Peer Reviewed Articles on Are Single Mothers Better Parents Than Single Fathers

• Periodical List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC5497991

Census. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2017 Jul five.

Published in final edited grade every bit:

PMCID: PMC5497991

NIHMSID: NIHMS867320

Mothering Experiences: How Single-Parenthood and Employment Shift the Valence

Ann Meier

Department of Sociology & Minnesota Population Center, Academy of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN

Kelly Musick

Policy Analysis and Management & Cornell Population Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Sarah Alluvion

Minnesota Population Eye, Academy of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

Rachel Dunifon

Policy Assay and Direction & Cornell Population Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Abstract

Research studies and popular accounts of parenting document the joys and strains of raising children. Much of the literature comparing parents to those who do not have children indicates a happiness reward for those without children, though contempo studies unpack this general reward to reveal differences by the dimension of well-being considered and important features in parents' lives and parenting experiences. We employ unique data from the 2010, 2012, and 2013 American Time Use Survey to understand emotions in mothering experiences and how these vary by cardinal demographic factors: employment and partnership status. Assessing mothers' emotions in a broad set of parenting activities while controlling for a rich set of person- and activeness-level factors, we notice that mothering experiences are generally associated with high levels of emotional well-beingness, though single parenthood is associated with shifts in the emotional valence. Unmarried mothers report less happiness and more than sadness, stress and fatigue in parenting than partnered mothers. This is concentrated amongst those single mothers who are not employed. Employed single mothers are happier and less distressing and stressed when parenting than single mothers who are not employed. Contrary to common assumptions about maternal employment, nosotros find overall few negative associations between employment and mothers' feelings in time with children, with the exception that employed mothers study more fatigue in parenting than those who are not employed.

Keywords: parenting, emotional well-being, maternal employment, single mothers, time use

Studies have shown that men and women with children in the home report lower psychological well-being than those without children (Evenson and Simon 2005; Hansen 2012; McLanahan and Adams 1987; Stanca 2012). This is perhaps not surprising, as raising children can exist financially and emotionally draining, particularly in the U.S. where in that location is relatively little public support for childrearing (Drinking glass, Simon, and Andersson 2013). Still parenthood also comes with slap-up joy (eastward.g., Senior 2014), and a newer crop of enquiry has drawn attention to both potential costs and rewards of parenthood and how they vary by parents' characteristics (Aassve et al. 2012; Margolis and Myrskylä 2011; Nomaguchi and Milkie 2003; Woo and Raley 2005).

A rich set of qualitative studies describes the process of and challenges in parenting nether particular conditions (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Garey 1999; Nelson 2010; Villalobos 2014) or at specific stages (Fox 2009; Nelson 2010). Less inquiry has looked at the joys and strains of parents' daily experiences with children (Authors 2014; Connelly and Kimmel 2015), particularly amongst broad samples of the population (Kahneman et al. 2004; Nelson et al. 2013; Offer 2014). Nosotros know lilliputian about how feelings in time with children are shaped by the context in which parenting takes place. This paper addresses gaps in the literature on parenting experiences, focusing specifically on the factors associated with mothers' feelings in everyday parenting experiences.

We conceptualize parenting broadly to include any activity mothers report doing with their children. Studies examining parental fourth dimension with children oft focus solely on time in which parents directly engage in childcare activities with their children, capturing things such as play, teaching, and management (e.g. Kalil et al. 2012; Raley et al. 2012). Even so, these activities capture only a fraction of parenting time; Offering (2014) estimates simply almost one-quarter of all fourth dimension with children is spent in directly interaction. We fence that parenting occurs in many forms and varied contexts including seemingly mundane tasks such as cleaning and shopping (Folbre et al. 2005).

We focus on mothers' feelings in parenting for several reasons. Mothers are much more oftentimes unmarried parents than fathers, and at that place is greater variation in their employment hours, each of which is associated with greater demands at home (Bianchi 2000). Mothers spend more than time on childcare and housework than do fathers, even in dual-career households (Bianchi et al. 2000; Raley et al. 2012). Whereas employed mothers perform fewer household and kid-related tasks than practise those who stay at home, this is non beginning by increased time contributions at dwelling from husbands (Cawley and Liu 2012). Thus, in that location is prove that mothers continue to perform the majority of household tasks related to children and family unit operation, suggesting that it is their feelings in time with children that non just may thing almost for child well-being, but also may be more sensitive to their employment or partnership condition. Indeed, research shows that although parenting is generally associated with positive feelings, mothers study less happiness, more stress, and especially greater fatigue in time with children than fathers (Authors 2014).

A fundamental aim of this study is to examine how employment and partnership status are associated with mothers' feelings while spending time with their children. Variation along these critical dimensions may structure the valence of mothering in means that are difficult to predict. The demands of single parenting may issue in less joy and greater strain in fourth dimension with children; on the other manus, unmarried mothers' time with children may also provide an unmatched source of intimacy, fulfillment, and security (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Villalobos 2014). Maternal employment, which has never fit as easily with the parenting role every bit paternal employment, can generate tension, time strain, and feelings of inadequacy that may spill into interactions with children (Blair-Loy 2003; Nomaguchi et al. 2005; Garey 1999). Alternatively, information technology may provide a source of identity, self-worth, and welcome relief from daily intendance, potentially generating greater appreciation and enjoyment in time with children (Garey 1999; Parcel and Menaghan 1994; Yetis-Bayraktar et al. 2012; Latshaw and Hale forthcoming).

In this paper, nosotros draw on a new module in the American Time Use Survey that links time diaries to feelings in specific activities, allowing u.s. to substantially contribute to understanding of everyday parenting experiences and how they vary past cardinal demographic characteristics, namely partnership status and employment. Nosotros conceptualize mothering broadly as time in activities with children, and we rely on multidimensional indicators to tap the potential joys and strains of raising children.

Assessing mothers' emotions in parenting

Much of what nosotros know about mothers' emotions in parenting is based on global assessments of well-being, such every bit: "All things considered, how satisfied are y'all with your life as a whole these days?" (Stanca 2012). Divorced from time use, such assessments are more sensitive to long-term aspirations, relative position, and notions of what is socially desirable (Kahneman and Krueger 2006; National Research Quango 2012). They reflect unlike aspects of well-being than measures more closely tied to experiences and can have different correlates (east.thou., Deaton 2012; Kahneman and Deaton 2010). Momentary well-beingness measures tied to activities tend to be more reliable than global assessments (Kahneman and Krueger 2006; National Research Quango 2012); they further mitigate threats to validity due to adaptation, or the tendency for people to eventually conform their subjective well-being to changes in life circumstances (e.1000., Lucas et al. 2003). Finally, when asked beyond activities, momentary assessments provide leverage in teasing out stable, individual characteristics (due east.g., a mostly positive disposition) from the contexts in which activities take place.

