A new strand of studies has called into question standard microeconomic predictions of a positive association between women’s economic independence and marital union dissolution. We investigate whether and how the gender division of labor channels the impact of women’s employment on marital union disruption, utilizing data on heterosexual couples from the 2003 and 2007 waves of the Italian nationally representative “Family and Social Subject” survey (N = 2,871) and applying techniques of mediation analysis. We suggest that women’s employment does not have a negative effect per se on union stability, and that women’s paid work becomes detrimental to the stability of the union only if the men’s contribution to unpaid work is limited.
AassveA.FuochiG.MencariniL. (2014). Desperate housework: Relative resources, time availability, economic dependency and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1000-1022.
2.
AmatoP. R.BoothA.JohnsonD. R.RogersS. J. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
AnxoD.FloodL.MencariniL.PailhéA.SolazA.TanturriM. L. (2007). Time allocation between work and family over the life-cycle: A comparative gender analysis of Italy, France, Sweden and the United States. Feminist Economics, 17, 159-195.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
BarstadA. (2014). Equality is bliss? Relationship quality and the gender division of household labor. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 972-992.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BlossfeldH.-P.MüllerR. (2002). Union disruption in comparative perspective: The role of assortative partner choice and careers of couples. International Journal of Sociology, 32, 3-35.
8.
BrinesJ. (1994). Economic dependency, gender and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 652-688.
9.
CastiglioniM.Dalla ZuannaG. (2008). A marriage-cohort analysis of legal separations in Italy. Population, 63, 173-193.
10.
ChanT. W.HalpinR. (2002). Union dissolution in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sociology, 32, 76-93.
11.
CherlinA. J. (2000). Toward a new home socioeconomics of union formation. In WaiteL. J.HindinM.ThomsonE.BachrachA. T. C. (Eds.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 126-144). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
12.
ColtraneS. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208-1233.
13.
CookeL. P. (2004). The gendered division of labor and family outcomes in Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1246-1259.
14.
CookeL. P. (2006). “Doing” gender in context: Household bargaining and risk of divorce in Germany and the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 442-472.
15.
CookeL. P.ErolaJ.EvertssonM.GählerM.HärkönenJ.HewittB.. . . TrappeH. (2013). Labor and love: Wives’ employment and divorce risk in its socio-political context. Social Politics, 20, 482-509.
16.
CookeL. P.GashV. (2010). Wives’ part-time employment and marital stability in Great Britain, West Germany and the United States. Sociology, 44, 1091-1108.
17.
CromptonR. (2006). Employment and the family: The reconfiguration of work and famly life in contemporary societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
18.
De RoseA. (1992). Socio-economic factors and family size as determinants of marital dissolution in Italy. European Sociological Review, 8, 71-91.
19.
Del BocaD. (2002). The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 549-573.
20.
EngelhardtA.TrappeH.DronkersJ. (2002). Differences in family policies and the intergenerational transmission of divorce: A comparison between the former East and West Germany. Demographic Research, 6, 295-324.
21.
EnglandP. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149-166.
22.
Esping-AndersenG. (2009). The incomplete revolution: Adapting to women’s new roles. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
23.
Esping-AndersenG.BillariF. C. (2015). Re-theorizing family demographics. Population and Development Review, 41, 1-31.
24.
FrancavillaF.GiannelliG. C.GrotkowskaG.PiccoliL.SochaM. W. (2010). Women and unpaid family care work in EU, In Policy Department Citenzens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.
25.
FriscoM. L.WilliamsK. (2003). Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 51-73.
26.
GoldscheiderF. K.BernhardtE.LappegårdT. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41, 207-239.
27.
GornickJ. CMeyersM. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies dor reconciling parenthood and employment.New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
28.
GreensteinT. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74, 1029-1042.
29.
GreensteinT. N. (2000). Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: A replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 322-335.
30.
GroteN. K.ClarkM. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281-293.
31.
HernanM. A. (2004). A definition of causal effect for epidemiological studies. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 265-271.
32.
HobsonB. (1990). No exit, no voice: Women’s economic dependency and the welfare state. Acta Sociologica, 33, 235-250.
33.
HochschildA. R.MachungA. (1990). The second shift. New York, NY: Avon Books.
34.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010a). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 309-334.
35.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010b). Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51-71.
JalovaaraM. (2001). Socio-economic status and divorce in first marriages in Finland 1991-93. Population Studies, 55, 119-133.
39.
JalovaaraM. (2003). The joint effects of marriage partners’ socioeconomic positions on the risk of divorce. Demography, 40, 67-81.
40.
JoffeM. M.SmallD.HsuC.-Y. (2007). Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Statistical Science, 22, 74-97.
41.
KalmijnM.PoortmanA.-R. (2006). His or her divorce? The gendered nature of divorce and its determinants. European Sociological Review, 22, 201-214.
42.
KroskaA. (2007). Gender ideology and gender role ideology. In RitzerG. (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 1867-1869). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
43.
LaveeY.KatzR. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 27-39.
44.
LesthaegheR. (1995). The second demographic transition in Western countries: An interpretation. In MasonK. O.JensenA.-M. (Eds.). Gender and family change in industrialized countries (pp.17-62). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45.
