174 7. Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe Jacqueline Scott and Anke C. Plagnol INTRODUCTION Work–family confl ict is a crucial issue for quality of life. Moreover, public interest in work–family balance policies has expanded signifi cantly in recent years. From the policy- maker’s perspective the issue concerns the extent to which the state can and should intervene to help men and women reconcile work and family responsibilities. This issue has become urgent because, as Esping- Andersen asserts, there is an incomplete revolution in gender roles that threatens societal stability (Esping- Andersen 2009). What is meant by such a claim? The idea is that in modern societies women are facing severe problems of reconciling their dual preference for chil- dren and careers. For a growing proportion of women and men, women’s employment and less gender specialisation is desirable, both ideologically and pragmatically. Thus the dual- earner based partnership is becoming normative – it is the ‘thing to do’. Yet, we know only too well from time- budget studies that changes in the domestic sphere lag well behind the changing realities of women’s employment. Women, faced with only 24 hours in a day, fi nd they have to reduce the time they spend on unpaid work such as housework and family care, when they increase their hours of paid work. While women’s paid work activity has been on the rise, time- budget studies reveal that, on average, men are not compensating by an equivalent take- up of unpaid work (Gershuny and Kan, Chapter 3 in this volume). So what is the solu- tion? While housework can be outsourced to some extent, caring implies an ongoing presence and emotional relationship that makes paid care dif- ferent to family care. The fact that current debates about work–family confl ict in the UK and elsewhere in Europe have tended to focus on the relationship between paid work, parenting and caring is understandable. As Taylor (2001) points out, the decades since the 1970s have seen a feminisation of the UK labour market. The greatest rise in employment in the 1990s was among mothers SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 174 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 175 with children aged 4 or under. At the start of the new millennium, almost half of the country’s lone mothers are in some form of part- time work, although only one in fi ve of them are in full- time employment, a much lower proportion than in the USA or even France. This change in the gender make- up of the workforce raises inevitable concerns about how women and men can raise families successfully, while contributing as fully as possible to the labour force. Family life depends greatly on the quality of relationships between and across generations – within partnerships and between parents and children. Traditionally it was the woman who took responsibility for the home, while the man provided the income on which home- life depends. As dual- earner partnerships become increasingly common, the cost for both men and women in terms of work–family confl ict and well- being comes under scrutiny. Do women opt out of the labour force during early moth- erhood because work–family confl icts have become unbearable? Is life less stressful for them than for mothers who are employed? Is part- time work the panacea that some hope, enabling a better balance of work and family and thereby increasing well- being? An interesting irony is that although gender relations are one of the most important aspects of work- family confl ict, much of the existing policy rhetoric about the need to balance work and family life remains deliberately gender neutral. Indeed, as Lewis (2009) asserts, governments have diverse goals for promoting work- balance policies but, outside of Scandinavia, gender inequality is rarely a priority. Lewis further suggests that in the UK gender equality has hardly been discussed; rather, policy documents have striven for gender neutrality. One problem is that, in the domain of work–family balance policies, the thorny problem of ‘equality- as- sameness’ or ‘equality- as- diff erence’ is core. If the aim is sameness then this translates into an equal division of paid and unpaid work between men and women: a citizen worker/carer model. This position has been championed by Fraser (1994) on the basis of philosophical arguments, and by Gornick and Meyers (2009) on the basis of empirical work. But if, as Orloff suggests (2009), equality consists of diff erences and diversity, then policy may seek to mitigate any detrimental consequences of caring, albeit at the risk of perpetuating caring work as women’s responsibility. Lewis (2009), Orloff (2009) and others, following Sen (1999), advocate that policy should not be equality of outcome but instead focus on realisable opportunities that allow people to put their preferences into action. Disentangling preference from constraint is hugely diffi cult and beyond the scope of this chapter. We cannot delve into the extent to which men and women are fulfi lling their choices in work–family balance (our data do not permit this). Instead we are constrained to look at how the SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 175 12/03/2012 15:24 176 Gendered lives particular contexts in which individuals’ lives are situated infl uence their experience of work–family confl ict (WFC) and well- being. Our goal is to examine how WFC and well- being diff er by gender and across the family life course. We use data from the 2004 European Social Survey (ESS) to explore these issues in seven countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK. These countries are selected, in part, because they have very diff erent traditions and policies regarding work and family reconciliation. One of our aims is to examine whether WFC and well- being varies between countries that diff er in their support for maternal employment and a more equitable divide of family work between men and women. We also explore how a couple’s division of paid and unpaid work across the family life course infl uences WFC, separately by country and for all seven countries combined. We are particularly interested in examining how both the experience of WFC and well- being is gendered in ways that refl ect, in part, the gendered division of paid and unpaid labour that is manifest throughout Northern Europe. In the next section we review briefl y some of the relevant background literature and present our specifi c hypotheses. We then describe our meas- ures and the approach to the analyses before we present our results. In the summary and concluding section we bring together our main fi ndings and revisit the challenging problem of what policy can and should do to mitigate gender diff erences in WFC and how this might impinge on policy eff orts that seek to enhance citizens’ well- being. BACKGROUND LITERATURE There has been a veritable explosion of research on ‘work–life balance’ or ‘work–family confl ict’ in the past couple of decades, and much of the literature deals with how policy diff erences across Europe aff ect peo- ple’s work–life balance and associated well- being. These literatures can be divided into two main camps of substantive focus, although the two interlink. The fi rst focus is on employment and working conditions. Many studies have been concerned with the way employment has been chang- ing as a result of new processes of intensifi cation and fl exibilisation (Beck 2000; Burchell et al. 2002; Cappelli et al. 1997; Green and McIntosh 2001). It seems plausible that these developments have severe implications both for personal well- being and for the risks of WFC. There is now increasing evidence that this is indeed the case (Gallie and Russell 2009; Hildebrandt 2006). The second focus is on the changing nature of the family and the position of women, in particular. There are concerns about issues of SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 176 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 177 gender equality; specifi cally in the way men and women divide paid and unpaid work (Harkness 2008; Kan and Gershuny 2010; Lewis 2008). Much of the focus has been on women’s diffi culties in combining full- time paid employment with motherhood (Crompton and Lyonette 2008; Fagan et al. 2008; McRae 2008). However, concerns that women’s employment confl icts with care for frail elderly parents are also important for ageing societies. In the 1990s the UK Economic and Social Research Council sponsored a research programme, the ‘Future of Work’. A working paper by Taylor (2001) brought together insights into the future of work–life balance. This emphasised that a focus on the diffi culties of balancing paid work and parental responsibilities is too narrow an approach for understanding the importance of the work–life debate. It urged that a broader discus- sion was needed looking more rigorously at the changing character of paid employment under the pressure it is facing from intensive business competition and technological