Studies have begun to use momentary assessments of emotions tied to specific activities, leveraging two common methods to measure emotions in activities. Kahneman and colleagues' 2004 study pioneered the day reconstruction method (DRM), which combines a time diary with questions most feelings in specific activities throughout the day in a 24-60 minutes recollect survey. Others, like Offer (2014) in the 500 Family unit Study and Brownish and colleagues (2008) in the Work-Life Tensions Written report in Australia, use a beeper or personal data assistant (PDA) methodology through which respondents are randomly cued multiple times per day over the grade of several days to report on what they are doing, with whom, and how they are feeling. The latter strategy has the advantage of "real fourth dimension" assessments of momentary well-being, although it is burdensome for respondents; information technology results in relatively low response and retention rates and is subject to technical glitches or failure (Soupourmas et al. 2005). Moreover, Kahneman and colleagues (2004) have shown that momentary assessments garnered through DRM are reliable when compared to those gathered by beeper or PDA methodology. To our knowledge, the beeper or PDA methodology has simply been used to assess parenting on select samples of advantaged, dual-earner couples in the U.S. and Commonwealth of australia (e.m. Brown et al. 2008; Offer 2014).

An impressive gear up of qualitative studies has shed further light on mothering experiences over the by two decades. Such studies provide thick accounts of the lives of mothers and, to varying degrees, assist us understand what parents worry about (Garey 1999; Nelson 2010; Villalobos 2014), how they manage multiple roles (Garey 1999; Trick 2009), and what parenting ways to them (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Nelson 2010; Villalobos 2014). Even so, in these interview-based studies parents are reflecting back on their parenting experiences, oftentimes without reference to a specific interaction or activeness, and potentially considering their status as a parent via a global cess rather than the "doing of parenting." Certainly, in that location is much to be gained from in-depth qualitative studies in agreement how parenting is woven into the lives of women, but momentary assessments offer a unique opportunity to focus in on how parenting activities amid a nationally representative sample are experienced differently across primal dimensions that potentially shape mothers' lives: partnership and employment condition.

Single parenting

The prevalence of single-parent families rose essentially through the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, and remains high today—about thirty percentage of children today alive with merely i parent (Child Trends 2015). Numerous studies describe the detriments to children associated with living with 1 versus two parents (due east.1000., McLanahan et al. 2013; Waldfogel et al. 2010). While we know less well-nigh the causal processes involved, many studies also show that single parents are less well-off emotionally than married parents; for case, unmarried parents take college levels of low (Evenson and Simon 2005; Nomaguchi and Milkie 2003), less satisfaction in parenting (Rogers and White 1998), and lower levels of happiness (Margolis and Myrskylä 2011). Further, some show suggests parenting behaviors of unmarried mothers differ from those of married mothers: single parents study less parental date compared to married parents (eastward.g. Carlson and Berger 2013). Looking across all of the time investments fabricated past caregiving adults, children in unmarried-mother families experience fewer total hours directly engaged with adult caregivers; nonetheless, this is due to the fact that nonresident fathers spend very petty time with their children. Single mothers really spend more solo time with their children than do married or partnered mothers (Kalil, Ryan and Chor 2014a).

Linkages between single parenthood, parenting behaviors, and parents' emotional well-being may be attributable to several factors. Research shows that transitions into and out of relationships are associated with increased parenting stress and changes in parenting behaviors (Cooper et al. 2009; Beck et al. 2010), and single mothers feel more than relationship instability than partnered mothers (McLanahan and Beck 2010). In improver, single mothers receive less social support and experience greater strain than married mothers (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Amato 1993). The greater care burden among single mothers may also leave less room for the more enjoyable and rewarding aspects of parenting. Finally, it is possible that pick factors are at play in many of these associations; the same factors associated with selection into single parenthood may as well exist linked to increased stress, lower satisfaction, and reduced well-being in fourth dimension with children (Amato 2000).

Equally a counterpoint to the potential strains of unmarried motherhood, rich ethnographic accounts of the economically disadvantaged describe the cardinal part of children in providing single parents with a sense of purpose, meaning, and satisfaction (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Edin and Nelson 2013, Villalobos 2014). By these accounts, maternity offers an unmatched source of love, intimacy, and emotional security equally well equally a primal domain of competence. "Pregnant making" around childrearing may exist particularly salient amid women with strong childbearing desires who select into parenthood but not marriage, or amid those for whom alternative sources of purpose and meaning are limited. Although some evidence suggests that single mothers may experience reduced emotional well-being while parenting compared to their partnered counterparts, meaning may exist one dimension on which single parents fare at least every bit well in their fourth dimension with children. To our knowledge no piece of work has compared the emotional experiences of unmarried and partnered mothers in time with children; our focus on well-being across multiple dimensions offers the opportunity to appraise the varied ways in which partnership status may be associated with feelings in time with children.

Employment Condition

Ascension educational attainment for women, changing gender function attitudes, the ascent of single-parenthood, and gimmicky economical doubtfulness have together given rising to high rates of maternal employment. Labor force participation rates for mothers with children under historic period 18 increased nearly lx% from 1965 to 2000 (from 45 to 78%), with average hours of market work more than than tripling in this aforementioned menses (Bianchi 2011). Contempo maternal labor forcefulness participation rates remain higher up 70% despite a sluggish economy (Section of Labor, 2013). Indeed, 40% of all households with children include mothers who are either the only or primary breadwinners (Pew Research Middle 2013a). Information technology is in this context that a wide range of studies has sought to examine the implications of maternal employment for kid well-being. Bianchi (2000) sums up this vast literature thusly, "…given the endeavor that has been devoted to searching for negative furnishings of maternal employment on children's academic achievement and emotional adjustment, coupled with the scarcity of findings (either positive or negative), information technology would appear that the dramatic movement into the labor force past women of childbearing age in the United states of america has been achieved with relatively little effect for children" (p. 401).

