Showing posts with label партнёр. Show all posts
Showing posts with label партнёр. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 24, 2023

Children and unequal sharing of housework

Children and (unequal) sharing of housework between partners in Hungary


January 23, 2023 Zsuzsanna Veroszta

In addition to their childcare responsibilities, women with young children often have to do more housework, thus making an already unequal balance even more skewed. Zsuzsanna Veroszta shows that, in absolute terms, the burden is greater on mothers of several children, and that the biggest relative increase occurs after the birth of the first child.

The division of housework between partners depends on the life cycle of households, including childbearing, which is perhaps the single most relevant factor (Birch et al., 2009). After giving birth, women tend to be more burdened with housework, as well as having increased childcare responsibilities. This depends partly on practical circumstances, such as maternity leave, and partly on cultural and value-related attitudes. In Hungary, studies on the division of housework within households have shown that even though their labour market participation is very high, women traditionally bear the brunt of household responsibilities (Gregor and Kováts, 2020). The prevalence of this phenomenon – also known as the ‘second shift’ (Hochschild and Machung, 1989) – depends not only on the external workload, but also on place of residence, education and age, including the age difference between partners. The number and age of the children also matters.

In a recent study, my colleagues and I analysed the amount and share of housework performed by women during pregnancy and when the child is 6 months old (Veroszta et al., 2022). The self-reported data, concerning women who cohabit with a male partner, were obtained via face-to-face interviews in the first wave (among pregnant women) and second wave (when the child was aged 6 months) of the Growing Up in Hungary – Cohort ’18 longitudinal study (2018–19).
 

Women’s share of domestic work increases once they have a child


According to data from the Cohort ’18 survey, already during pregnancy, the burden of everyday domestic tasks – cooking, washing, shopping, cleaning, etc – is heavily skewed towards women. Men are most likely to do maintenance work in or around the house. The most common joint or shared activities include shopping, managing household finances and organizing leisure activities. About six months after the birth of their child, mothers seem to be doing slightly more washing and cleaning, while the number of tasks the couple do together decreases in almost all areas (Figure 1).

The more (children), the heavier (the burden of household chores)


These data reflect the average Hungarian couple with a 6-month-old child. However, when this baby is not the first child in the household, the division of housework is even more heavily tilted against mothers. Not only do fathers with more children take on fewer tasks, but there is also a big reduction in shared household activities (Figure 2). It is also clear from the data that external help (whether paid or unpaid) tends to be available more to mothers of only children; with a second or third child, the mother’s household tasks tend to increase.

A larger relative increase for first-time mothers


Depending on the number of children, the picture differs if we look not at the absolute number of tasks, but at the increase in tasks after the birth – i.e. the relative extent of the change. In this case, we look at the difference between the number of tasks that the mother performed before and after the birth.

On average, a pregnant woman mainly or always performs 2.4 household tasks out of 7. For those with a 6-month-old child, the average is higher: 2.75 tasks. Comparing the two periods, in more than 40 per cent of cases, the number of household tasks performed by the woman increases in the 6 months following the birth, typically by one or two extra household jobs.

Breaking the data down by parity, we find, not surprisingly, that mothers with more children do most of the housework in absolute terms. However, the relative increase in the number of tasks is smaller for them – with the exception of families with four children or more, where both the absolute and the relative burden on mothers increases significantly with the arrival of a new child. Housework increases more for women who are at home after the birth of their first child.
In short, in Hungary at least, having additional children increases women’s household workload in general, but it is after the first birth that the balance of housework between partners tilts most strongly against women.

References

  • Birch, E.R., Lee, A.T. and Miller, P.W. (2009): Household Divisions of Labour: Teamwork, gender and time. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gregor, A. and Kováts, E. (2020): Work–life: balance? Tensions between care and paid work in the lives of Hungarian women. Socio.hu Társadalomtudományi Szemle, 9(SI7), 91–115.
  • Hochschild, A.R. and Machung, A. (1989): The Second Shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. Viking.
  • Veroszta, Zs., Boros, J., Kapitány, B. et al. (2022): Infancy in Hungary. Report on the Second Wave of Cohort ’18 – Growing Up in Hungary. Working Papers on Population, Family and Welfare, No. 40. Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, Budapest.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Does information change attitudes toward immigrants?

Alexis Grigorieff, Christopher Roth and Diego Ubfal estimate the effect of providing information about the size and characteristics of the immigrant group on attitudes toward immigrants in the United States. They conclude that Republicans and other groups with negative views on immigration become more supportive of immigration when their misperceptions about the characteristics of immigrants are corrected.


People are significantly misinformed about basic facts related to immigration. Survey respondents around the world consistently over-estimate both the size of the immigrant group in their own country (Sides and Citrin, 2007; Herda 2010; IpsosMori 2014), and the fraction of that group with some negative characteristic, such as being unemployed, or being incarcerated (Blinder 2015; Alesina, Miano and Stantcheva 2018; Grigorieff, Roth and Ubfal 2020). There is evidence that these misperceptions have been recently growing in the United States (Herda 2019).

