two items exploring whether or not the division of household tasks is seen to be divinely prescriptive is worth noting in this context. Given the diversity of positions on gender roles in conservative Christian circles, not all Christians may see the division of household labor as an area that should be sanctified. Specifically, those who see the division of household labor as not divinely prescribed, do not tend to sanctify the division of household labor as strongly. Future studies should more clearly articulate the differences between religious views on how roles are divided, and religious views that sanctify the actual performance of household labor--regardless of how it is divided.

Understanding the psychological construct of sanctification in this way helps clarify the results. In the group with low levels of sanctification of division of household labor, the effects of gender on anticipated behavior were even more salient than in the group with high levels of sanctification. In the group with low levels of sanctification, who tended to have less prescriptive views of gender roles, it may be that men whose gender identity was not threatened had their masculinity affirmed and thus displayed a more traditional division of household labor. For men that were threatened, their understanding of women appeared to be affirmed, thus they presented a less traditional display of expected division of household labor. The opposite was true in the group of men that saw the division of household labor as an area of life that could be sanctified, as noted earlier. In this group, God's prescriptions appeared to be the more salient issue. Thus, in the no-threat group, since their anticipated behavior seemed to be a result of their understanding of God's will, rather than their own felt need to be masculine, the masculinity-affirming manipulation did not inflate scores. However, when their sense of masculinity was threatened, the stake may have been higher, given God's perceived interest in this issue, and resulting in a greater anticipated desire to behave in gender-consistent ways.

Similar to all research, the generalizability of this study is limited to groups with characteristics similar to the population from which the sample was drawn. The sample was recruited from a private Christian, liberal arts university. The demographics of the sample show that it was largely European American. Further research with different religious traditions and ethnicities is necessary to confirm the unique ways in which religiosity intersects with gender identity in predicting the division of household labor.

Since expected division of household labor is likely to vary greatly from the actual division of household labor, different factors may influence this concept, such as current living environment, roommates, and social desirability. Further research is needed to understand how these factors may influence how undergraduates anticipate dividing household labor. These results are important to those working with undergraduate students of faith, as gender roles influence key educational variables such as anticipated participation in the workforce, career choice, and pursuit of graduate studies.

References

Askari, S. F., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Staebell, S. E., & Axelson, S. J. (2010). Men want equality but women don't expect it: Young adults' expectations for participation in household and child care chores. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 243-252. doi: 10.1111/j.14716402.2010.01565.x

Babl, J. D. (1979). Compensatory masculine responding as a function of sex role. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(2), 252-257. doi:10.1037/0022006X.47.2.252

Baker, E. H., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S.L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and the sanctification of gendered marital roles. Jour nal of Family Issues, 30,147-180. doi:10.1177/0 192513X08324109

Bartkowski, J. P. (1999). one step forward, one step back: "Progressive traditionalism" and the negotiation of domestic labor in evangelical families. Gender Issues, 17, 37-61.

Berk, R. A., & Berk, S. F. (1979). Labor and leisure at home: Content and organization of the household day. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Blair, S., & Lichter, D. (1991). Measuring the division of household labor: Gender segregation of housework among American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 12(1), 91-113. doi:10.1177/0 19251391012001007

Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. The American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652-688.

Brinkerhoff, M. B. & MacKie, M. (1985). Religion and gender: A comparison of Canadian and American student attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47, 415-429.

Bryant, A. N. (2003). Changes in attitudes toward women's roles: Predicting gender-role traditionalism among college students. Sex Roles, 48(3), 131-142. doi:10.1023/A:102245120 5292

Davidman, L. (1991). Tradition in a rootless world: Women turn to Orthodox Judaism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ellison, C. G., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2002). Conservative Protestantism and the division of household labor among married couples. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 950-984. doi:10.1177/ 019251302237299

Ferber, M. A., & Young, L. (1997). Student attitudes toward roles of women and men: Is the egalitarian household imminent? Feminist Economics, 3(1), 65-83.