Compared to a number of studies examining links between maternal work and child well-beingness, few studies take taken mothers' own emotional well-being as the object of report. Those that practice focus on global or overall affect, not affect in parenting. Aassve and colleagues (2012) find reduced happiness among employed mothers across Europe, and Bertrand (2013) reports lower mean affect among employed college-educated mothers relative to their non-employed counterparts. A few studies provide insights into parents' feelings nearly balancing work and parenting, pointing to a "never plenty" feeling and guilt for not spending plenty fourth dimension with children (Daly 2001), even decision-making for how much fourth dimension they actually spend with them (Milkie et al. 2004). Looking at descriptive evidence, results from recent Pew Inquiry Center surveys indicate that 56% of employed mothers report that it is "very" or "somewhat" difficult to balance work and family. Additionally, 37% of mothers report "always" feeling rushed; this was more common among employed mothers than those who did not piece of work outside the dwelling house. Employed mothers were more likely than the non-employed to say that they are doing an "first-class" or "very good" job at parenting (78% vs. 66%), but were less probable to say they are "very happy" (31% vs. 45%; Pew Enquiry Center 2013b).

Although attention typically focuses on the potential challenges associated with maternal employment, we also know that work can exist satisfying and rewarding and can provide financial and emotional security in uncertain economic times (Cooper 2014, Villalobos 2014). Indeed, with virtually 70% of mothers in the labor force and 40% of mothers serving as the master or merely family earner, mothers' employment is critical to family unit well-being (Bianchi 2011). Garey'due south qualitative study (1999) of how women weave piece of work and motherhood finds many mothers written report positive experiences—work provides fulfillment, an escape, connections outside of the family, and a chance to be a role model to children. The positive emotional benefits of the work itself and the family security it affords may spillover into parenting, making for more positive parenting experiences also. Nosotros know very lilliputian virtually how employed and non-employed mothers differ in their everyday experiences with children: does pressure from work backbite from time with children, or do activities exterior the home make time with children more valuable? Intersections: Unmarried Mothering by Employment Status

In improver to the master furnishings of both partnership status and employment noted in a higher place, these key demographic factors may interact when predicting mothers' feelings while parenting. The potential conflicts betwixt work and care may be more pronounced among single mothers, suggesting lower touch on in fourth dimension with children. Contrary to this notion, however, a set of recent studies documents positive associations between employment and well-being among disadvantaged mothers and their children. For example, Augustine (2014) finds that role-time and high status work is associated with ameliorate quality parenting for mothers with low levels of education, including (unduly) unmarried mothers. Similarly, a serial of studies examining the transition from welfare to piece of work in the 1990s propose neutral or slightly positive furnishings of single mothers' employment on children (Hunt-Lansdale et al. 2003; Gennetian and Miller 2002; Huston et al. 2001; Duncan et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2012). Besides, Harkness (2014) shows how single mothers' mental health improved significantly more than that of partnered mothers when they entered paid work after the 1990s welfare reforms in the Britain.

While employment is associated with positive outcomes for unmarried-mother families, the corollary is also true: non-employment in single mother families is associated with peculiarly negative outcomes. Bare (2007) describes the plight of "hard to employ" single mothers and their children. Such mothers suffer from multiple disadvantages that arrive difficult for them to find work and simultaneously negatively impact the financial and emotional well-being of them and their children. These disadvantages include low education, learning disabilities, health problems, and a history of domestic violence or substance use. Augustine (2014) finds that non-employed mothers with low levels of teaching reported the everyman levels of parenting quality, highlighting how lack of access to work may compound their disadvantage. Together, these streams of research suggest that the advantages of maternal piece of work among single mothers should be associated with meliorate affective experiences in time with children.

Potential Confounders

A number of person-level and activity-specific features may confound associations between mothers' partnership and employment status and their feelings in fourth dimension with children. At the person level, sleep and leisure are restorative (Smith-Coggins et al. 1994; Munakata et al. 2000) and may do good mothers' experiences in parenting. Admission to sleep and leisure vary past mothers' partnership and employment status. Single mothers get more minutes of sleep than partnered mothers on boilerplate, though they are more than likely to get to bed later midnight and to experience sleep interruptions for caregiving (Burgard and Ailshire 2013). A robust literature links maternal employment to mothers' reduced sleep (Bianchi 2000; Kalil et al. 2014b). Both single and employed mothers confront leisure constraints (Bianchi 2000; Jackson and Henderson 1995); compared to those who were not employed, employed women besides experience more fragmented costless time and less "pure" leisure with no children nowadays (Mattingly and Bianchi 2003).

At the activeness level, solo care or parenting alone may exist a primal consideration. Such parenting can exist more than stressful and difficult than parenting with some other adult (Folbre et al. 2005; Blair-Loy 2003). Kalil and colleagues (2014a) show that single mothers engage in a substantially higher proportion of solo care than partnered mothers. Not-employed mothers spend more time with their children overall relative to employed mothers, and they probable engage in more solo parenting as well.

Employed and partnered mothers differ on many other dimensions from those who are non in the labor force and those who are single. Non-employed and single mothers are less educated and have lower household income, and are more likely to be not-white, than employed and married mothers (U.S. Census Agency, 2013). Our analyses account for these and other person-level characteristics that are associated with well-being, including mothers' teaching, age, race and ethnicity, family unit income, whether in that location is another earner in the household, the number of household children, and the age of youngest child. Activity-level controls include the type of activeness reported, and its location, duration, and time of twenty-four hours, also as the full time spent with children in the diary mean solar day prior to the indexed activity.

Summary

Prior literature suggests that parenting may be a mixed handbag of joys and strains, yet nosotros know little about how parents experience in their everyday experiences with children. Gimmicky trends have resulted in substantial increases in unmarried parenthood and employment for women – two demographic dimensions that hold potential importance for shaping the context and experience of parenting. Our study examines how both partnership and employment status (independently and interactively) are associated with shifts in the valence of mothers' experiences with children in a broad range of everyday parenting activities.

Data, Measures, and Methods

Nosotros puddle data from the 2010, 2012, and 2013 American Time Use Surveys (Hofferth et al. 2013). ATUS sample members are drawn from Electric current Population Survey (CPS) respondents. One individual anile 15 or older per onetime CPS participating household is invited to participate in the ATUS during the 2 to five months following their exit from the CPS. ^ane The ATUS is a time diary study of a nationally representative sample of Americans. ATUS respondents study on their activities over a 24-hour period from 4:00 a.yard. of a specified day until 4:00 a.g. of the post-obit day, indicating the blazon of activeness, too equally where, when, and with whom it occurred. ^two Responses are recorded using Calculator Assisted Phone Interview procedures. Activities are coded using a vi-digit, 3-tier coding system, and over 400 activity categories are represented by the classification. Data are nerveless every mean solar day of the calendar week, including holidays, with weekends oversampled. 50% of diaries are about weekend days (25% each), and 50% are about weekdays (10% each day).