Beliefs about immigrants are highly biased and can lead to negative attitudes


Misperceptions about the size and characteristics of immigrant groups can increase the feeling of threat among natives and lead to negative attitudes towards them. They can exacerbate prejudice, impede the integration of immigrants into society, and drive increased support for anti-immigration policies.

The literature has studied interventions that corrected people’s misperceptions about the size of the immigrant group, but has found only limited effects on people’s attitudes towards immigrants (Sides and Citrin 2007; Hopkins, Sides and Citrin 2019). In a recent paper (Grigorieff, Roth and Ubfal 2020), we find promising results by studying the impact of a comprehensive information package that corrects people’s beliefs not only about the proportion of immigrants, but also about their characteristics.

Testing the effect of correcting misperceptions


We conducted two survey experiments in the US with identical design to estimate the causal effect of our information package in two different samples. The first was conducted in March 2016 with a voluntary response sample of 800 participants recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), and the second in September 2016 with an online sample of 1,200 participants which matched the US population in terms of age, gender and region of residence.

Participants were asked to estimate a range of statistics regarding immigrants: unemployment rate, incarceration rate, share of immigrants able to speak English, and share of legal and undocumented immigrants. We focused on these characteristics because they relate to policy-sensitive issues and because they can be well documented, which increases the reliability of the information we provide.

A randomly allocated half of the sample was provided with the statistics on these topics, followed by a questionnaire on their beliefs about immigrants and their policy preferences regarding immigration. We also obtained two behavioral measures of their attitudes towards immigrants, first by asking them how much money they wanted to donate to a pro-immigrant charity, and then by asking them whether they were willing to sign a real petition on the White House website in favor of increasing the number of available green cards. We also gathered evidence using a follow-up survey four weeks after our main experiment to examine whether information can durably shift people’s attitudes and policy preferences.
Information leads to correction in beliefs

As Figure 1 clearly indicates, respondents had highly biased (prior) beliefs about immigrants and over-estimated all five statistics: they believed both legal and undocumented immigrants represent a larger fraction than is actually the case, and they thought immigrants are much more likely to be incarcerated, unemployed and less likely to speak English than they actually are. The figure also shows that respondents substantially updated their beliefs after receiving our information treatment (posterior), with a convergence towards the true values. This update in beliefs persisted a month later (posterior follow-up), when they answered the follow-up survey without being reminded about the correct answers. However, after a month, we again saw a small over-estimation of the statistics, which could indicate that repeated interventions might be necessary to achieve more persistent effects.

fig 1

Information improves attitudes towards immigrants for Republicans


Figure 2 presents separately the treatment effects of our information package for respondents identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans. All outcome variables are indexes, normalized by the mean and the standard deviation of the value for the control group. The effects are expressed in terms of standard deviations away from the mean in the group that did not receive the information.

fig 2

We find significant heterogeneity by political ideology in the impact of the information package on our pre-specified families of outcomes. Republicans, who had more negative attitudes towards immigrants before the intervention, drive most of these effects.

First, we find an average effect of the information package on the index of beliefs that are directly linked to the information provided (this index of targeted beliefs includes questions about the size of the immigrant group and about the characteristics of immigrants included in the information). The effect is of 0.2 standard deviations for Democrats and of 0.4 standard deviations for Republicans. Second, we see that the effect on the index of general beliefs about immigrants, not directly targeted by the intervention, is positive and statistically significant only for Republicans. Third, the same applies to our index on policy preferences. It is important to note that only questions regarding legal immigrants are affected and drive the impact on this index. Finally, we also see that Republicans drive the effects on donations to a pro-immigrant charity and on the intention to sign the petition for increasing the number of green cards.

We hypothesize that Republicans developed more positive attitudes towards immigrants because the information provided in the treatment made them realize that immigrants living in the country are similar to the deserving immigrant category they had formed in their minds (Schachter 2016).

We find very similar effects in both experiments, which gives robustness to our results. These effects persisted four weeks after the intervention in our follow-up survey. Participants who received the information four weeks earlier still remembered it, had a more positive opinion of immigrants, and were more supportive of increasing the number of incoming legal immigrants. However, their policy preferences regarding undocumented immigrants remained unchanged.

Size vs characteristics


Our experiments provide evidence that a package including information on both the size and the characteristics of the immigrant group can affect beliefs for the average respondent and also policy preferences for those with more negative views on immigration. We use a third experiment conducted in more than 10 countries to show that information only on size is not enough to generate significant effects. Consistent with the previous literature (Hopkins, Side and Citrin 2019), we find evidence from the US that informing only about the size of the immigrant group has no significant effects on general beliefs or policy preferences for Democrats or for Republicans.