Fetterolf, J. C. & Eagly, A. H. (2011). Do young women expect gender equality in their future lives? An answer from a possible selves experiment. Sex Roles, 65, 83-93. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9981-9

Fulcher, M. & E. F. Coyle, E.F. (2011). Breadwinner and caregiver: A cross-sectional analysis of children's and emerging adults' visions of their future family roles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 330-346. doi: 10.1111/j.2044835X.2011.02026.X

Gallagher, S. K. (2004). Where are the antifeminist evangelicals?: Evangelical identity, subcultural location, and attitudes toward feminism. Gender & Society, 18, 451-472. doi: 10.1177/08912423204266157

Greenstein, T. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(2), 322-335. doi:10.111 1/j.1741 3737.2000.00322.x

Hawley, J. S. (1994). Fundamentalism and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, L. & Jensen, J. (1993). Family values, religiosity, and gender. Psychological Reports, 73, 429-430.

Kaufman, G. (2005). Gender role attitudes and college students' work and family expectations. Gender Issues, 22, 58-71.

Kroska, A. (2008). Examining husband-wife differences in the meaning of family financial support. Sociological Perspectives, 51(1), 63-90. doi:10.1525/sop.2008.51.1.63

Lehrer, E. L. (1995). The effects of religion on the labor supply of married women. Social Science Research, 24, 281-301.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Jewell, T., Magyar, G. M., Tarakeshwar, N., ... Phillips, R. (2005). A higher purpose: The sanctification of strivings in a community sample. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(3), 239-262. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_4

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3), 321-338. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.321

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Murray-Swank, A., & Murray-Swank, N. (2003). Religion and the sanctification of family relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44, 220-236.

Morgan, M. Y. (1987). The impact of religion on gender-role attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 301-310.

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179-198.

Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157-176. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157

Schneider, D. (2011). Market earnings and household work: New tests of gender performance theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 845-860. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00851.x

Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men's dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53(3/4), 191-205. doi:10.1007/s11199-0055678-2

Yadgar, Y. (2006). Gender, religion, and feminism: The case of Jewish Israeli Traditionalists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 353-370.

Zuo, J., & Bian, Y. (2001). Gendered resources, division of housework, and perceived fairness. A case in urban China. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(4), 1122-1133. doi:10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2001.01122.x

Catherine S. Chan

M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall

Tamara L. Anderson

Biola University

Catherine S. Chan (M.A. in Clinical Psychology, Rosemead School of Psychology) is a Ph.D. candidate at the Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University (CA). Ms. Chan's interests include gender issues, religion, and Asian American women.

M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall (Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, Rosemead School of Psychology) is Professor of Psychology at Biola University (CA). Dr. Hall's research interests include women and work, mothering, missions and mental health, and embodiment.

Tamara L. Anderson (Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles) is Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of Graduate Students at Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University (CA). Dr. Anderson's research interests include gender issues, attachment, ethics and law, conflict resolution, in addition to previous work in the area of eating disorders.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to catherine.s.chan@biola.edu

Table 1
Gender Identity Threat, Sanctification, and Expected Division
of Household Labor.

Criterion      Model     Variable         [beta]   p

Expected       Model 1
Division of              ThreatNon-        -.07    .32
Household                Threat
Labor (Men               Sanctification    -.09    .28
Only)

               Model 2
                         ThreatNon-       -.002    .50
                         Threat
                         Sanctification    -.24    .09
                         ThreatXSanct       .31    .05

Expected       Model 1
Division of
Household                ThreatNon-         .18    .07
Labor                    Threat
(Women only)             Sanctification     .17    .07

               Model 2
                         ThreatNon-         .17    .08
                         Threat
                         Sanctification     .14    .16
                         ThreatXSanct       .06    .35

Criterion      Model     [R.sup.2]     F      p

Expected       Model 1        .01     .22    .40
Division of
Household
Labor (Men
Only)

               Model 2        .06    2.89    .05

Expected       Model 1        .07    2.76    .04
Division of
Household
Labor
(Women only)

               Model 2        .00     .15    .35