Critical to our analysis, the 2010, 2012 and 2013 rounds of the ATUS included a Subjective Well-Beingness Module of questions tapping respondents' emotions in activities. All ATUS respondents were eligible for participation in the module, and there was minimal nonresponse (ATUS 2014). Participants reported how they felt in iii randomly selected activities of at least five minutes in duration. 34,565 men and women ages fifteen and older completed the module over the three ATUS cycles, for a total of 102,633 activities. Sleeping, grooming, and personal activities also as activities where the respondent didn't know or refused to study what they were doing were non eligible for pick.

All descriptive statistics are weighted to account for the oversample of weekends and other aspects of the ATUS sample design. Action weights for the well-existence module further account for differences in the fraction of fourth dimension in eligible activities and the probability of having an eligible activity selected (ATUS 2014, pp. 5–6).

Modeling Arroyo

Nosotros limit our sample to the parenting activities of mothers ages 21–55 with children nether xviii in the household. As noted at the outset, our treatment of parenting is inclusive of any activeness mothers study doing with children, every bit indicated by their response to the "who with" question that follows each diary entry. In all, the subjective well-being sample of the ATUS includes 19,264 women; 7,074 are ages 21–55 and accept a child nether 18 in the household. Nosotros excluded 1,371 cases (19% overall; or 13% amid non-employed and 22% amidst employed mothers; 25% among single and 17% among partnered mothers) for whom there were no activities with children among the three randomly selected for inclusion in the well-being module. Note that although a fifth of mothers had no activity with children in the well-being module, less than four% overall (two% among not-employed and v% amidst employed mothers; vii.5% among single and two.5% among partnered mothers) reported no activities with children throughout the diary day. Finally, nosotros drop cases that are missing one or more than well-existence reports. This leaves us with five,683 women reporting xi,512 activities with children. Thirty-one percent of our sample is with children during ane of the well-being module activities, 36% is with children during ii activities, and 33% is with children during all three selected activities.

Nosotros use methods that account for the multilevel nature of our data, in which activities at level one are nested within individuals at level two (Allison 2009). Our outcomes—multiple dimensions of affect—are scored 0–6 and treated as quantitative variables. We rely on random consequence models (too called multilevel or mixed models in the literature, estimated using xtreg, robust re in Stata for quantitative response variables). The basic model tin can exist written:

y ij = γ 00 + γ 1 X ij + γ two Z j + υ 0 j + ε ij

for action i and individual j where υ_0j is a person-specific random error term representing unobserved characteristics of individual j and assumed independent of X's (activity-level covariates) and Z's (person-level covariates).

Random consequence models yield a weighted boilerplate of within- and between-level estimates, with the reward of providing estimates for characteristics that are invariant across activities. Thus, we can assess the association between emotions in various activities with children, accounting for characteristics of individuals that construction the day to day similar employment and partnership status every bit well as the micro-level context of parenting activities similar whether they were parenting solo or with another adult.

For each of our 5 outcomes, we gauge three models: first nosotros include just the indicators for partnership status, employment, and the interaction between the two to get baseline estimates of the linkages betwixt these characteristics and feelings while parenting. Next, we add a series of exogenous controls. Finally, nosotros add a gear up of endogenous measures that may themselves exist influenced past partnership status or employment and therefore may mediate linkages between these characteristics and feelings while parenting.

Feelings in Parenting

For any action in which a mother reports existence with children, we assess feelings in parenting on the basis of 5 questions, asked for each of upwards to three sampled activities with children: 1) How happy did you feel during this time? ii) How meaningful did you consider what y'all were doing? 3) How sad did you feel during this time? 4) How stressed did y'all feel during this time? 5) How tired did yous feel during this time? For each of these questions, response options ranged from 0 (due east.thou., not at all happy, non at all meaningful) to 6 (e.g., very happy, very meaningful). Given the skew in some feelings in parenting, we also tested a dichotomous handling using xtlogit where each emotion (happiness, meaning, sadness, stress and fatigue) was coded as present (=one) at the point where 60% or greater of respondents reported information technology for a sampled activity. All of our main findings were robust to this alternate approach (results available upon request).

This ready of questions captures critical dimensions of bear on. Russell's (1980) model of core touch suggests iv types of cadre emotions: positive low arousal (e.g. contentment), positive high arousal (e.one thousand. happiness), negative low arousal (e.m. sadness), and negative high arousal (due east.g. stress). 3 of these types are captured past happiness, sadness and stress. Although the ATUS does non include an indicator for positive, low arousal emotions, psychometric research indicates that positive emotions highly correlate with each other, minimizing the need for multiple indicators (Kapteyn et al. 2013). Negative emotions are oft not highly correlated, and thus an boosted indicator is included for fatigue (negative, low arousal). Finally, pregnant taps a purpose-related dimension, which Stone and Mackie (2013) argue is important because it oftentimes crosses the positive-negative dimension. For example, one can discover pleasure but piddling pregnant in watching Telly or meaning but little pleasance in reading the same book repeatedly to a child. Compared to unmarried-item assessments that characterize much of the existing literature on parenting and emotional well-being, happiness, meaning, sadness, stress, and fatigue offer a broad and multi-dimensional view of emotions in parenting.

Mothers' Employment and Partnership Condition

To appraise mothers' employment status we include an indicator for whether the respondent is employed. Before arriving at this simple indicator, nosotros tested a finer-grained employment mensurate differentiating no market work, part-time work (<35 weekly hours), full-fourth dimension work (35–49 weekly hours), and more than total-fourth dimension work or long work hours (50+ weekly hours). These tests indicated differences in mothers' emotions in parenting betwixt those who are employed and those who are not, but no statistically significant differences among categories of employment intensity. Therefore, we continue with the simple indicator for employed.

To assess mothers' partnership status we include an indicator for whether the respondent is single (not married or cohabiting). Like our initial handling of employment status, nosotros started with a more circuitous measure differentiating families with: 2 parents with only articulation children, two parents in complex families, a unmarried female parent equally the only developed, a unmarried mother and a grandparent, and a unmarried mother with some other not-partner adult. These initial analyses indicated differences in mothers' emotions in parenting between those in two parent and single mother families, but no statistically significant differences among the single-female parent family types. Therefore, we retain the simple indicator for unmarried-versus partnered mothers. To assess variation in the valence of single mothers' emotions in parenting by their employment status, we interact "single parent" with "employed."

Controls

Nosotros control for a rich set of person- and activity-level variables in our models; descriptive statistics for these measures are shown in Appendix Tabular array i. Nosotros add controls in 2 steps, starting with basic socio-demographic characteristics of mothers and features of their diary days and activities. At the person level, these include age in years, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, other), whether the respondent has a college degree, whether she is currently enrolled in school, number of children (one, two, three or more), age of youngest child (nether six, 6–12, and thirteen–xviii), flavour of the diary report (winter, spring, summer, fall), and whether the diary was reported on a weekend day. At the activity-level, these include whether the action took place at dwelling house or elsewhere, activity elapsing in minutes, and the fourth dimension of day (4 to 9am, 9am to 2pm, two to 5pm, 5 to 9pm, and 9pm to 4am).