innovation. Job intensifi cation and increas- ing job insecurity were thought likely to have negative implications for well- being. Moreover, there was concern that this might be particularly marked in the UK, because, until recently, the UK lacked the kind of legally enforceable individual and collective rights at work enjoyed by our mainland European neighbours. Taylor cites the example of Nordic coun- tries, where policies have tilted the so- called ‘balance’ between work and life towards the protection of the perceived interests of employees, while at the same time benefi ting corporate performance. Gallie and Russell (2009) took up the challenge of examining WFC and working conditions in Western Europe. They found that working conditions make a huge diff erence to WFC among married cohabiting employees across the same seven European countries that are examined in this chapter. They suggest that there is a clear Nordic eff ect for men. Perceived WFC is lowest in the Nordic countries where co- ordinated pro- duction regimes and social policies are more supportive of combining paid work and care demands. Paradoxically they found that for women ‘raw’ levels of WFC are particularly high in France, Denmark and Sweden, where supports for reconciling work and family life are good. In the case of France, they suggest that the high confl ict is due to higher levels of family pressures associated with household composition. However, in Denmark and Sweden the high WFC among women appears to be asso- ciated with long work hours. Gallie and Russell (2009) found that when looking at seven Northern European countries combined, working condi- tions explained almost 30 per cent of the variance in WFC for both men and women, while ‘family variables’ explained less than 5 per cent of the variance. The fact that length of working hours, the prevalence of asocial SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 177 12/03/2012 15:24 178 Gendered lives working hours, the intensity of work and job insecurity all had strong negative eff ects for work–family confl ict is not surprising. But what is surprising is their fi nding that working conditions accounted for much of the inter- country variation in WFC. This raises the question of whether their measures are overly work- centric and fail to capture the realities of gender- related confl icts between paid and unpaid work. One important concern is how working mothers and fathers can rear their children while at the same time performing paid work eff ectively. Lewis (2008) argues that in the UK the balance between family and employment responsibilities was historically considered to be a private responsibility. This is not the case in some countries of Europe where gender equality enters the frame as a policy goal (see also Lewis, Chapter 8 in this volume). In Nordic countries in particular, policies have been based on the assump- tion that men and women will be fully engaged in the labour market. The Nordic model treats women as workers, but then makes allowance for diff erence by grafting on transfers and services in respect of care work for partnered and unpartnered mothers alike. Hobson (2004) has described the Swedish variant as a ‘gender participation model’ focusing as it does on promoting gender equality in employment and providing cash support for parental leave and services of childcare and the care of older adults. As a result of this ‘supported adult worker model’, high proportions of women work (long) part- time hours exercising their right to work a six- hour day when they have pre- school children. In many European countries includ- ing the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, part- time work remains the main way for women to reconcile work and family demands. In recent decades, both in the UK and in other European countries, policies have explicitly been designed to raise employment participation amongst women. Thus for example, in Lisbon in March 2000 the heads of government of the European Union subscribed to the goal of raising the employment rate of women to 60 per cent by 2010 (Lewis et al. 2008). In the UK, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries the goal was already met by 2000 (Boeri et al. 2005), with France and Germany also close to the target in 2000. There have also been concerns that reduced fertility is problematic when the population is ageing. For example, Esping- Andersen (2009) noted that the quality of people’s retirement years will depend on the productivity of increasingly small cohorts of workers. He goes on to suggest that, without any need of resort to feminist arguments, a rational utility model would point to a normative shift towards dual- career couples. He argues that in contemporary societies welfare systems should support a more gender equitable divide in paid and unpaid work. This would allow men and women to reconcile the competing demands they face as partners, parents and workers. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 178 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 179 Boye (2009) studied how paid and unpaid work aff ects patterns of well- being in Europe. She found that while men’s well- being appears to be unaff ected by hours of paid work and housework, women’s well- being increases with increased paid working hours and decreases with increased hours of housework. Gender diff erences in time spent on paid work and housework accounted for one- third of the European gender diff erence in well- being and helped to explain why women have lower well- being than men. In a more recent paper, Boye (2011) investigated whether associa- tions between well- being and paid work and housework diff ered between European countries with diff erent family policy models, and how this related to WFC. Boye followed Korpi’s (2000) typology of welfare state classifi - cation and diff erentiated three family models: dual- earner, tradi- tional and market orientated. Dual- earner models are characterised by Scandinavian policies; these have strong support for female labour force participation as well as male participation in unpaid reproduction work in the family, but weaker support for women as homemakers. The tradi- tional family models (found in France, Germany and Netherlands) have high levels of traditional family support and low levels of dual- earner support. The market- orientated family model is typical of the UK where reproduction work is allocated to the family or the market and ‘choices’ of how to combine family and employment are seen mainly as a private concern. Boye fi nds, counter- intuitively, that countries with the tra- ditional family policies show the most positive association between women’s well- being and paid work hours, although this association is concealed by WFC. HYPOTHESES From the literature, we derive ten hypotheses concerning the relation- ship between gender, paid and unpaid work, and well- being in Northern Europe. These are as follows: H1. Full- time employed women will have higher WFC than employed men. This is because in the UK and other developed countries women still undertake the bulk of the housework. This ‘second shift’ phenomenon was fi rst named by Hochschild (1989). While there is some evidence that the years since 1989 have seen some erosion of the gender gap in household labour, the overwhelming bulk of housework is still done by women (Kan and Gershuny 2010). SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 179 12/03/2012 15:24 180 Gendered lives H2. Part- time employed women will have less WFC than full- time employed women as part- time work is often used to reconcile work and family demands. H3. Gender patterns of well- being will be less pronounced than for WFC because the well- being measure does not tap directly gender inequalities in paid and unpaid work. H4. WFC and well- being will be negatively correlated because high levels of confl ict reduces well- being. H5. Country diff erences in both WFC and well- being will remain strong even when individual characteristics and couple work strat- egies and family conditions are accounted for because the diff erent welfare systems/family policies vary in their support for combining work and family life. H6. Work conditions will be more important predictors than family conditions for the WFC of both men and women. Thus we expect to confi rm Gallie and Russell’s (2009) fi ndings, even when couples’ paid and unpaid work strategies across the life course are included in the models. H7. Work and family factors will explain more of the variance in WFC than in well- being, because well- being is more individualistic. For example, health is an important predictor of well- being (Boye 2011). H8. There will be gender diff erences in the way family life stage aff ects WFC and well- being. Mothers’ are expected to display heightened WFC and lower levels of well- being relative to fathers’ during the child- rearing phase, because women tend to remain the primary carer, regardless of their employment status. H9. There will be gender diff erences in the way a couple’s paid work strategies aff ect WFC and well- being. Boye’s fi ndings suggest that men’s well- being will be unaff ected by work hours, whereas work hours increase women’s well- being (Boye 2011). This sounds plau- sible because work gives women an independence, which men may take for granted. H10. We expect men’s WFC and well- being to be more negatively aff ected than women’s by a less traditional divide of unpaid house- work. Theories of ‘doing gender’ (West and Zimmerman 1987) suggest that for women but not men to engage in housework is acting out what is seen as the ‘essential nature’ of male and female roles. Thus engaging in housework will have an adverse eff ect on the WFC and well- being of men, but not women. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 180 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 181 DATA AND MEASURES Our data are from the ‘Family, work and well- being’ module in the European Social Survey (ESS) (Jowell 2005), which was created for the second round of this cross- sectional survey conducted in 2004–05. Our main variables of interest – the questions relating to WFC – were only asked of people who were employed at the time of the survey, and we limit our sample to those of prime working age, aged 18 to 65. We restrict our sample to those in partnerships as we are particularly inter- ested in the way heterosexual couples arrange paid and unpaid work within a household. We exclude same- sex partnerships as there was only a very small number of same- sex couples. We further restrict our sample to include only seven of the original 25 ESS countries, namely, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The survey’s response rates in these countries were 65 per cent in Sweden; 66 per cent in Norway; 64 per cent in Denmark; 64 per cent in the Netherlands; 51 per cent in Germany; 51 per cent in the UK, and 44 per cent in France. In our analysis we use both design weights and population weights (for more details see European Social Survey 2004). The sample characteristics of variables in our analyses are shown in the Appendix, Table A7.1. KEY VARIABLES Work–Family Confl ict The ESS contains fi ve indicators which measure various aspects of WFC (see Table A7.2, in the Appendix). These items are supposed to measure work- to- family confl ict as well as family- to- work confl ict. However, the wording of the items emphasise mostly paid work. Not surprisingly previ- ous research has found that work–life confl ict (or work–life balance) is most closely associated with paid work hours (for an overview see Pichler 2009). These fi ve indicators are often lumped together into a composite measure of WFC. However, we chose to include only the fi rst four items in our composite measure of WFC because the last item – which asks the respondent about their diffi culty to concentrate on work because of family responsibilities – is rarely mentioned as being a problem. The responses to each item range from ‘never’ (coded as 1) to ‘always’ (coded as 5). Our composite measure of work–family confl ict consists of the mean score of these fi rst four items with values ranging from 1 to 5 (5 is the highest amount of work family confl ict). SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 181 12/03/2012 15:24 182 Gendered lives Well- being (WHO- 5) We also consider a further measure of psychological well- being which is less work- centric than WFC. This variable is a composite measure repre- senting the mean of fi ve items, which are often referred to as the WHO- 5 well- being index (Bech 1998). The WHO- 5 well- being index is constructed to measure positive well- being such as positive mood, vitality and general interests (Psychatric Research Unit 2008). The fi ve items comprising the measure are reverse coded from the original, ranging from 1 (at no time) to 6 (all of the time). Our composite measure of well- being consists of the mean score of these fi ve items with values ranging from 1 to 6 such that a high score refl ects high well- being (Appendix, Table A7.3). Paid Work Strategies We are particularly interested in whether couples’ division of work signifi cantly aff ects their perceived WFC. We defi ne four distinct paid work strategies which are derived from the male and female partners’ usual weekly hours of work. A couple in which both partners work 30 hours or more per week is classifi ed as a ‘dual earner’ couple. ‘Modifi ed male breadwinner’ couples consists of a female partner who works part time at less than 30 hours per week, and a male who works more hours than the female partner. If the female partner does not do any paid work, the couple is denoted as a ‘male breadwinner’ couple. Couples in which the female partner works more weekly hours than the male partner are ‘female breadwinner’ couples. Table 7.1 summarises our paid work strategies. Unpaid Work Division Individual male and female respondents (not living together) were asked how many hours a week are usually spent on activities such as cooking, washing, cleaning, shopping and maintenance of property Table 7.1 Paid work strategies Paid work hours strategy: His weekly hours Her weekly hours Dual earner 30 or more 30 or more Male breadwinner Only male works 0 Modifi ed male breadwinner More than female Less than 30 hours Female breadwinner Less hours than female More hours than male SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 182 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 183 (but not including childcare) by members of the household. This ques- tion is followed by the respondent’s assessment of what proportion of this time is spent on housework by the respondent him/herself and his/ her partner. The six response categories range from ‘None or almost none’ to ‘All or nearly all of the time’. We derive from these questions whether the division of unpaid labour in a household is ‘balanced’, ‘mostly male’, ‘mostly female’ or whether housework is done primarily by ‘others’. However, this measure is not very precise and respondents tend to overestimate their own contribution to unpaid work within a household. While most male respondents state that the housework is done mostly by their female partner, male are still more likely than female partners to state that the division of housework is balanced or largely done by the male partner. (Our data do not allow us to compare or reconcile potential diff erences in male or female partners’ views about their respective shares of unpaid work (since we only have data on one partner’s views.) Family Life Course Our family life course variable has four categories – younger couples (where the woman is aged under 45) with no dependent children; couples with children under 5; couples with children 5 to 18; older couples (with women aged 45 or over) with no dependent children. In addition to these key variables our multivariate analysis, which we report in the fi nal part of our results section, includes meas- ures of household income (quintiles). We include several measures about the respondents only, including their years of full- time education, log work hours, unsocial hours and task discretion. The unsocial hours index combines three questions that tap the frequency of weekend work, evening work and overtime, which are combined to form a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 represents those who never engage in these three activities and 5 represents participation in all three on a weekly basis. Task discretion is measured by a question which asks people how much ‘the manage- ment  at your work allows you: (1) to decide how your daily work is organised, (2) to infl uence policy decisions about the activities of the organisation and (3) to choose or change your pace of work’. The result- ing index is a scale of zero to 10 with zero no infl uence and 10 complete control. Our analytical strategy is to fi rst examine the bivariate associations between WFC, gender and work status in the seven countries. We then examine, for descriptive purposes, country diff erences in the way family life stage and dual- earner work status are related. We also examine the SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 183 12/03/2012 15:24 184 Gendered lives relationship between WFC and well- being across countries and by gender. This initial section on work status, family life course and gender allows us to address the fi rst four hypotheses. The remaining six hypotheses require multivariate regression analyses of WFC and well- being. For each, we introduce three models: model 1 examines country diff erences only; model 2 includes both country and family variables, along with gender, age, education and household income; and model 3 adds in characteristics of employment along with gender interactions for family life course, couples’ paid work strategies and unpaid work division. WORK STATUS, FAMILY LIFE COURSE AND GENDER In Figure 7.1 we can see the mean scores of WFC by gender and work status across each country among this sample of employed men and women, aged 