LiefbroerA. C.DourleijnE. (2006). Unmarried cohabitation and union stability: Testing the role of diffusion using data from 16 European countries. Demography, 43, 203-221.
46.
LyngstadT. H.JalovaaraM. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 257-292.
47.
MacKinnonD. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
MatysiakA.StyrcM.VignoliD. (2014). The educational gradient in marital disruption: A meta-analysis of European research findings. Population Studies, 68, 197-215.
MencariniL. (2014). Gender equity. In MichalosA. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 2437-2438). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
51.
MencariniL.SironiM. (2012). Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review, 28, 203-219.
52.
MikulaG.RiedererB.BodiO. (2012). Perceived justice in the division of domestic labor: Actor and partner effects. Personal Relationships, 19, 680-695.
53.
NeyerG.LappegårdT.VignoliD. (2013). Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters? European Journal of Population, 29, 245-272.
54.
OláhL. S.GählerM. (2014). Gender equality perceptions, division of paid and unpaid work, and partnership dissolution in Sweden. Social Forces, 93, 571-594.
55.
OppenheimerV. K. (1977). The sociology of women’s economic role in the family. American Sociological Review, 42, 387-406.
56.
OppenheimerV. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: The specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431-453.
57.
O’TooleJ.SinclairM.LederK. (2008). Maximising response rates in household telephone surveys. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 71.
58.
ÖzcanB.BreenR. (2012). Marital instability and female labor supply. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 463-481.
59.
ParsonsT. (1940). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. American Journal of Sociology, 45, 841-862.
60.
PearlJ. (2001). Direct and indirect effects. In BreeseJ.KollerD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 411-420). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
61.
PiraniE.VignoliD. (2016). Changes in the satisfaction of cohabitors relative to spouses over time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 598-609.
62.
PoortmanA.-R. (2005). Women’s work and divorce: A matter of anticipation? A research note. European Sociological Review, 21, 301-309.
63.
Raz-YurovichL. (2012). Economic determinants of divorce among dual-earner couples: Jews in Israel. European Journal of Population, 28, 1-27.
64.
RobinsJ. M.GreenlandS. (1992). Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 3, 143-155.
65.
RogersS. J. (2004). Dollars, dependency, and divorce: Four perspectives on the role of wives’ income. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 59-74.
66.
RossH. L.SawhillI. V. (1975). Time of transition: The growth of families headed by women. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
67.
RubinD. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Annals of Statistics, 6, 34-58.
68.
RugglesS. (1997). The rise of divorce and separation in the United States, 1880–1990. Demography, 34, 455-466.
69.
SalviniS.VignoliD. (2011). Things change: Women’s and men’s marital disruption dynamics in Italy during a time of social transformations, 1970–2003. Demographic Research, 24, 145-174.
70.
SayerL. C.BianchiS. M. (2000). Women’s economic independence and the probability of divorce: A review and reexamination. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 906-943.
71.
SayerL. C.EnglandP.AllisonP.KangasN. (2011). She left, he left: How employment and satisfaction affect women’s and men’s decisions to leave marriages. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1982-2018.
72.
SchoenR.AstoneN. M.KimY. J.RothertK.StandishN. J. (2002). Women’s employment, marital happiness, and divorce. Social Forces, 81, 643-662.
73.
SchoenR.RogersS. J.AmatoP. R. (2006). Wives’ employment and spouses’ marital happiness: Assessing the direction of influence using longitudinal couple data. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 506-528.
74.
Sigle-RushtonW. (2010). Men’s unpaid work and divorce: Reassessing specialization and trade in British families. Feminist Economics, 16, 1-26.
75.
SimpsonI. H.EnglandP. (1981). Conjugal work roles and marital solidarity. Journal of Family Issues, 2, 180-204.
76.
StevensonB.WolfersJ. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 27-52.
77.
ValeriL.VanderWeeleT. J. (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for exposure mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psycological Methods, 18, 137-150.
78.
van de KaaD. J. (2001). Postmodern fertility preferences: From changing value orientation to new behavior. Population and Development Review, 27, 290-331.
79.
VanderWeeleT. J. (2009). Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 20, 18-26.
80.
VanderWeeleT. J.VansteelandtS. (2009). Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and Its Interface, 2, 457-468.
81.
VanderWeeleT. J.VansteelandtS. (2010). Odds ratios for mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome. American Journal of Epidemiology, 172, 1339-1348.
82.
VignoliD.FerroI. (2009). Rising marital disruption in Italy and its correlates. Demographic Research, 20, 11-36.
83.
VignoliD.GabrielliG.GualtieriG. (2011). Formazione e scioglimento delle unioni [Union formation and dissolution in Italy]. In SalviniS.De RoseA. (Eds.), Rapporto sulla popolazione. L’Italia a 150 anni dall’Unità (pp. 33-55). Bologna, Italy: il Mulino.
84.
VignoliD.SalviniS. (2014). Religion and union formation in Italy: Catholic precepts, social pressure, and tradition. Demographic Research, 31, 1079-1106.
85.
VignoliD.MatysiakA.StyrcM.TocchioniV. (2016). The impact of women’s employment on divorce: Real effect, selection, or anticipation?Families And SocietiesWorking Paper Series, 59(2016).