Our second set up of controls is potentially more endogenous to the processes linking employment and partnership condition to feelings in mothering. At the person level, this prepare includes family income (<$25,000, $25,000–74,999, > = $75,000, missing) and whether there is another earner in the household. It also includes 2 indicators of sleep and three indicators of leisure: Total hours of sleep is a continuous variable that registers the number of hours mothers report sleeping on the diary day. Disrupted sleep is a dichotomous indicator for three or more sleep episodes. Total hours of leisure is measured analogous to full hours of sleep, above. Episodes of leisure is a count variable indicating how many distinct leisure activities are reported on the diary day. Finally, total hours of leisure with children only indicates how many hours of a mother'south leisure is potentially "contaminated" past child-related responsibilities with no other adult nowadays (e.g., Mattingly and Bianchi 2003). At the activity-level, nosotros command for solo parenting (using the "who with" questions to assess whether the respondent engaged in the parenting activeness without another adult present) and the hours mothers reported with children (in whatever activity) prior to the indexed activity. Nosotros likewise command for a total of 14 activity types (following activity coding in Aguiar and Hurst 2007; Kahneman et al. 2004; Kalil et al. 2012): market-work, carework (sectional of childcare), cooking, cleaning, shopping, other non-market place work, goggle box watching, socializing, education/religious events, eating, bones childcare, playing with children, didactics children, and managing children'southward activities and schedules.

Results

In what follows, we describe results in Tables 1 and ​ 2 and Effigy i. These results highlight patterns of mothers' activities with children, their feelings in these activities, and how patterns in mothering experiences vary by partnership condition, employment, and the intersection between these two cardinal demographic features of mothers' lives.

Mothers' Predicted Levels of Feelings in Time with Children by Employment and Partnership Status

Superscripts announce significant differences at p<0.05 from:

A = Non-employed, single; B = Employed, single; C = Non-employed, partnered; D = Employed, partnered

Note: Predicted values generated from total models (M3, Table two); categorical controls set to their model category and continuous variables to their weighted mean values

Table 1

Ways and Standard Deviations of Mothers' Feelings in Activities with Children by Employment and Partnership Status

	Employment Status		Partnership Status
	Non Employed	Employedv	Singlev	Partnered
Happiness	four.79 (1.38)	4.76 (1.45)	four.58 (1.76)	4.83 * (1.33)
Meaning	iv.89 (1.54)	four.89 (one.64)	iv.86 (1.86)	4.xc (1.53)
Sadness	0.53 (1.21)	0.38 * (1.thirteen)	0.69 (ane.seventy)	0.37 * (ane.01)
Stress	1.37 (1.65)	1.33 (one.78)	1.62 (ii.13)	i.27 * (1.61)
Fatigue	2.49 (ane.83)	ii.67 * (2.05)	ii.75 (2.23)	2.54 * (1.88)
Percentage of Mothers (%)	37.25	62.75	23.14	76.86
N Observations (activities)	4206	7306	3076	8436
N Observations (women)	1951	3732	1528	4155

Table 2

Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects of Mothers' Feelings in Activities with Children^{a b}

	Happiness			Pregnant			Sadness			Stress			Fatigue
	M1	M2	M3	M1	M2	M3	M1	M2	M3	M1	M2	M3	M1	M2	M3
Respondent'due south Work
Not Employed (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Employed	−0.094*	−0.040	−0.035	−0.063	0.032	0.012	−0.041	−0.036	−0.036	0.043	0.064	−0.008	0.240***	0.202***	0.145*
Family unit Structure
Two Parent (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Single Parent	−0.266***	−0.343***	−0.345***	0.037	−0.084	−0.118	0.473***	0.459***	0.368***	0.478***	0.616***	0.544***	0.329***	0.316**	0.273*
Work - Family unit Structure Interaction
Employed × Single Parent	0.205*	0.197*	0.218*	0.034	0.055	0.075	−0.318***	−0.325***	−0.301***	−0.307**	−0.346**	−0.362**	-0.221	−0.162	−0.167
Constant	4.765***	5.061***	5.277***	4.786***	4.788***	4.388***	0.411***	0.049	0.020	1.298***	0.939***	1.064***	2.349***	2.271***	three.259***
sigma_u	0.984	0.965	0.948	ane.090	1.071	1.048	0.925	0.919	0.916	ane.287	ane.270	1.260	ane.450	1.404	1.391
sigma_e	1.058	ane.057	i.038	1.283	1.275	i.216	0.762	0.761	0.759	i.182	i.180	1.166	i.335	1.268	i.261
rho	0.463	0.455	0.455	0.419	0.414	0.426	0.596	0.593	0.593	0.542	0.537	0.539	0.541	0.551	0.549

Table ane shows pregnant bivariate differences in feelings in mothering by employment and partnership condition. Employed mothers are less lamentable but more drawn in time with children than non-employed mothers. Single mothers are less happy and more than pitiful, stressed and fatigued than partnered mothers. In our sample of mothers in activities with children, 63% of mothers are employed and 77% are partnered.

Table 2 shows Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with random furnishings predicting each of the five emotions in activities with children. We present coefficients on our key measures of interest—employed, single parent, and unmarried parent by employed—across three models. Model 1 includes mother's employment status, partnership condition, and the interaction between employed and single parent condition. The omitted category in this and all models is non-working partnered mothers. Model 2 adds controls for basic socio-demographic characteristics of mothers and features of their diary days and activities. Model 3 augments Model 2 to include controls for factors that are potentially endogenous to employment, partnership condition, and feelings in parenting activities. Appendix Table 2 shows full results for our terminal model.