18–65 living in heterosexual partnerships. Contrary to our expectations in Hypothesis 1, which derived from the ‘double shift’ ideas of Hochschild (1989), the diff erence in WFC between women who work full- time and men is very small. (We do not diff erentiate in this bivari- ate analysis between full- time and part- time work for men, because the vast majority of employed men have full- time jobs). In accordance with Hypothesis 2, we fi nd that women who work part- time have signifi cantly 1.0 Male Female FT Female PT 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Germany Denmark France UK Netherlands Norway Sweden All countries Work–family conflict Figure 7.1 Work–family confl ict by country, work status and gender SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 184 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 185 lower WFC than women who are in full- time employment (all countries p < 0.000, except Norway p < 0.026). So what of this ‘double shift’ theory? In our data, as Table 7.2 shows for the seven countries combined, women do the bulk of the unpaid work, regardless of the couple’s paid- work strategy. It is not surprising that housework is done by ‘mostly female’ in three- quarters of our couple households. Perhaps more surprising is that outsourcing most of domes- tic labour is so rare – approximately 3 per cent in total. Our defi nition of unpaid work includes cooking and shopping which are probably less frequently outsourced than cleaning, which is also included. It may also be the case that domestic labour is viewed as too expensive or too intrusive by most. The reports of a ‘balanced’ division of housework are quite high – including on e in fi ve of our dual- earner couple households. Table 7.3 shows the percentage of dual- earner couples by family life- course stage for each of the seven countries and for all countries com- bined. In all countries combined across all stages of the family life course 50 per cent are dual- earner couples. This percentage rises to over 72 per cent for younger couples without children. The dual- earner model is most common in Sweden (73 per cent) and Denmark (75 per cent of all couples) and least common in the Netherlands (30 per cent). It is clear from Table 7.3 that most women work full- time before having children and many women cut back on their paid work hours or drop out of the labour force altogether when they have children. However, family paid- work strategies vary considerably across countries. In Denmark and Sweden over three- quarters of couples with young children are dual- earner couples, com- pared with approximately 20 per cent in Germany and the Netherlands. France has relatively high maternal employment with dual earners making Table 7.2 Percentage reporting division of unpaid work by paid work strategy for all seven countries Paid work strategy Unpaid work strategy Balanced Mostly female Mostly male Other Total per cent Dual earners 19.62 68.37 8.62 3.39 100 Male breadwinner 4.97 88.10 4.14 2.79 100 Modifi ed male breadwinner 9.21 84.82 3.56 2.42 100 Female breadwinner 15.12 57.45 22.44 4.99 100 Total 14.30 74.67 7.84 3.19 100 SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 185 12/03/2012 15:24 186 Gendered lives up 65 per cent of couples with young children. In the UK the equivalent is 28 per cent. The high proportion of dual earners among couples in the child- rearing years in Sweden and Denmark is as we would expect. The Nordic coun- tries’ public provision of childcare is very high for under- 3- year- olds, due to the assumption that childcare is a legal right of every child (De Henau et al. 2008). Interestingly, France shows a much higher proportion of dual- earner couples with children than would be expected of a country classifi ed as following the traditional family model (Boye 2011). This classifi cation needs updating as there is relatively good state provision for childcare in France (Gallie and Russell 2009). In the Netherlands, the UK and Germany, dual- earner families are rare when children are young. In Germany mothers are expected to care for infants (De Henau et al. 2008), whereas in the UK childcare provision remains mostly private and relatively expensive (Schober and Scott, forthcoming). Figure 7.2 shows, confi rming Hypothesis 3, that the gender diff erentia- tion of well- being is much less marked than for WFC across all countries. The striking fi nding from this fi gure is the relatively low well- being of UK men and women, compared with the other six countries. This is something we return to in our multivariate analysis. ASSOCIATION OF WFC AND WELL- BEING Hypothesis 4 suggested that WFC and well- being would be negatively correlated and this is indeed the case as we can see in Table 7.4. The cor- relation is strongest in Denmark and weakest in France, with the UK Table 7.3 Percentage of dual earners couples by family life stage for the seven countries Countries Before children Children <5 Children 5–18 Older couples All Germany 57.38 21.15 43.64 44.06 42.65 Denmark 73.85 75.45 82.80 65.70 74.67 France 83.08 65.38 63.89 51.88 63.49 UK 79.44 27.58 36.56 41.19 43.77 Netherlands 68.66 18.89 20.06 23.71 29.92 Norway 65.96 58.94 61.45 54.66 59.28 Sweden 73.74 74.03 77.65 66.37 72.95 All countries 72.03 42.23 49.36 45.57 50.35 SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 186 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 187 neither strong nor weak. Possibly a relative absence of ‘Protestant work ethic’ in France may contribute to this pattern, but the country diff erences are not large. In all countries the correlation is stronger for men than for women, except in Norway (where the gender pattern is reversed). The gender diff erence is more pronounced in the UK, France, Germany and the Netherlands, and somewhat less marked in Sweden and Denmark. 1.0 Male Female 1.5 2.0 2.5 5.03.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Germany Denmark France UK Netherlands Norway Sweden All countries Well-being Figure 7.2 Well- being by country and gender Table 7.4 Correlations between work–family confl ict and well- being measures Correlation All Male Female Germany −0.284*** −0.330*** −0.249*** Denmark −0.424*** −0.459*** −0.373*** France −0.217*** −0.265*** −0.177** UK −0.251*** −0.329*** −0.231*** Netherlands −0.288*** −0.336*** −0.223** Norway −0.270*** −0.251*** −0.319*** Sweden −0.318*** −0.341*** −0.289*** All −0.265*** −0.324*** −0.221*** Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 187 12/03/2012 15:24 188 Gendered lives This is not surprising given the strong support in Scandinavian countries for the citizen worker model. MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF WFC AND WELL- BEING Tables 7.5a–c show three diff erent regression models for WFC and well- being for both genders combined (Table 7.5a) and men and women separately (Tables 7.5b and 7.5c). The country diff erences are shown in model 1; family variables along with gender, age, education and household income are added to country dummy variables in model 2; characteristics of employment are added in, along with gender interaction eff ects with couples’ paid work strategy, unpaid work division, and family life- course stages in model 3. The reference categories are the UK for country diff er- ences; dual- earner couples for paid work strategies (see Table 7.1 for defi - nition); balanced housework for the division of unpaid work; and women under 45 without children for family life course. WORK FAMILY CONFLICT AND WELL- BEING Our fi fth hypothesis predicted that country diff erences in both WFC and well- being will remain strong even after controlling for other diff erences; controls include individual characteristics, couple work strategies, and family and employment conditions, included because the diff erent welfare systems/family policies vary in their support for combining work and family life. It can be seen in model 1 in Table 7.5a that the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark have signifi cantly lower WFC than the UK (the omitted category). In Table 7.5b, which shows men only, we can see that men in all other countries have lower WFC than UK men. Table 7.5c shows this country pattern is not the same for women, as only Dutch women have less WFC than UK women. However, this diff erence between the Netherlands and the UK disappears in model 3, once employment conditions are accounted for. In addition, once employment conditions are controlled, WFC is not signifi cantly diff erent between France and the UK, for either men or women. Despite the overall country patterns dif- fering across models, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries have consistently lower WFC than the UK for both women and men. A similar picture emerges as we examine psychological well- being. The highest well- being levels are found in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. The UK is by far the lowest – signifi cantly lower than any SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 188 12/03/2012 15:24 189 T ab le 7 .5 a O L S re gr es si on s, b ot h ge nd er s W or k– fa m ily c on fl i ct W el l- b ei ng M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el D en m ar k − 0. 