Offering and Asking for Help with Domestic Chores in Couple Relationships
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Males and Females in Intuitive and Verbal Interactions
3. Gender and Helping Behaviour in Couple Relationships
4. Offering and Asking for Help
5. Methodology
5.1. Participants
5.2. Collecting Data and Preparing Data Bases
5.3. Strategy of Analysis
5.4. Instruments
6. Results
6.1. Descriptive Analysis
6.2. Testing the Hypotheses
Testing hypothesis 1: ‘There will be differences between boys and girls regarding being intuitive, verbal or doing chores alone, in the condition of asking and offering help.’
Testing hypothesis 2: ‘There will be differences between male partners and female partners regarding being intuitive, verbal or doing chores alone, in the condition of asking and offering help.’
Testing hypothesis 3: ‘When offering or asking for help, girls will be similar to female partners in being intuitive, verbal, or doing the chores alone.’
Testing hypothesis 4: ‘When offering or asking for help, boys will be similar to male partners in being intuitive, verbal, or doing the chores alone.’
Testing hypothesis 5: ‘Offering and asking for help will be different for boys and girls, in verbal, intuitive, and alone conditions.’
Testing hypothesis 6: ‘Offering and asking for help will be different for the male partner and female partner, in verbal, intuitive, and alone conditions.’
7. Discussions
8. Conclusions
9. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fiske, A.P. Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, Market Pricing; Free Press: Florence, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Ruppanner, L.; Brandén, M.; Turunen, J. Does unequal housework lead to divorce? Evidence from Sweden. Sociology 2018, 52, 75–94. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, I. Help-Seeking and Causal Attributions for Helping. Ph.D. Thesis, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Uppsala, Sweden, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Small, D.A.; Gelfand, M.; Babcock, L.; Gettman, H. Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 93, 600. [Google Scholar]
- Stanovich, K.E.; West, R.F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behav. Brain Sci. 2000, 23, 645–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, S.J.; King, L.A. Examining the roles of intuition and gender in magical beliefs. J. Res. Personal. 2020, 86, 103956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gal, V.; Banerjee, S.; Rad, D.V. Identifying emotion pattern from physiological sensors through unsupervised EMDeep model. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 38, 5999–6017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Columban, A.; Mihai, B.; Macarie, F.C. Students’ Sense and Sensibilities. An Exploratory Study of Gender Perceptions At Romania’s Largest University. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2020, 16, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gigerenzer, G.; Galesic, M.; Garcia-Retamero, R. Stereotypes about men’s and women’s intuitions: A study of two nations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2014, 45, 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, R.; Hall, J.A.; DiMatteo, M.R.; Rogers, P.L.; Archer, D. Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, J.A. Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive Style; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenthal, R.; Depaulo, B.M. Sex differences in eavesdropping on nonverbal cues. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler-Smith, E. The intuitive style: Relationships with local/global and verbal/visual styles, gender, and superstitious reasoning. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2011, 21, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tannen, D. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation; Ballantine Books: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Cattaneo, L.; Veroni, V.; Boria, S.; Tassinari, G.; Turella, L. Sex differences in affective facial reactions are present in childhood. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, J.K.; Hutton, S.B.; Morgan, M.J. Sex differences in scanning faces: Does attention to the eyes explain female superiority in facial expression recognition? Cogn. Emot. 2010, 24, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 2005, 19, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tay, S.W.; Ryan, P.; Ryan, C.A. Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students. Can. Med. Educ. J. 2016, 7, e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, J.; Allinson, C.W.; Armstrong, S.J. Intuition, women managers and gendered stereotypes. Pers. Rev. 2004, 33, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmberg, C. Det kallas kärlek (It’s Called Love); Böcker, A., Ed.; Bohusläningen: Uddevalla, Sweden, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Addis, M.E.; Mahalik, J.R. Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. Am. Psychol. 2003, 58, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Watkins, C.D.; Bovet, J.; Fernandez, A.M.; Leongómez, J.D.; Żelaźniewicz, A.; Corrêa Varella, M.A.; Wagstaff, D. Men say “I love you” before women do: Robust across several countries. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2022, 39, 02654075221075264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, J.; Gray, J. Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus; HarperCollins e-books: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, M.S. Some implications of close social bonds for help-seeking. New Dir. Help. 1983, 2, 205–229. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, M.S.; Mils, J. The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 19, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Righetti, F.; Visserman, M.L.; Impett, E.A. Sacrifices: Costly prosocial behaviors in romantic relationships. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 44, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, S.W.; Eagly, A.H. The heroism of women and men. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Becker, S.W. Comparing the heroism of women and men. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 343–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hare-Mustin, R.T. The problem of gender in family therapy theory. Fam. Process 1987, 26, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kan, M.Y.; Sullivan, O.; Gershuny, J. Gender convergence in domestic work: Discerning the effects of interactional and institutional barriers from large-scale data. Sociology 2011, 45, 234–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittman, J.F.; Solheim, C.A.; Blanchard, D. Stress as a driver of the allocation of housework. J. Marriage Fam. 1996, 58, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerrato, J.; Cifre, E. Gender inequality in household chores and work-family conflict. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyde, J.S. The gender similarities hypothesis. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; General Learning Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, M.; Gordon, M.; Wickrama, K.A.S. Romantic relationship experiences of adolescents and young adults: The role of mothers’ relationship history. J. Fam. Issues 2016, 37, 1458–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadolu, D.; Runcan, R.; Bahnaru, A. Sociological dimensions of marital satisfaction in Romania. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iovu, M.B.; Runcan, R.; Runcan, P.L.; Andrioni, F. Association between Facebook use, depression and family satisfaction: A cross-sectional study of romanian youth. Iran. J. Public Health 2020, 49, 2111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aurel, B.; Remus, R. Social Work and Family: Treating Infidelity. Rev. De Asistenta Soc. 2019, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Lachance-Grzela, M.; Bouchard, G. Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles 2010, 63, 767–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunow, D.; Evertsson, M. (Eds.) . New Parents in Europe; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mencarini, L.; Sironi, M. Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2012, 28, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, M.C.; Paterna, C. Perspectiva de género aplicada a la conciliación (Gender perspective applied to work-family conciliation). In Género y Conciliación de la Vida Familiar y Laboral: Un Análisis Psicosocial; Martínezed, M.C., Ed.; Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2009; pp. 17–44. [Google Scholar]
- Updegraff, K.A.; Umaña-Taylor, A.J.; McHale, S.M.; Wheeler, L.A.; Perez-Brena, N.J. Mexican-origin youth’s cultural orientations and adjustment: Changes from early to late adolescence. Child Dev. 2012, 83, 1655–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fry, D.A.; Messinger, A.M.; Rickert, V.I.; O’Connor, M.K.; Palmetto, N.; Lessel, H.; Davidson, L.L. Adolescent relationship violence: Help-seeking and help-giving behaviors among peers. J. Urban Health 2014, 91, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vogel, D.L.; Heimerdinger-Edwards, S.R.; Hammer, J.H.; Hubbard, A. “Boys don’t cry”: Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. J. Couns. Psychol. 2011, 58, 368–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franz, R.L.; Findlater, L.; Barbosa Neves, B.; Wobbrock, J.O. Gender and help seeking by older adults when learning new technologies. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 28–30 October 2019; pp. 136–142. [Google Scholar]
- Black, B.M.; Tolman, R.M.; Callahan, M.; Saunders, D.G.; Weisz, A.N. When will adolescents tell someone about dating violence victimization? Violence Against Women 2008, 14, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackson, J. Gender Differences in Seeking Help. 2011. Available online: https://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=etd (accessed on 3 September 2022).
- Oliver, M.I.; Pearson, N.; Coe, N.; Gunnell, D. Help-seeking behaviour in men and women with common mental health problems: Cross-sectional study. Br. J. Psychiatry 2005, 186, 297–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Babarskienė, J. Doing household chores in Lithuania: Expectations and practices—Volume I: Culture And Dialogue. LCC Lib. Arts Stud. 2008, 1, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
- Queen, T.L.; Stawski, R.S.; Ryan, L.H.; Smith, J. Loneliness in a day: Activity engagement, time alone, and experienced emotions. Psychol. Aging 2014, 29, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pimentel, E.E. Just how do I love thee? Marital relations in urban China. J. Marriage Fam. 2000, 62, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingston, P.W.; Nock, S.L. Time together among dual-earner couples. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1987, 52, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiș, R.; Ignat, S.; Rad, D.; Macsinga, I. The Mediation Role of an Individual’s and Couple’s Psychological Factors, Including Parenting in the Prediction of Relational and Marital Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 4.0) (R packages retrieved from MRAN snapshot 2021-04-01). 2021. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org (accessed on 2 September 2022).
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 27.0); IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Microsoft Word 2010 Software in the package Microsoft Professional Office Plus; Microsoft: Redmond, WA, USA, 2010.