Across the three models for each of the v emotions in parenting, coefficients on our key measures of involvement change very piddling. This suggests our basic findings are robust to a rich fix of socio-demographic controls and factors we hypothesized would account for associations between employment, single maternity, and feelings in activities with children. Nosotros notice minor changes in coefficient magnitude in a few cases, only in simply one instance do we see that significant associations in Model 1 are no longer statistically significant with the inclusion of controls: the relatively small, negative association between being employed (which represents employed, partnered mothers in the model) and lowered happiness in activities with children is reduced and no longer pregnant with the inclusion of socio-demographic controls in Model 2. In models of fatigue, the coefficient for employed (once more representing employed, partnered mothers in the model) is reduced nearly 40% between Models one and iii with the inclusion of endogenous controls similar sleep and leisure, just remains significant. In a few other cases, pregnant patterns emerge after the inclusion of controls; the relatively large coefficients for non-employed (representing non-employed, single mothers) predicting happiness (negative) and stress (positive) increment about 20% each betwixt Models 1 and 2, when we include socio-demographic measures. Despite these few subtle changes in coefficient magnitude beyond models, the larger story is the overall robustness of initial associations to this rich and varied set of person- and activity-level controls. Of nine initially pregnant associations between our key measures of interest and emotions in activities with children, but i is fully mediated by any of our command measures, and in that case, the association was relatively small to begin with.

In our full model (Model three), the estimated main effect of employment is statistically significant just for fatigue, whereas the estimated principal consequence of unmarried parenthood is statistically significant for all outcomes merely meaning. The interaction betwixt these 2 dimensions indicates of import variation; information technology is statistically meaning for all outcomes but meaning and fatigue. We show predicted values to facilitate comparisons across employment-partnership combinations. Figure i plots predicted levels of each emotion in fourth dimension with children, setting all chiselled controls to their modal categories and holding all continuous variables at their weighted mean values.

Panel A shows that while all groups written report high levels of happiness in fourth dimension with children (unadjusted mean=4.77, SD=1.43, from Appendix Tabular array ane), non-employed single mothers report the lowest levels of happiness in parenting, significantly lower than employed single mothers and partnered mothers regardless of employment status. The happiness disadvantage for non-employed, single mothers is approximately one-quarter of a standard deviation compared to partnered mothers of either employment status (east.g., [4.587 – four.242]/1.43 = 0.241) and 13 pct of a standard divergence compared to employed, single mothers ([4.425 – iv.242]/1.43 = 0.128). While employed single mothers are better off than not-employed unmarried mothers in terms of happiness in parenting, they register a significant happiness disadvantage equivalent to well-nigh x percent of a standard divergence in parenting activities relative to partnered mothers of either employment status (east.g., [4.587 – four.425]/1.43 = 0.113). Interestingly, partnered mothers' happiness in activities with children does non differ based on employment status.

Panel B reveals high levels of meaning in fourth dimension with children and no pregnant differences by employment or partnership condition. Console C shows that overall, mothers report depression levels of sadness in time with children (unadjusted mean=0.45, SD=1.19). However, not-employed unmarried mothers report significantly higher levels of sadness in activities with children – about one-3rd of a standard departure higher – compared to mothers in the other three groups (eastward.g., [0.738 – 0.370]/1.19 = 0.309). Employed single mothers and partnered mothers (employed or non employed) do non differ significantly from each other in their reports of sadness in activities with children.

Panel D shows predicted levels of stress in time with children. Again, beyond the four groups, levels of stress in time with children are relatively low (unadjusted mean=i.35, SD=1.74). Much like the findings for happiness, not-employed unmarried mothers experience significantly college levels of stress with children than whatsoever of the other mothers, from 1-third of a standard deviation compared to employed partnered mothers ([i.637 – 1.085)/1.74 = 0.317) to 1-5th of a standard deviation compared to employed single mothers ([1.637 – 1.267]/1.74 = 0.213). Employed single mothers also register significantly more stress, about ten percentage of a standard deviation, than partnered mothers of either employment status (e.g. [i.267 – 1.085]/1.74 = 0.105). Partnered mothers who are employed practice not differ from those who are not employed in their levels of stress when parenting.

Panel E shows predicted levels of fatigue in mothers' time with children (unadjusted mean=2.59; SD=ane.96). All groups report higher levels of fatigue in parenting than practise non-employed partnered mothers, up to 14 percent of a standard departure in fatigue (e.thousand., [3.377 – three.104]/1.96 = 0.139). There are no other employment or partnership differences in fatigue, indicating that, while employment and single parenting are both associated with higher levels of fatigue in fourth dimension with children, there is non an additional detriment for mothers who are both single and employed.

Supplemental Assay and Findings

The relative disadvantage of not-employed single mothers across many emotions motivated supplemental analysis to examine the overall well-being of non-employed unmarried mothers. Nosotros compared their emotions to those of other mothers in activities other than parenting. We found that not-employed single mothers are emotionally worse off than other mothers beyond most activities. We also compared not-employed single mothers' emotions in parenting to their emotions in other activities. Results indicate that, while non-employed single mothers are particularly disadvantaged emotionally, they are meliorate off in parenting than in other activities (results available upon request). These findings suggest that non-employed unmarried mothers fare poorly overall in well-being, and that their lower assessments are not specific to time with children.

Conclusion and Give-and-take

In this written report we examined mothers' feelings while parenting and tested if and how the experiences of single maternity and maternal employment shift the valence of these feelings. We found that employed mothers are more fatigued than non-employed mothers. Further, single mothers are less happy and more sad, stressed, and fatigued in parenting than partnered mothers, although these detriments are larger and more than consistent amongst non-employed unmarried mothers. In item, non-employed unmarried mothers fare significantly worse than employed single mothers and partnered mothers in happiness, sadness and stress in time with children, and experience feelings of fatigue on par with employed mothers. They do not differ, however, in feelings of meaning in time with children—the one emotional indicator that did not vary across sub-groups.

Surprisingly, our large, rich ready of control measures did little to account for the initial associations between employment, partnership status, and emotions in mothering. Thus, single mothers, especially not-employed unmarried mothers, feel significant emotional detriments in parenting compared to other mothers fifty-fifty after bookkeeping for key socio-demographic differences and factors that we posited would exist endogenous, such equally slumber and leisure, solo parenting, and family income. Our supplemental analysis found that non-employed unmarried mothers are more often than not worse off emotionally than other mothers; notwithstanding, they fare better emotionally in parenting than in other activities. Thus, the well-being disadvantages observed by not-employed single mothers in our sample are not specific to their parenting role but rather likely reflect larger challenges faced by this sub-population (Blank 2007). The economic and social disadvantages faced past this group combined with our new insights on their emotional detriments in parenting highlight the need to better sympathize this group of mothers.