14 6* − 0. 26 9* ** − 0. 25 8* ** 0. 65 2* ** 0. 65 6* ** 0. 64 9* ** (− 2. 11 ) (− 3. 93 ) (− 4. 16 ) (8 .6 2) (8 .5 9) (8 .5 0) F ra nc e − 0. 03 2 − 0. 06 3* − 0. 00 9 0. 35 8* ** 0. 37 5* ** 0. 37 0* ** (− 0. 99 ) (− 1. 97 ) (− 0. 31 ) (1 0. 26 ) (1 0. 52 ) (1 0. 30 ) G er m an y − 0. 04 9 − 0. 11 8* ** − 0. 12 7* ** 0. 35 6* ** 0. 38 0* ** 0. 38 9* ** (− 1. 60 ) (− 3. 80 ) (− 4. 48 ) (1 0. 59 ) (1 0. 92 ) (1 1. 17 ) N et he rla nd s − 0. 29 7* ** − 0. 28 8* ** − 0. 21 8* ** 0. 45 7* ** 0. 48 1* ** 0. 48 0* ** (− 6. 37 ) (− 6. 24 ) (− 5. 20 ) (8 .9 5) (9 .3 3) (9 .2 9) N or w ay − 0. 25 2* ** − 0. 33 1* ** − 0. 35 0* ** 0. 62 5* ** 0. 65 1* ** 0. 63 9* ** (− 3. 65 ) (− 4. 87 ) (− 5. 67 ) (8 .2 8) (8 .5 6) (8 .4 0) Sw ed en − 0. 15 2* * − 0. 20 7* ** − 0. 21 3* ** 0. 42 7* ** 0. 41 3* ** 0. 40 1* ** (− 2. 82 ) (− 3. 89 ) (− 4. 40 ) (7 .2 6) (6 .9 3) (6 .7 3) A ge 0. 00 3 0. 00 4* − 0. 00 1 − 0. 00 2 (1 .3 5) (2 .2 4) (− 0. 69 ) (− 0. 92 ) F em al e − 0. 17 1* ** 0. 09 1 − 0. 12 0* ** − 0. 12 3 (− 6. 61 ) (1 .3 1) (− 4. 14 ) (− 1. 43 ) In co m e qu in til es 0. 02 2* 0. 00 2 0. 05 2* ** 0. 04 6* ** (2 .1 1) (0 .2 3) (4 .3 8) (3 .8 2) Y ea rs o f f ul l- t im e ed uc at io n 0. 04 3* ** 0. 03 5* ** − 0. 00 8 − 0. 01 0* (1 1. 33 ) (1 0. 00 ) (− 1. 89 ) (− 2. 40 ) M al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 11 7* * − 0. 06 7 − 0. 01 3 0. 00 2 (− 3. 20 ) (− 1. 89 ) (− 0. 33 ) (0 .0 5) SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 189 12/03/2012 15:24 190 T ab le 7 .5 a (c on tin ue d) W or k– fa m ily c on fl i ct W el l- b ei ng M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el M od ifi ed m al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 24 9* ** − 0. 03 7 − 0. 05 4 − 0. 05 1 (− 8. 51 ) (− 1. 01 ) (− 1. 64 ) (− 1. 13 ) F em al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 01 5 0. 00 9 − 0. 10 9* 0. 16 8 (− 0. 34 ) (0 .0 9) (− 2. 19 ) (1 .3 1) M os tly fe m al e 0. 12 8* ** 0. 16 0* ** − 0. 09 7* * − 0. 15 0* * (3 .8 4) (4 .0 3) (− 2. 60 ) (− 3. 06 ) M os tly m al e 0. 04 7 0. 04 4 − 0. 07 8 − 0. 06 1 (0 .9 5) (0 .7 5) (− 1. 39 ) (− 0. 85 ) O ut sid e he lp 0. 00 2 0. 05 6 − 0. 21 6* * − 0. 34 5* * (0 .0 3) (0 .6 0) (− 2. 78 ) (− 3. 01 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n un de r 5 0. 05 0 0. 01 2 − 0. 03 9 − 0. 02 9 (1 .2 6) (0 .2 5) (− 0. 88 ) (− 0. 48 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n 5– 18 0. 01 9 − 0. 03 8 0. 02 0 0. 02 8 (0 .4 7) (− 0. 82 ) (0 .4 6) (0 .4 9) O ld er c ou pl es (w om en ov er 4 4) w ith n o de p ch ild re n − 0. 03 6 − 0. 05 4 0. 08 0 0. 16 2* (− 0. 68 ) (− 0. 96 ) (1 .3 6) (2 .3 3) M od m al e br ea dw in ne r × fe m al e 0. 03 0 0. 06 5 (0 .5 0) (0 .9 0) F em al e br ea dw in ne r × fe m al e 0. 09 6 − 0. 25 4 (0 .8 7) (− 1. 86 ) SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 190 12/03/2012 15:24 191 M os tly fe m al e × fe m al e − 0. 16 1* * 0. 11 6 (− 2. 66 ) (1 .5 5) M os tly m al e × fe m al e − 0. 01 1 − 0. 05 2 (− 0. 12 ) (− 0. 45 ) M os tly o ut sid e he lp × fe m al e − 0. 02 0 0. 27 3 (− 0. 15 ) (1 .7 5) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld un de r 5 × fe m al e 0. 16 9* − 0. 01 5 (2 .3 7) (− 0. 17 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld 5 –1 8 × fe m al e 0. 16 3* − 0. 01 6 (2 .5 7) (− 0. 21 ) O ld er c ou pl es × fe m al e 0. 15 8* − 0. 16 2* (2 .4 7) (− 2. 06 ) L og w or k ho ur s 0. 53 7* ** 0. 09 4 (1 2. 74 ) (1 .8 2) U ns oc ia l h ou rs in de x 0. 20 4* ** 0. 00 0 (2 1. 59 ) (0 .0 4) T as k di sc re tio n in de x 0. 01 4* ** 0. 01 8* ** (3 .3 5) (3 .5 4) C on st an t 2. 74 8* ** 2. 08 3* ** − 0. 58 0* ** 3. 83 9* ** 3. 95 8* ** 3. 55 0* ** (1 22 .4 3) (2 3. 24 ) (− 3. 37 ) (1 56 .3 7) (3 9. 49 ) (1 6. 71 ) r2 0. 01 08 0. 06 90 0. 23 80 0. 04 16 0. 05 63 0. 06 28 W ei gh te d N 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 N ot es : R ef .: U K , D ua l e ar ne r, ba la nc ed , n o ch ild re n. * p < 0 .0 5, * * p < 0 .0 1, * ** p < 0 .0 01 . SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 191 12/03/2012 15:24 192 T ab le 7 .5 b O L S re gr es si on s, o nl y m en W or k– fa m ily c on fl i ct W el l- b ei ng M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el D en m ar k − 0. 31 8* ** − 0. 37 1* ** − 0. 30 1* ** 0. 61 2* ** 0. 62 9* ** 0. 62 9* ** (− 3. 43 ) (− 4. 06 ) (− 3. 56 ) (6 .1 3) (6 .2 4) (6 .2 2) F ra nc e − 0. 12 3* * − 0. 11 8* * − 0. 01 3 0. 29 9* ** 0. 30 7* ** 0. 31 3* ** (− 2. 85 ) (− 2. 75 ) (− 0. 32 ) (6 .4 5) (6 .5 0) (6 .5 6) G er m an y − 0. 08 2* − 0. 15 2* ** − 0. 13 9* ** 0. 25 4* ** 0. 30 0* ** 0. 29 9* ** (− 2. 03 ) (− 3. 71 ) (− 3. 66 ) (5 .8 5) (6 .6 0) (6 .5 8) N et he rla nd s − 0. 38 8* ** − 0. 42 5* ** − 0. 31 0* ** 0. 33 6* ** 0. 36 9* ** 0. 37 2* ** (− 6. 34 ) (− 7. 02 ) (− 5. 49 ) (5 .1 0) (5 .5 2) (5 .5 2) N or w ay − 0. 30 4* ** − 0. 33 5* ** − 0. 31 4* ** 0. 53 9* ** 0. 57 6* ** 0. 57 1* ** (− 3. 39 ) (− 3. 80 ) (− 3. 84 ) (5 .5 7) (5 .9 2) (5 .8 4) Sw ed en − 0. 27 8* ** − 0. 25 1* ** − 0. 22 0* ** 0. 36 1* ** 0. 33 6* ** 0. 33 3* ** (− 3. 94 ) (− 3. 59 ) (− 3. 39 ) (4 .7 5) (4 .3 4) (4 .2 9) A ge 0. 00 4 0. 00 5* − 0. 00 3 − 0. 00 3 (1 .5 5) (2 .4 8) (− 1. 03 ) (− 1. 09 ) In co m e qu in til es 0. 03 9* * 0. 00 9 0. 04 7* * 0. 04 1* * (2 .8 6) (0 .6 6) (3 .1 1) (2 .6 7) Y ea rs o f f ul l- t im e ed uc at io n 0. 03 5* ** 0. 03 3* ** − 0. 01 4* * − 0. 01 5* * (7 .3 0) (7 .2 8) (− 2. 71 ) (− 2. 81 ) M al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 07 7* − 0. 05 1 − 0. 01 0 − 0. 00 4 (− 1. 98 ) (− 1. 43 ) (− 0. 24 ) (− 0. 09 ) M od ifi ed m al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 02 4 − 0. 02 3 − 0. 04 4 − 0. 04 3 (− 0. 61 ) (− 0. 63 ) (− 0. 99 ) (− 0. 97 ) SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 192 12/03/2012 15:24 193 F em al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 69 0* ** 0. 07 0 0. 03 4 0. 16 7 (− 6. 56 ) (0 .6 2) (0 .2 9) (1 .2 4) M os tly fe m al e 0. 25 3* ** 0. 16 2* ** − 0. 13 4* * − 0. 14 5* * (5 .9 0) (4 .0 5) (− 2. 83 ) (− 3. 05 ) M os tly m al e 0. 11 3 0. 05 0 − 0. 05 9 − 0. 06 4 (1 .8 0) (0 .8 7) (− 0. 86 ) (− 0. 92 ) O ut sid e he lp 0. 07 6 0. 05 5 − 0. 34 1* * − 0. 33 9* * (0 .7 6) (0 .6 0) (− 3. 09 ) (− 3. 07 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n un de r 5 0. 00 9 0. 01 0 − 0. 02 8 − 0. 02 5 (0 .1 7) (0 .2 0) (− 0. 48 ) (− 0. 43 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n 5– 18 − 0. 01 1 − 0. 06 3 0. 04 6 0. 03 9 (− 0. 21 ) (− 1. 31 ) (0 .7 9) (0 .6 7) O ld er c ou pl es (w om en ov er 4 4) w ith n o de p ch ild re n − 0. 12 6 − 0. 10 3 0. 18 7* 0. 18 8* (− 1. 87 ) (− 1. 65 ) (2 .5 1) (2 .5 3) L og w or k ho ur s 0. 62 6* ** 0. 12 2 (9 .2 8) (1 .5 1) U ns oc ia l h ou rs in de x 0. 16 8* ** 0. 00 3 (1 2. 77 ) (0 .2 0) T as k di sc re tio n in de x 0. 01 9* * 0. 01 0 (3 .2 4) (1 .4 3) C on st an t 2. 87 1* ** 2. 02 0* ** − 0. 88 3* ** 3. 96 3* ** 4. 14 9* ** 3. 65 1* ** (9 6. 17 ) (1 8. 09 ) (− 3. 40 ) (1 23 .1 4) (3 3. 63 ) (1 1. 75 ) r2 0. 02 07 0. 08 38 0. 21 97 0. 03 14 0. 04 89 0. 05 11 N 28 09 28 09 28 09 28 09 28 09 28 09 N ot es : R ef .: U K , D ua l e ar ne r, ba la nc ed , n o ch ild re n. * p < 0 .0 5, * * p < 0 .0 1, * ** p < 0 .0 01 . SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 193 12/03/2012 15:24 194 T ab le 7 .5 c O L S re gr es si on s, o nl y w om en W or k– fa m ily c on fl i ct W el l- b ei ng M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el M od el 1 C ou nt rie s o nl y M od el 2 F am ily v ar ia bl es M od el 3 F ul l m od el D en m ar k 0. 05 1 − 0. 18 7 − 0. 21 6* 0. 70 2* ** 0. 68 8* ** 0. 66 9* ** (0 .5 0) (− 1. 87 ) (− 2. 36 ) (6 .1 4) (5 .9 1) (5 .7 5) F ra nc e 0. 07 9 − 0. 04 3 − 0. 01 0 0. 43 5* ** 0. 44 4* ** 0. 43 1* ** (1 .6 7) (− 0. 91 ) (− 0. 24 ) (8 .2 9) (8 .1 6) (7 .9 2) G er m an y − 0. 02 9 − 0. 11 8* − 0. 12 0* * 0. 47 1* ** 0. 48 7* ** 0. 50 2* ** (− 0. 63 ) (− 2. 54 ) (− 2. 84 ) (8 .9 9) (9 .0 2) (9 .3 0) N et he rla nd s − 0. 19 5* * − 0. 15 7* − 0. 11 5 0. 59 8* ** 0. 61 5* ** 0. 61 4* ** (− 2. 74 ) (− 2. 29 ) (− 1. 83 ) (7 .5 2) (7 .6 8) (7 .6 7) N or w ay − 0. 20 4 − 0. 34 1* ** − 0. 40 2* ** 0. 72 1* ** 0. 73 7* ** 0. 71 6* ** (− 1. 91 ) (− 3. 31 ) (− 4. 26 ) (6 .0 6) (6 .1 3) (5 .9 6) Sw ed en − 0. 00 4 − 0. 14 6 − 0. 20 8* * 0. 49 8* ** 0. 49 6* ** 0. 47 9* ** (− 0. 05 ) (− 1. 85 ) (− 2. 86 ) (5 .4 7) (5 .3 6) (5 .1 8) A ge 0. 00 0 0. 00 1 0. 00 1 − 0. 00 0 (0 .1 4) (0 .3 5) (0 .3 9) (− 0. 03 ) In co m e qu in til es 0. 00 9 − 0. 00 8 0. 05 4* * 0. 04 8* * (0 .5 4) (− 0. 51 ) (2 .9 1) (2 .5 8) Y ea rs o f f ul l- t im e ed uc at io n 0. 04 8* ** 0. 03 8* ** 0. 00 2 − 0. 00 0 (8 .0 0) (6 .8 4) (0 .3 3) (− 0. 07 ) M od ifi ed m al e br ea dw in ne r − 0. 46 7* ** − 0. 03 1 − 0. 05 1 0. 00 4 (− 11 .1 2) (− 0. 57 ) (− 1. 03 ) (0 .0 5) F em al e br ea dw in ne r 0. 01 3 0. 09 7* − 0. 10 4 − 0. 08 8 (0 .2 6) (2 .0 4) (− 1. 73 ) (− 1. 45 ) SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 194 12/03/2012 15:24 195 M os tly fe m al e − 0. 