- Hill, M. Research Review: Participatory Research with Children. Child Fam. Soc. Work 1997, 2, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, I. Chi-squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat. Med. 2007, 26, 3661–3675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, J.T.E. The analysis of 2 × 2 contingency tables—Yet again. Stat. Med. 2011, 30, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altman, D.G.; Machin, D.; Bryant, T.N.; Gardner, M.J. (Eds.) Statistics with Confidence, 2nd ed.; BMJ Books: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000; p. 49. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, F. Verbal strategies for seeking help in organizations. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 1472–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, P. Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. J. Soc. Issues 1976, 32, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steil, J.M.; Hillman, J.L. The perceived value of direct and indirect influence strategies: A cross cultural comparison. Psychol. Women Q 1993, 17, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carli, L.L. Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. J. Soc. Issues 1999, 55, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sagrestano, L.M. The use of power and influence in a gendered world. Psychol. Women Q. 1992, 16, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurian, M. Boys and Girls Learn Differently! A Guide for Teachers and Parents; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dombroski, K. Learning to be affected: Maternal connection, intuition and “elimination communication”. Emot. Space Soc. 2018, 26, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alone n (%) | Observing without Words n (%) | Asking in Words n (%) | Waiting to Be Asked n (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boys | Asking for help, n = 116 | 8 (7) | 16 (14) | 44 (38) | 48 (41) |
Offering help, n = 116 | 10 (9) | 4 (3) | 26 (22) | 76 (66) | |
Girls | Asking for help, n = 116 | 10 (9) | 72 (62) | 24 (21) | 10 (9) |
Offering help, n = 115 | 4 (3) | 70 (61) | 36 (30) | 6 (5) | |
Male partners | Asking for help, n = 110 | 24 (22) | 14 (13) | 42 (38) | 30 (27) |
Offering help, n = 110 | 4 (4) | 16 (15) | 44 (40) | 46 (42) | |
Female partners | Asking for help, n = 300 | 96 (32) | 42 (14) | 148 (49) | 14 (5) |
Offering for help, n = 300 | 12 (4) | 208 (69) | 56 (19) | 24 (8) |
Respondents | Intuitive n/Expected | Verbal n/Expected | Alone n/Expected | Total n | Chi-Square Tests of Independence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Offering help | |||||
Boy | 4 (37) | 102 (72) | 10 (7) | 116 | χ2(1) = 86.43 p < 0.00001 n = 232 |
Girl | 70 (37) | 42 (72) | 4 (7) | 116 | |
Total | 74 | 144 | 14 | 232 | |
Male partner | 16 (60.10) | 90 (45.61) | 4 (4.29) | 110 | χ2(1) = 103.29 p < 0.00001 n = 410 |
Female partner | 208 (163.90) | 80 (124.39) | 12 (11.71) | 300 | |
Total | 224 | 170 | 16 | 410 | |
Asking for help | |||||
Boy | 16 (44) | 92 (63) | 8 (9) | 116 | χ2(1) = 62.5 p < 0.00001 n = 232 |
Girl | 72 (44) | 34 (63) | 10 (9) | 116 | |
Total | 88 | 126 | 18 | 232 | |
Male partner | 14 (15.02) | 72 (62.78) | 24 (32.20) | 110 | χ2(1) = 4.796 p = 0.0908 n = 410 |
Female partner | 42 (40.98) | 162 (171.22) | 96 (87.80) | 300 | |
Total | 56 | 234 | 120 | 410 |
Respondents | Intuitive n/(%) | Verbal n/(%) | Alone n/(%) | Total n/(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Offering help | ||||
Boy | 4 (3.4) | 102 (87.9) | 10 (8.6) | 116 (100) |