Our generally positive findings with regard to employment and emotional well-beingness in fourth dimension with children are inconsistent with familiar accounts of maternal work creating a time bind that results in a "never plenty" feeling (Daly 2001). Of the emotions we examined, prior literature suggested that stress in parenting could be peculiarly afflicted by combining the mother and worker roles (Milkie et al. 2004; Garey 1999). However, we did not find college levels of stress among employed mothers; in fact, we constitute low levels of stress in parenting overall across all mothers in our sample. Only in fatigue exercise we see a detriment to employed mothers compared to those who are not employed. When viewed from the perspective of what employment brings to mothers and mothering instead of what it takes, the relatively positive findings with regard to employed mothers' feelings in parenting are not surprising. Maternal employment provides financial security, particularly crucial in single-mother families. The insecure economic context that characterizes our study flow, 2010 to 2013, likely further heightens the salience of employment for emotional well-being. Maternal employment may also bring fulfillment and exposure to a social network outside of the family unit (Garey 1999; Blair-Loy 2003), and these networks may serve as a source of ideas near parenting and social back up (Augustine, 2014), an advantage that could exist peculiarly important for single mothers who do non benefit from the support of a residential co-parent.

Our study considered multiple dimensions of emotions in parenting, extending past work that focused on one or a few indicators like happiness or satisfaction. In doing so we revealed variation in emotions as they relate to employment and partnership condition. For example, nosotros acquire that employment shifts the valence of fatigue in parenting, whereas single parenthood shifts the valence of happiness and, to a lesser degree, stress. Interestingly, we notice no significant variation in significant in time with children beyond mothers' employment and partnership status; all mothers reported high levels of significant regardless of these factors. Given the measurement literature on bear on (Rock and Mackie 2013) and the substantive literature on parenting equally a source of purpose (Edin and Kefalas 2005), our finding that parenting is a meaningful activity overall, regardless of employment and partnership condition, is a key contribution to the literature on parenting and emotional well-beingness.

Overall, then, this study advances the literature on single-parenthood, employment and parenting in several ways. Utilizing multiple dimensions of feelings in everyday parenting, measured in a style that captures a broad range of parenting activities, we find overall high levels of positive emotion and depression levels of negative emotion in parenting. We identify unique emotional disadvantages in parenting for non-employed single mothers compared to other mothers, merely besides that non-employed unmarried mothers are emotionally disadvantaged in activities beyond parenting, too. Further, we observe very few negative associations betwixt employment and mothers' feeling in time with children. These findings add together emotional well-being in parenting to the growing listing of potential benefits of maternal employment to children, parents, and families. These positive associations are particularly important to recognize and certificate in the context of increasing rates of female breadwinner families and persistently high levels of single-mother households.

Acknowledgments

Nosotros gratefully admit back up from the Minnesota Population Center (R24HD041023) the Data Extract Builder of the American Time Use Survey (University of Maryland, R01HD053654; Academy of Minnesota, Z195701), both funded through grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Plant for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); the Cornell Population Center, and Cornell's Institute for Social Sciences.

Appendix Table one

Means (SDs) and Percentages of Activity- and Person-Level Characteristics of Mothers Participating in Activities with Children

Activity-level
Subjective Well-Beingness (mean)
Happiness	iv.77
SD	(i.43)
Meaningfulness	four.89
SD	(1.61)
Sadness	0.45
SD	(1.19)
Stress	1.35
SD	(1.74)
Fatigue	2.59
SD	(1.96)
Blazon (%)
Market work	2.00
Carework (excluding childcare)	0.84
Cooking	6.65
Cleaning	vi.03
Shopping	7.06
Other Not-Marketplace Work	2.12
Idiot box Watching	16.12
Socializing	14.54
Education/Religion	3.41
Eating (also cocky care and using services)	14.90
Bones Childcare	ten.97
Play Childcare	5.83
Teaching Childcare	3.91
Management Childcare	5.63
Location (%)
Public	33.92
Home	66.08
Minutes in Activity (hateful)	102.26
SD	(106.32)
Hours with Kid Prior to Activity (mean)	five.43
SD	(3.52)
Time of Solar day (%)
4–9am	9.71
9am–2pm	27.21
ii–5pm	20.95
5–9pm	33.39
9pm–4am	8.74
N (activities)	11512
Person-level
Age (mean in Years)	36.18
SD	(7.8)
Race (%)
Not-Hispanic White	61.04
Non-Hispanic Black	ten.84
Hispanic	21.43
Other	half-dozen.69
College Graduate (%)	36.52
Enrolled in School1 (%)	7.25
Employment Status (%)
Not Employed	37.25
Employed	62.75
Family unit Structure (%)
Partnered parent	76.86
Single parent	23.14
Number of children in the HH (%)
1	36.84
2	41.07
3+	22.09
Age of Youngest Kid (%)
<6 years	52.54
6–12 years	32.98
13+ years	xiv.48
Weekend diary twenty-four hour period (%)	29.47
Flavour of diary day (%)
winter	24.40
leap	26.01
summer	23.43
fall	26.16
Sleep
Hours (hateful)	8.69
SD	(1.97)
3+ Episodes (%)	eighteen.75
Leisure
Full Hours (mean)	half dozen.05
SD	(iii.19)
Number of Episodes (mean)	vii.24
SD	(three.64)
Full Hours with Children Only (mean)	ane.67
SD	(2.12)
Family Income (%)
<$25,000	22.17
$25,000–$74,999	54.74
>$75,000	22.09
Missing	one.00
Solo Parenting (%)	52.04
Other earner (incl partner) in HH (%)	65.twenty
N (persons)	5683

Appendix Table 2

Full Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects of Mothers' Feelings in Activities with