We provide external validity for these results by showing similar conclusions for the other countries where the same experiment was conducted. This leads us to conclude that information about the characteristics of immigrants is the key component of our information package.

Conclusion


Our findings have important policy implications. They indicate that a reduction in misperceptions about the characteristics of immigrants can lead to less negative attitudes towards them. The government, the media or NGOs could disseminate information about immigrants in order to reduce people’s biases. Future research should test how the credibility of the agent who provides the information can affect its impact. Our results indicate that targeting individuals with the most negative views on immigration and providing objective statistics on the characteristics of immigrants can be an effective way of changing attitudes towards them.

References

  • Alesina, A., Miano, A and S. Stantcheva (2018) “Immigration and Redistribution.”
  • Blinder, S. (2015) “Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of ‘immigrants’ in public opinion and policy debates in Britain.” Political Studies63(1): 80–100.
  • Citrin, J. and J. Sides (2008) “Immigration and the Imagined Community in Europe and the United States.” Political Studies 56(1): 33–56.
  • Grigorieff, A., Roth, C. and D. Ubfal (2020) “Does Information Change Attitudes Toward Immigrants?” Demography 57(3).
  • Herda, D. (2010) “How many immigrants? Foreign-born population innumeracy in Europe.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74(4): 674–695.
  • Herda, D. (2019) “Tracking Ignorance: Examining Changes in Immigrant Population Innumeracy in the United States from 2005 to 2013.” Migration Letters 16(2): 329–339.
  • Hopkins, D., Sides, J. and J. Citrin (2019) “The Muted Consequences of Correct Information About Immigration.” Journal of Politics 81(1): 315–320.
  • IpsosMori (2014) “Perceptions and Reality: Public Attitudes Towards Immigration.
  • Schachter, A. (2016) “From “different” to “similar” an experimental approach to understanding assimilation.” American Sociological Review 81(5): 981–1013.
  • Sides, J. and J. Citrin (2007) “How Large the Huddled Masses? The Causes and Consequences of Public Misperceptions About Immigrant Populations.” In Annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Same sex partnerships are becoming more popular in Germany

По сообщению Statistisches Bundesamt, в 2011 году 40% однополых пар жили в зарегистрированном партнёрстве. В 2006 году этот показатель составлял 19%.
Около 7000 детей живут с однополыми родителями. Примерно у девяти из десяти однополых парнёрств детей нет.

По данным микропереписи, число однополых пар в Германии насчитывает около 67 тысяч. Это число выросло примерно на 29 тысяч с 1996 года,  в 1996 году было 38 тысяч. Скорее всего, это нижний предел, поскольку предоставление информации об однополом партнерё в микропереписи  являлось добровольным.
USA

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

living apart together

LAT -- сокращение для сабжа
это означает стабильные/долгосрочные отношения, но отдельное проживание и отсутствие формального брака
помнится Л. Е. Дарский употреблял термин: дислокальный брак, но там присутствовал феномен прописки, который вряд ли где-то ещё так ощутимо влиятелен

куда же ведут такие отношения стабильно в долгосрочной переспективе?
в брак или во вне брака?

ответ в статье Мартина Туркота на Статистике Канады

ещё новое слово: binuclear family structures -- это послеразводные дети, которые живут на две семьи, это другая статья (про Фламандию)

Saturday, February 23, 2013

they sincerely love men

гендерным путъём
Совет, да любовь

Почему мужчины-геи доверяют гетеросексуальным женщинам?

Это какбе стереотип, но научное исследование не знает границ. Тут произошло включённое наблюдение, если я прально понял метод. На ФБ был создан фейковый персонаж и рассматривались его контакты. Выяснилось, что в соседней деревне деуки не только красивее, но и умнее:
“close friendships between straight women and gay men may be characterized by a unique exchange of unbiased mating-relevant information that may not be available in their other relationships.” 
А причины в том, что (1) они между собой не конкурируют за предмет любви (это несколько сомнительно, нодаладно) и, главное (2) они любят мужегоф.
Если правильно понимаю, то гетеросексуальные тйотки устраивают coming out так называемым латентным геям:
тебе Танька дала? и мне не дала = вот, блять!
[если кто не понял: Таньку меняем на Ваньку, а блять=гей].

Более подробная статья в The Atlantic
Finally: истошнег Evolutionary Psychology статья Friends with Benefits, but Without the Sex: Straight Women and Gay Men Exchange Trustworthy Mating Advice (пдфнег, 500 кб)
&
How to Find Your Gay Best Friend (вики.каки -- там, ессно, можно редактировать, читай: делицо опитом:)
Лутшыя советники геев -- гетеросексуальные женщины
Mean trustworthiness of advice offered by targets as rated by straight women (Experiment 1) and gay men (Experiment 2).
Note: Full scale runs from 1 to 7. Error bars represent M +/- (2SE).
теже яйца в фокусе гей.ру