Girl | 70 (60.3) | 42 (36.2) | 4 (3.4) | 116 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 4.937 p = 0.026 a, MDiff. = 56.9 | χ2(1) = 39.898, p < 0.0001 a, MDiff. = 51.7 | χ2(1) = 0.109, p = 0.7418 a, MDiff. = 5.2 | |
Total | 74 | 144 | 14 | 232 (100) |
Male partner | 16 (14.5) | 90 (81.9) | 4 (3.6) | 110 (100) |
Female partner | 208 (69.3) | 80 (26.7) | 12 (4.0) | 300 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 19.625, p < 0.0001 a, MDiff. = 54.8 | χ2(1) = 52,04 p < 0.0001 a, MDiff. = 55.2 | χ2(1) = 0.001, p = 0.9724 a, MDiff. = 0.4 | |
Total | 224 | 170 | 16 | 410 (100) |
Asking for help | ||||
Boy | 16 (13.8) | 92 (79.3) | 8 (6.9) | 116 (100) |
Girl | 72 (62.1) | 34 (29.3) | 10 (8.6) | 116 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 12.130, p = 0.0005 a, MDiff. = 48.3 | χ2(1) = 27.364, p < 0.0001 a, MDiff. = 50.0 | χ2(1) = 0.017 p = 0.8969 a, MDiff. = 1.7 | |
Total | 88 | 126 | 18 | 232 (100) |
Male partner | 14 (12.7) | 72 (65.5) | 24 (21.8) | 110 (100) |
Female partner | 42 (14) | 162 (54) | 96 (32) | 300 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 0.015, p = 0.9033 a, MDiff. = 1.3 | χ2(1) = 2.687, p = 0.1012 a, MDiff. = 11.5 | χ2(1) = 0.944, p = 0,3312 a, MDiff. = 10.2 | |
Total | 56 | 234 | 120 | 410 (100) |
Respondents | Intuitive n | Verbal n | Alone | Total n | Chi-Square Tests of Independence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Offering-help | |||||
Boy | 4 (10.27) | 102 (98.55) | 10 (7.19) | 116 | χ2(1) = 10.36 p = 0.005 n = 226 |
Male partner | 16 (9.73) | 90 (93.45) | 4 (6.81) | 110 | |
Total | 20 | 192 | 14 | 226 | |
Girl | 70 (77.52) | 42 (34.02) | 4 (4.46) | 116 | χ2(1) = 3.673 p = 0.1593 n = 416 |
Female partner | 208 (200.48) | 80 (87.98) | 12 (11.54) | 300 | |
Total | 278 | 122 | 16 | 416 | |
Asking-for-help | |||||
Boy | 16 (15.40) | 92 (84.18) | 8 (16.42) | 116 | χ2(1) = 10.420 p = 0.0054 n = 194 |
Male partner | 14 (14.60) | 72 (79.82) | 24 (15.58) | 110 | |
Total | 30 | 164 | 32 | 226 | |
Girl | 72 (31.79) | 34 (54.65) | 10 (29.56) | 116 | χ2(1) = 99.30 p < 0.00001 n = 416 |
Female partner | 42 (82.21) | 162 (141.35) | 96 (76.44) | 300 | |
Total | 114 | 196 | 106 | 416 |
Respondents | Intuitive n (%) | Verbal n (%) | Alone (%) | Total n |
---|---|---|---|---|
Offering-help | ||||
Boy | 4 (3.5) | 102 (87.9) | 10 (8.6) | 116 (100) |
Male partner | 16 (14.6) | 90 (81.8) | 4 (3.6) | 110 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 0.345, p = 0.5568 a, Diff. = −11.1 | χ2(1) = 1.391, p = 0.2382 a, Diff. = 6.1 | χ2(1) = 0.100, p = 0.7523 a, Diff. = 5.0 | |
Total | 20 | 192 | 14 | 226 (100) |
Girl | 70 (60.3) | 42 (36.2) | 4 (3.5) | 116 (100) |
Female partner | 208 (69.3) | 80 (26.7) | 12 (4.0) | 300 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 1.913, p = 0.1667 a, Diff. = 9.0 | χ2(1) = 1.175, p = 0.2785 a, Diff. = 9.5 | χ2(1) = 0.002, p = 0.9653 a, Diff. = 0.5 | |
Total | 278 | 122 | 16 | 416 (100) |
Asking-for-help | ||||
Boy | 16 (13.7) | 92 (79.3) | 8 (6.90) | 116 (100) |
Male partner | 14 (12.7) | 72 (65.5) | 24 (21.8) | 110 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 0.006, p = 0.9368 a, Diff. = 1 | χ2(1) = 3.901, p = 0.0483 a, Diff. = 13.8 | χ2(1) = 0.871, p = 0.3506 a, Diff. = 14.9 | |
Total | 30 | 164 | 32 | 226 (100) |
Girl | 72 (62.0) | 34 (29.3) | 10 (8.62) | 116 (100) |
Female partner | 42 (14) | 162 (54) | 96 (32) | 300 (100) |
Comparing two proportion test | χ2(1) = 24.549, p < 0.0001 a, Diff. = 48 | χ2(1) = 6.823, p = 0.0090 a, Diff. = 24.7 | χ2(1) = 2.344, p = 0.1257 a, Diff. = 23.38 | |
