Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35756753›Full record

ArticleJournal of marriage and the family2022

"Thank U, Next"? Repartnering and the Household Division of Labor.

Ariane Ophir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of marriage and the family, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ariane OphirCentre for Demographic Studies (CED), Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics, Carrer de Ca n'Altayó, Edifici E2, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, Spain.

Funding

Center for Demography and EcologyR24HD047873 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI RAYMO, JAMES M · 2004 to 2013
$7.2M
Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD047873 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Katherine J. Curtis · 2014 to 2026
$5.1M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047873NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD047873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Drawing on life course and gender theories, this study tests competing hypotheses about the effect of repartnering on women's and men's levels and shares of housework. Background: Amidst increasing cohabitation rates and union instability, women and men are likely to form and dissolve multiple marital and non-marital unions with different partners over the life course. However, most of our knowledge about the role of past relationships are based on cross-sectional studies comparing first- and higher-order union. This study investigates whether people change their housework arrangements upon repartnering and whether women and men experience similar patterns of change in heterosexual relationships. Method: The analysis draws on 40 years of longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and a sample of 1,897 women and men who were observed in two sequential heterosexual unions. The author used fixed-effects models to estimate change in housework behavior upon repartnering. Results: Overall, the results show stability in housework behavior upon repartnering once controlling for other life course changes that concur with repartnering. Women continued doing the majority of housework upon repartnering. Conclusion: The results suggest that forming a new heterosexual union evokes gender scripts which overall maintains the gendered housework behavior. Although housework is dynamic over the life course, the gender dynamics that shape housework is stable amid union instability.

Indexed as

Fixed effects modelsGenderHousework/division of laborLife courseRemarriageUnion Formation

Identifiers

PMID35756753
PMCPMC9231825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.