02 5 0. 01 1 − 0. 03 5 − 0. 02 6 (− 0. 48 ) (0 .2 3) (− 0. 59 ) (− 0. 44 ) M os tly m al e 0. 02 9 0. 04 2 − 0. 11 6 − 0. 10 8 (0 .3 7) (0 .5 8) (− 1. 25 ) (− 1. 16 ) O ut sid e he lp − 0. 08 8 0. 05 7 − 0. 07 8 − 0. 05 4 (− 0. 93 ) (0 .6 5) (− 0. 70 ) (− 0. 48 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n un de r 5 0. 13 0* 0. 19 8* ** − 0. 05 2 − 0. 05 1 (2 .2 1) (3 .7 0) (− 0. 76 ) (− 0. 74 ) C ou pl es w ith c hi ld re n 5– 18 0. 10 4 0. 17 4* * − 0. 01 1 − 0. 00 0 (1 .7 0) (3 .1 1) (− 0. 16 ) (− 0. 01 ) O ld er c ou pl es (w om en ov er 4 4) w ith n o de p ch ild re n 0. 11 6 0. 18 4* − 0. 05 5 − 0. 02 6 (1 .4 1) (2 .4 4) (− 0. 57 ) (− 0. 27 ) L og w or k ho ur s 0. 49 8* ** 0. 07 2 (9 .1 5) (1 .0 4) U ns oc ia l h ou rs in de x 0. 23 8* ** − 0. 00 7 (1 7. 04 ) (− 0. 40 ) T as k di sc re tio n in de x 0. 01 0 0. 02 9* ** (1 .7 1) (3 .6 7) C on st an t 2. 60 6* ** 2. 03 7* ** − 0. 36 2 3. 69 4* ** 3. 51 3* ** 3. 18 7* ** (7 7. 60 ) (1 4. 83 ) (− 1. 58 ) (9 8. 62 ) (2 1. 91 ) (1 0. 90 ) r2 0. 00 87 0. 10 47 0. 25 28 0. 05 66 0. 06 60 0. 07 21 N 23 42 23 42 23 42 23 42 23 42 23 42 N ot es : R ef .: U K , D ua l e ar ne r, ba la nc ed , n o ch ild re n. * p < 0 .0 5, * * p < 0 .0 1, * ** p < 0 .0 01 . SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 195 12/03/2012 15:24 196 Gendered lives of the other six nations, including France and Germany. This holds true for both men and women, across all three models. In all countries, except Sweden and Denmark, the country diff erences become even more pro- nounced in models 2 and 3 when family circumstances and employment are accounted for. Hypothesis 6 suggested that work conditions would be more important predictors than family conditions for the WFC of both men and women. This is indeed the case. If we look at the explained variance (r2) we can see that for our total sample combined (Table 7.5a), once employment con- ditions are introduced in model 3, we explain 23 per cent of the variance in WFC, as compared to only 6 per cent explained by family conditions (model 2) and less than 2 per cent by country diff erences alone (model 1). The pattern is similar for both men (Table 7.5b) and women (Table 7.5c). Thus we can confi rm Gallie and Russell’s (2009) fi ndings about the rela- tive importance of employment conditions, even after couples’ paid and unpaid work strategies and family life- course stage are included in the models. Hypothesis 7 suggested that work and family factors would explain more of the variance in WFC than in well- being, because well- being is more individualistic. This is also confi rmed. Again looking at the explained variance (r2), we can see that for the combined sample (Table 7.5a) all three models for psychological well- being explain less than 4 per cent of the variance. The models do marginally better when broken down by gender (explaining up to 5 per cent of the variance for men and 7 per cent for women). However, compared with WFC, the explanatory power of these family and employment variables is slight. This is not surpris- ing, as psychological well- being is likely to be far more closely linked to individual factors such as subjective health (Boye 2011). Hypothesis 8 suggested that there would be gender diff erences in the way family life stage aff ects WFC and well- being. Mothers’ WFC is expected to be heightened and well- being reduced relative to that of fathers during the child- rearing phase, because women tend to remain the primary carer, regardless of their employment status. If we look at the gender interaction eff ects of family life stage, we see that women’s but not men’s WFC increases after they have children. The same is not true however for psychological well- being. The well- being of men, but not that of women is enhanced for older couples without dependent children, where children have likely left the home. Perhaps mothers, because they are primary carers, suff er ‘the empty nest syndrome’ in ways that fathers do not. Hypothesis 9 suggested that there would be gender diff erences in the way a couple’s paid work strategies aff ect WFC and well- being. Compared with dual- earner couples, WFC is lower for men in male breadwinner SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 196 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 197 households and for women in modifi ed male breadwinner households. However, both of these eff ects disappear when accounting for employ- ment conditions that include work hours (model 3). Long work hours increase the WFC for both men and for women. The same is not true for psychological well- being. Here work hours have no discernable eff ect for either men or women. In terms of other employment conditions there are some interesting fi ndings. Unsocial hours, as might be expected, increase the WFC of both men and women. However, counter- intuitively, task discretion also increases WFC, but only for men. This might be because the WFC measure includes a question about ‘how often your partner/ family gets fed up with the pressure of your job’. Family disapproval of men spending long hours at work may intensify when their task discretion is high. For both men and women, task discretion signifi cantly increases psychological well- being (p <0.001). This is not surprising because task- discretion is likely to boost a person’s self- esteem and sense of control which in turn heightens well- being. According to Hypothesis 10, we would expect men’s WFC and well- being to be more negatively aff ected than women’s by a less traditional divide of unpaid housework. Engaging in housework may be more demeaning for men than for women. The fi ndings indicate that our expec- tation is completely wrong. Men’s but not women’s WFC is increased when couples adopt a ‘mostly female’ division of unpaid labour compared to a ‘balanced’ division of household labour. This average increase in men’s WFC ranges from 0.128 (Table 7.5a, model 2) to 0.16 points (Table 7.5a, model 3) on our WFC scale (which ranges from 1 to 5). The same gender pattern is found for psychological well- being. The well- being of men is signifi cantly reduced when the housework is done mainly by women, but this is not the case for women. For well- being, the gender interaction term is not signifi cant, but for WFC it is signifi cant (p <0.01). This unexpected fi nding may refl ect partners’ dissatisfaction with the pressures of men’s jobs. Men who leave the chores to women may be subject to more complaints than are men who do their share of home chores. We consider other possible explanations in the concluding section which discusses our fi ndings in more detail and draws out possible policy implications. First however, we briefl y review the other fi ndings from our multivariate analyses that are not related to our hypotheses. In Table 7.5a, model 2, we see that being female reduces both WFC and well- being, but this gender eff ect disappears once work indicators are introduced in model 3. Older people experience more WFC (p <.05) once work hours and employment conditions are included (Table 7.5a, model 3), although this only applies to men, not to women (Tables 7.5b and 7.5c). Age has no eff ect on psychological well- being for this sample of working SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 197 12/03/2012 15:24 198 Gendered lives couples. Years of education are positively related to WFC for men and women combined (Table 7.5a) and for men and women separately (Tables 7.5b and 7.5c). This may refl ect the higher ambitions that are associ- ated with higher education and the gap between aspirations and reality may lead to greater confl icts for more educated men and women. Oddly, income increases WFC in model 2, but this disappears when employment is controlled in model 3. However, higher levels of income markedly increase the psychological well- being, for men and women. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, one particular focus has been on how the experiences of WFC and well- being are gendered in ways that refl ect, in part, the gendered division of paid and unpaid work in Northern Europe. We also wanted to explore whether WFC and well- being vary between seven countries with very diff erent family policies, particularly in terms of their support for maternal employment and for a more equitable share of family work between men and women. Our study is set against a background of family change. We note that family life has changed markedly from the traditional male breadwinner family of the past and that the rise of dual- earner couples implies both an ideological and pragmatic move towards less gender- role specialisation. However, we also note that there has been a structural and cultural lag in terms of gender role change, with women still doing the bulk of the housework and unpaid family care. We concur with Esping- Andersen (2009) that there has been an ‘incomplete revolution in gender roles’ and we tested ten hypotheses concerning the way the divisions of paid and unpaid work among couples relate to each partner’s experience of WFC and well- being. Six of our hypotheses were confi rmed by our data, one hypothesis was partially confi rmed and partially refuted, and three were not supported. Hypotheses that were confi rmed included that women who work- part time have markedly lower WFC than women who are in full- time employ- ment (H2). We also found that well- being is less gender diff erentiated than WFC (H3) and that WFC and well- being are negatively correlated (H4). In addition, we confi rmed the Gallie and Russell (2009) fi nding that work conditions are more important predictors than family conditions for both men and women (H6). Also, work and family factors explain more of the variance in WFC than in well- being (H7). We confi rmed that country diff erences in both WFC and well- being remain even when individual characteristics, couple work strategies, SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 198 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 199 family life stage and employment conditions are accounted for (H5). However, this fi nding went well beyond our expectations. It is not at all surprising that the UK comes out signifi cantly higher than Scandinavian countries for WFC, given how much support Scandinavian countries provide in terms of high- quality childcare and generous parental leave, argued to reduce WFC. However, what is surprising is that the UK is signifi cantly worse than other countries for the more general well- being measure (WHO- 5). Moreover, our analysis shows that this relatively dismal UK well- being result remains after controlling for diff erences in gendered patterns of paid and unpaid work. Undoubtedly, this measure is likely to be strongly infl uenced by individual factors not investigated here, such as physical and subjective health. However, the fact that UK citizens (both men and women) in our sample have signifi cantly less positive psy- chological well- being than equivalent couples in the other six Northern European countries is something that merits further investigation. The hypothesis which was only partially confi rmed suggested there would be gender diff erences in the way family life- course stage aff ects WFC and well- being (H8). Women’s WFC was indeed increased after they had children, compared with when they were younger and without chil- dren. Moreover, the eff ect of family life- course variables only enhanced the WFC of women not men. However, family life course had the reverse gender eff ect in terms of infl uencing psychological well- being, enhancing men’s but not women’s well- being. The three hypotheses that were not supported are in many ways the most interesting fi ndings. Contrary to our expectations derived from the theories of the ‘double shift’ we expected women who worked full- time to have more confl ict than men (H1). While we found clear evidence that regardless of paid work strategy, women remain primarily responsible for unpaid work, we also found that women in full- time employment had very similar levels of WFC to that of men. Our expectation, following the research by Boye (2011), that men’s well- being is unaff ected by work hours, whereas work hours benefi t women’s well- being (H9) was not sup- ported by our data. We found that long work hours aff ected the WFC of men and women in similar ways. Also, work hours did not aff ect the psy- chological well- being of either men or women in our sample. In addition, couple’s paid work strategies did not aff ect the WFC or well- being of men or women, once employment conditions were accounted for. This lack of a gendered eff ect of paid work strategies on WFC and well- being makes it even more surprising that the division of unpaid work does aff ect men’s, but not women’s, WFC and well- being. Our expectation that men’s well- being would be more negatively aff ected than women’s by a less traditional divide of unpaid work (H10) was overturned. It may be SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 199 12/03/2012 15:24 200 Gendered lives that women accept their ‘double shift’ as a fact of life and therefore do not show the same reduction in WFC or increased well- being as men when the gender division of housework is less traditional (that is, not mainly female). What is particularly interesting, however, is the way that Northern European men’s WFC increases when the female partner is doing most of the unpaid chores. The perceived confl ict may result from the dissonance of practice being at odds with normative gender equality beliefs. Or it may be that men’s heightened WFC refl ects their partners’ dissatisfac- tions. Gershuny et al. (2005) suggest that women could adapt to changing employment patterns in one of three diff erent ways: exit, voice and suff er- ing. The three strategies concern stark choices: exiting from their marriage or quitting their job; expressing dissatisfaction to their husband or partner and pressing for a more equitable division of domestic labour; or suff ering their ‘second shift’ of doing both their paid job and the bulk of the unpaid household chores. Few women would see the extreme option of quitting their marriage or their job as feasible or desirable. Our data provide some evidence that women combine the second and third strategies. The bulk of the household chores are done mainly by women, even in dual- earner couples. However, perhaps one reason that men feel increased WFC when the housework is done mainly by women is that their partner complains. It is also plausible that some men want a more equitable role in the home and their well- being is reduced when the pressure of their job gets in the way. It certainly bodes well for more equitable gender role change in Northern Europe when men’s WFC is increased and their well- being is reduced when the housework is left mainly to women. No country in our sample has reached a position of gender equality. However, our fi ndings are reinforcing other research that suggests that we need to pay closer attention to the gender division of unpaid work in order to examine how changes in family life and employment impinge on well- being. In a recent study based on analysis of the British cohort studies, Sigle- Rushton (2010) found that in the UK a more equitable divide of housework off sets the enhanced risk of divorce associated with female employment. Our study points to wider benefi ts for men who do their fair share of the housework. Change is slow and, on average, men still play a somewhat minimal role in unpaid domestic labour. However, men today play a far greater role in home and childcare than did their fathers or grandfathers. It might help change move faster if the benefi ts of a more equitable divide became more widely known. Can policies help nudge men and women towards greater gender equal- ity in paid and unpaid work? This is a thorny issue and one that has been discussed elsewhere (for example, Dex 2010; Scott and Dex 2009). These SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 200 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 201 authors conclude that the political will is often lacking for the radical steps that would reduce gender inequalities in the division of labour. However, in our view, token and symbolic gestures do matter and state encouragement towards greater male participation in unpaid work could help advance gender convergence. The UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009) has also urged reform of policies that perpetuate the traditional gender role division of labour and leave women doing the bulk of family care and prevent men from doing a more equitable share of parenting. The report argued the social and economic benefi ts of inte- grating work and care. It called for more fi nancial support for paternity and parental leave and more aff ordable childcare. In the UK, political rhetoric is supportive, but actions to eradicate the economic inequalities that underpin the traditional gender divide of paid and unpaid labour are less forthcoming. Yet the logic of addressing the inequalities that arise from what Esping- Andersen (2009) calls the ‘incomplete revolution’ gets stronger as couples aspire to share work and parenting across the life course. By demonstrating that gender equality in paid and unpaid work is associated with enhanced well- being, our study hopes to strengthen the cumulative evidence about potential costs of not tackling the pronounced gender inequalities in employment and family care. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by a grant by the Economic and Social Research Council (RES- 225- 25- 1001). Anke Plagnol is grateful for fi nancial support from the Leverhulme Trust through an Early Career Fellowship and the Isaac Newton Trust, Cambridge. REFERENCES B ech, P. (1998), Quality of Life in the Psychiatric Patient, London: Mosby- Wolfe. B eck, U. (2000), The Brave New World of Work, Cambridge: Polity Press. B oeri, T., D. Del Boca and C. Pissarides (eds) (2005) Women at Work: An Economic Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press. B oye, K. (2009), ‘Relatively diff erent? How do gender diff erences in well- being depend on paid and unpaid work in Europe?’, Social Indicators Research, 93, 509–25. B oye, K. (2011), ‘Work and well- being in a comparative perspective - the role of family policy’, European Sociological Review, 27 (1), 16–30. B urchell, B., D. Lapido and F. Wilkinson (2002), Job Insecurity and Work Intensifi cation, London: London. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 201 12/03/2012 15:24 202 Gendered lives C appelli, P., L. Bassi, H. Katz, D. Knoke, P. Osterman and M. Unseem (1997), Change at Work, Oxford: Oxford University Press. C rompton, R. and C. Lyonette (2008) ‘Mothers’ employment, work- life confl ict, careers and class’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and H. Joshi (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. D e Henau, J., D. Meulders and S. O’Dorchai (eds) (2008), Making Time for Working Parents. Comparing Public Childcare Provision across EU- 15, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dex, S. (2010), ‘Can state policies produce equality in housework?’, in J. Treas and S. Drobnic (eds), Dividing the Domestic: Men, Women, and Housework in Cross- National Perspective, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 79–104. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009), ‘Working better: meeting the changing needs of families, workers and employers in the 21st century’, available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_fi les/working_better_fi nal_ pdf_250309.pdf (accessed 6 July 2011). E sping- Andersen, G. (2009), The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to Women’s New Roles, Cambridge: Polity Press. E uropean Social Survey (2004), ‘Weighting European Social Survey data’, avail- able at: http://ess.nsd.uib.no/streamer/?module=main&year=2005&country= null & download = % 5CSurvey + documentation % 5C2005 % 5C06 %23ESS2+- +Weighting+ESS+Data%5CLanguages%5CEnglish%5CWeightingESS.pdf (accessed April 2011). F agan, C., L. McDowell, D. Perrons, K. Ray and K. Ward (2008), ‘Class diff er- ences in mothers’ work schedules and assessments of their work- life balance in dual- earner couples in Britain’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and H. Joshi (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. F raser, N. (1994), ‘After the family wage: gender equity and the welfare state’, Political Theory, 22 (4), 591–618. G allie, D. and H. Russell (2009), ‘Work- family confl ict and working conditions in Western Europe’, Social Indicators Research, 93 (3), 445–67. G ershuny, J., M. Bittman and J. Brice (2005), ‘Exit, voice, and suff ering: do couples adapt to changing employment patterns?’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 67 (3), 656–65. G ornick, J.C. and M.K. Meyers (2009), Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labor. Volume 6, Real Utopias Project. New York: Verso Press. G reen, F. and S. McIntosh (2001), ‘The intensifi cation of work in Europe’, Labour Economics, 8, 291–308. H arkness, S. (2008), ‘The household division of labour: changes in families’ alloca- tion of paid and unpaid work’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and H. Joshi (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. H ildebrandt, E. (2006), ‘Balance between work and life – new corporate impo- sitions through fl exible working time or opportunity for time sovereignty’, European Societies, 8 (2), 251–72. H obson, B. (2004), ‘The individualised workers, the gender partipatory and the gender equity models in Sweden’, Social Policies and Society, 3 (1), 75–84. H ochschild, A.R. (1989), The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home, New York: Viking. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 202 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 203 J owell, R. and the Central Coordinating Team (2005), European Social Survey 2004–2005: Technical Report, London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University. K an, M.Y. and J. Gershuny (2010), ‘Gender segregation and bargaining in domes- tic labour: evidence from longitudinal time use data’, in J. Scott, R. Crompton and C. Lyonette (eds), Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. K orpi, W. (2000), ‘Faces of inequality: gender, class and patterns of inequalities in diff erent types of welfare states’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State Society, 7, 127–91. L ewis, J. (2008), ‘Work- family balance policies: issues and development in the UK 1997–2005 in comparative perspective’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and H. Joshi (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA,USA: Edward Elgar. L ewis, J. (2009), Work- Family Balance, Gender and Policy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. L ewis, J., M. Campbell and C. Huerta (2008), ‘Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: gender, commodifi cation, preferences and the implications for policy’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18 (1), 21–37. M cRae, S. (2008), ‘Working full- time after motherhood’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and H. Joshi (eds), Women and Employment: Changing Lives and New Challenges, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. O rloff , A.S. (2009), ‘Should feminists aim for gender symmetry? Why a dual- earner/dual- caregiver society is not every feminist’s utopia’, in J.C. Gornick and M.K. Meyers (eds), Gender Equality: Transforming Family Divisions of Labor. Volume 6, Real Utopias Project. New York: Verso Press. P ichler, F. (2009), ‘Determinants of work- life balance: shortcomings in the contemporary measurement of WLB in large- scale surveys’, Social Indicators Research, 92 (3), 449–69. P sychatric Research Unit (2008), ‘WHO- Five Well- being Index’, available at: http://www.who- 5.org/ (accessed April 2011). S chober, P. and J. Scott (forthcoming), ‘Maternal employment and gender role attitudes: dissonance among British men and women in the transition to parent- hood’, Work, Employment and Society. Scott, J. and S. Dex (2009), ‘Paid and unpaid work: can policy improve gender inequalities?’, in J. Miles and R. Probert (eds), Sharing Lives, Dividing Assets, Oxford: Hart. S en, A. (1999), Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf. S igle- Rushton, W. (2010), ‘Men’s unpaid work and divorce: reassessing specializa- tion and trade in British families’, Feminist Economics, 16 (2), 1–26. T aylor, R. (2001), The Future of Work- Life Balance, Swindon: ESRC. W est, C. and D.H. Zimmerman (1987), ‘Doing gender’, Gender and Society, 1 (2), 125–51. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 203 12/03/2012 15:24 204 Gendered lives APPENDIX Table A7.1 Sample characteristics (N = 4065; weighted N = 5151) Variable Mean Std. dev. Min. Max. WFC 2.68 0.82 1 5 Well- being 4.13 0.91 1 6 Age 43.10 10.17 19 65 Female 0.45 0.50 0 1 Income quintile 3.38 1.17 1 5 Years of full- time education completed 13.35 3.27 1 30 Paid work strategy Dual earner 0.50 0.50 0 1 Male breadwinner 0.17 0.37 0 1 Modifi ed male breadwinner 0.24 0.43 0 1 Female breadwinner 0.09 0.28 0 1 Unpaid work division     Balanced 0.14 0.35 0 1 Mostly female 0.75 0.43 0 1 Mostly male 0.08 0.27 0 1 Other/outside help 0.03 0.18 0 1 Family life stage Before children, woman <45 0.15 0.36 0 1 Couples with children under 5 0.18 0.39 0 1 Couples with children 5–18 0.35 0.48 0 1 Older couples (women >44) with no dependent children 0.32 0.47 0 1 Log work hours 3.64 0.38 0 4.39 Unsocial hours index 2.60 1.20 1 5 Task discretion index 6.44 2.51 0 10 SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 204 12/03/2012 15:24 Work–family confl ict and well- being in Northern Europe 205 Table A7.2 Indicators of work–family confl ict (WFC) in the ESS Round 2 ESS 2004/05 1. How often do you keep worrying about work problems when you are not working? 2. How often do you feel too tired after work to enjoy the things you would like to do at home? 3. How often do you fi nd that your job prevents you from giving the time you want to your partner or family? 4. How often do you fi nd that your partner or family gets fed up with the pressure of your job? Not included in composite measure: 5. How often do you fi nd it diffi cult to concentrate on work because of your family responsibilities? Answer categories: Never, hardly ever, sometimes, often, always Table A7.3 Indicators of well- being (WHO- 5) in the ESS Round 2 ESS 2004/05 I would like you to say how often you have felt like this over the last two weeks. 1. I have felt cheerful and in good spirits 2. I have felt calm and relaxed 3. I have felt active and vigorous 4. I have woken up feeling fresh and rested 5. My daily life has been fi lled with things that interest me Answer categories: All of the time, most of the time, more than half of the time, less than half of the time, some of the time, at no time Reverse coded from the original. SCOTT 9781849806268 PRINT.indd 205 12/03/2012 15:24