Total | 114 | 196 | 106 | 416 (100) |
Respondents | Boy n/(Expected) | Girl n/(Expected) | Total n/(Expected) | Chi-Square Tests of Independence |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intuitive | χ2 (1) = 4,940 a p = 0.0262 n = 162 | |||
Asking | 16 (10.86) | 72 (77.14) | 88 | |
Offering | 4 (9.14) | 70 (64.86) | 74 | |
Total n | 20 | 142 | 162 | |
Verbal | χ2 (1) = 0.1583 p < 0.6907 n = 270 | |||
Asking | 92 (90.53) | 34 (35.47) | 126 | |
Offering | 102 (103.47) | 42 (40.53) | 144 | |
Total n | 194 | 76 | 270 | |
Alone | χ2 (1) = 1.362 a p = 0.2430 n = 32 | |||
Asking | 8 (10.12) | 10 (7.88) | 18 | |
Offering | 10 (7.88) | 4 (6.12) | 14 | |
Total n | 18 | 14 | 32 | |
Respondents | Male Partner n/(Expected) | Female Partner n/(Expected) | Total | Chi-Square Tests of Independence |
Intuitive | χ2 (1) = 14.933 p < 0.0001 n = 280 | |||
Asking | 14 (6) | 42 (50) | 56 | |
Offering | 16 (24) | 208 (200) | 224 | |
Total n | 30 | 250 | 280 | |
Verbal | ||||
Asking | 72 (93.83) | 162 (140.17) | 234 | χ2 (1) = 20.152 p < 0.00001 n = 404 |
Offering | 90 (68.17) | 80 (101.83) | 170 | |
Total n | 162 | 242 | 404 | |
Alone | χ2 (1) = 0.018 a p < 0.8922 n = 270 | |||
Asking | 24 (24.71) | 96 (95.29) | 120 | |
Offering | 4 (3.29) | 12 (12.71) | 16 | |
Total n | 28 | 108 | 136 |
Respondents | Boy n/(%) | Girl n/(%) | Total n/(%) |
---|---|---|---|
Intuitive | |||
Asking | 16 (18.18) | 72 (81.82) | 88 (100) |
Offering | 4 (5.41) | 70 (94.59) | 74 (100) |
χ2(1) = 0.376, p = 0.5397 a, MDiff. = 12.77 | χ2(1) = 5.488, p = 0.0191 a, MDiff. = −12.77 | ||
Total n | 20 | 142 | 162 (100) |
Verbal | |||
Asking | 92 (73.02) | 34 (26.98) | 126 (100) |
Offering | 102 (70.83) | 42 (29.17) | 144 (100) |
χ2(1) = 0.114, p = 0.7355 a, MDiff. = 2.19 | χ2(1) = 0.044, p = 0.8340 a, MDiff. = −2.19 | ||
Total n | 194 | 76 | 270 (100) |
Alone | |||
Asking | 8 (44.44) | 10 (55.56) | 18 (100) |
Offering | 10 (71.43) | 4 (28.57) | 14 (100) |
χ2(1) = 1.268, p = 0.2601 a, MDiff. = −26.99 | χ2(1) = 0.774, p = 0.3788 a, MDiff. = 26.99 | ||
Total n | 18 | 14 | 32 (100) |
Respondents | Male partner n/(%) | Female partner n/(%) | Total n/(%) |
Intuitive | |||
Asking | 14 (25) | 42 (75) | 56 (100) |
Offering | 16 (7.14) | 208 (92.86) | 224 (100) |
χ2(1) = 1.760, p = 0.1846 a, MDiff. = 17.86 | χ2(1) = 12.184, p = 0.0005 a, MDiff. = −17.86 | ||
Total n | 30 | 250 | 280 (100) |
Verbal | |||
Asking | 72 (30.77) | 162 (69.23) | 234 (100) |
Offering | 90 (52.94) | 80 (47.06) | 170 (100) |
χ2(1) = 7.968, p = 0.0048 a, MDiff. = −22.17 | χ2(1) = 11.115, p = 0.0009 a, MDiff. = 22.17 | ||
Total n | 162 | 242 | 404 (100) |
Alone | |||
Asking | 24 (20) | 96 (80) | 120 (100) |
Offering | 4 (25) | 12 (75) | 16 (100) |
χ2(1) = 0.050, p = 0.8225 a, MDiff. = 5 | χ2(1) = 0.162, p = 0.6875 a, MDiff. = 5 | ||
Total n | 28 | 108 | 136 (100) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marici, M.; Clipa, O.; Schipor, M.-D.; Runcan, R.; Andrei, A.-M. Offering and Asking for Help with Domestic Chores in Couple Relationships. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043708
Marici M, Clipa O, Schipor M-D, Runcan R, Andrei A-M. Offering and Asking for Help with Domestic Chores in Couple Relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043708
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarici, Marius, Otilia Clipa, Maria-Doina Schipor, Remus Runcan, and Ana-Maria Andrei. 2023. "Offering and Asking for Help with Domestic Chores in Couple Relationships" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043708