	Happiness	Pregnant	Sadness	Stress	Fatigue
Central Measures of Interest	M3	M3	M3	M3	M3
Employment Status
Not Employed (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Employed	−0.035	0.012	−0.036	−0.008	0.145*
Parentship Status
Partnered (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Unmarried	−0.345***	−0.118	0.368***	0.544***	0.273*
Interaction
Employed × Single	0.218*	0.075	−0.301***	−0.362**	−0.167
Controls (step ane)
Historic period	−0.006	0.002	0.011***	0.008*	−0.003
Race
Non-Hispanic White (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Non-Hispanic White	0.000	0.000	0.000	(0.000)	(0.000)
Non-Hispanic Blackness	0.083	0.249***	0.015	−0.287***	−0.230**
Hispanic	0.286***	0.354***	0.142**	−0.044	−0.260***
Other	0.168**	0.243**	0.101	−0.137	−0.336***
Education
Not a College Graduate (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
College Graduate	−0.094*	−0.193***	−0.069*	0.033	0.004
School Enrollment
Not Enrolled (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Enrolled in School1	−0.073	0.032	−0.028	0.191*	0.301***
Historic period of Youngest Child
<6 (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
vi–12	−0.046	0.030	0.013	−0.057	−0.040
xiii+	0.049	0.054	−0.019	−0.116	−0.091
Number of Children in HH
Ane (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
2	−0.112**	0.019	0.011	0.143**	0.030
Three or more	−0.184***	0.060	−0.044	0.234***	−0.033
Season
Winter (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Spring	−0.051	−0.038	0.042	0.042	0.068
Summer	−0.057	−0.007	0.007	0.027	0.032
Fall	−0.019	0.003	0.038	0.081	0.048
Diary Day
Weekday (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Weekend	0.050	−0.090*	0.010	−0.063	−0.134**
Location
Public (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Dwelling	−0.070	0.024	0.044	0.111*	0.210***
Minutes in Activity	0.000	0.002***	0.000	0.001***	−0.000
Time of 24-hour interval
4–9am (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
9am–2pm	0.154***	−0.024	−0.076*	−0.049	−0.194***
two–5pm	0.026	−0.079	0.002	0.117*	0.093
5–9pm	0.076	0.012	−0.010	0.002	0.498***
9pm–4am	−0.030	0.045	0.006	0.132	1.205***
Controls (step two)	M3	M3	M3	M3	M3
Income
<$25,000 (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
$25,000–$74,999	−0.141**	−0.136*	−0.092*	−0.037	−0.037
>$75,000	−0.215***	−0.246***	−0.060	−0.014	−0.149
Missing	−0.354*	−0.122	0.116	0.213	0.288
Other Earner in HH
No (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Other Earner in HH	0.001	−0.048	−0.048	−0.048	−0.063
Sleep
Total Hours	−0.001	−0.011	0.003	−0.052***	−0.068***
3+ Episodes	−0.178***	−0.051	0.113**	0.184***	0.345***
Leisure
Full Hours	−0.003	−0.019*	0.004	−0.033***	−0.035***
Number of Episodes	−0.010	−0.008	−0.007	0.013	−0.009
Total Hours with Children Just	−0.017*	−0.002	0.006	0.009	−0.014
Solo Parenting
No (omitted)	–	–	–	–	–
Yep	−0.099**	−0.185***	0.018	0.125***	0.046
Hours with Kid Prior to Activity	0.000	−0.014*	−0.009*	−0.021**	0.020*
Activity Type
Market work	−0.264*	0.454**	0.081	0.884***	−0.244
Carework (excluding childcare)	0.019	0.366	0.317*	0.305	−0.034
Cooking	−0.130	0.688***	0.038	0.387***	−0.107
Cleaning	−0.547***	−0.099	0.213***	0.488***	0.202*
Shopping	−0.174*	0.252**	0.151*	0.644***	−0.080
Other Non-Market Work	−0.141	0.347**	0.179*	0.677***	−0.051
Socializing	0.219**	0.793***	0.027	0.167*	−0.258**
Educational activity/Religion	0.160	1.103***	0.136	0.422***	−0.281*
Eating (besides self intendance and using services)	0.204***	0.946***	−0.012	0.272***	−0.173*
Basic Childcare	0.128*	1.246***	−0.011	0.380***	0.071
Play Childcare	0.699***	one.582***	−0.142*	−0.043	−0.300**
Teaching Childcare	0.287***	i.533***	−0.049	0.279**	−0.224*
Management Childcare	−0.037	0.882***	0.155*	0.541***	−0.225*
Constant	five.277***	4.388***	0.020	1.064***	iii.259***
sigma_u	0.948	i.048	0.916	1.260	one.391
sigma_e	ane.038	1.216	0.759	i.166	1.261
rho	0.455	0.426	0.593	0.539	0.549

Footnotes

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2014 Annual Coming together of the Population Association of America and the 2014 Piece of work & Family Researchers Network and the Work, Family unit & Time (WFT) Workshop at the Minnesota Population Center. We thank WFT workshop participants for useful comments and suggestions, besides as Liana Sayer and Julie Brines for feedback on earlier drafts.

¹Some studies have shown that respondents in the ATUS differ from non-respondents on reports of pro-social behaviors (e.g. Abraham et al. 2009). Those who volunteer, for example, are also more likely to reply to surveys like the ATUS leading to inflated national estimates of volunteering. Abraham et al. (2009) plant that while non-response can have a meaning consequence on the univariate distribution of pro-social activities, it does not announced to touch inferences about the respondent characteristics that are associated with those activities.

²Information on where and with whom the activities occurred is available for all activities except for personal care and sleeping.

Contributor Data

Ann Meier, Department of Sociology & Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.

Kelly Musick, Policy Analysis and Management & Cornell Population Eye, Cornell Academy, Ithaca, NY.

Sarah Alluvion, Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Rachel Dunifon, Policy Analysis and Management & Cornell Population Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

References

• Aassve A, Goisis A, Sironi M. Happiness and childbearing across Europe. 2012;108(1):65–86. [Google Scholar]
• Abraham KG, Helms South, Presser S. How social processes misconstrue measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. American Journal of Sociology. 2009;114(4):1129–1164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Aguiar Yard, Hurst Due east. Measuring trends in leisure: The resource allotment of time over five decades. The Quarterly Journal of Economic science. 2007;122(three):969–1006. doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.iii.969. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Allison PD. Fixed effects regression models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2009. [Google Scholar]
• Amato P. Children's adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses and empirical support. Periodical of Marriage and Family. 1993;55(1):23–38. [Google Scholar]
• Amato P. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2000;62(iv):1269–1287. [Google Scholar]
• Augustine JM. Mothers' employment, education and parenting. Work and Occupations. 2014;41(2):2237–270. [Google Scholar]
• ATUS. American Time Use Survey (ATUS) Data Lexicon: 2010, 2012, and 2013 Well-being Module Data Variables nerveless in the ATUS Well-being Module. 2014 https://www.atusdata.org/atus/linked_docs/WB_Module_Codebook.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2015.
• Beck AN, Cooper CE, McLanahan S, Brooks-Gunn J. Partnership Transitions and Maternal Parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2010;72(2):219–233. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bertrand Grand. Work on women's work is never done: Career, family unit and the well-being of higher educated women. American Economical Review: Papers and Proceedings. 2013;103(3):244–250. [Google Scholar]
• Bianchi SM. Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography. 2000;37(four):401–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bianchi Suzanne. Change and time resource allotment in American Families. Register of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2011;638:21–44. [Google Scholar]
• Bianchi S, Milkie M, Sayer L, Robinson J. Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gendered Division of Labor. Social Forces. 2000;79(ane):191–229. [Google Scholar]
• Blair-Loy Grand. Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Bare R. Improving the Safety Net for Single Mothers Who Face Serious Barriers to Work. The Future of Children. 2007 Fall;17(2):183–197. 2007. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chocolate-brown Peter, Cerin Ester, Warner-Smith Penny. The Work-Life Tensions Project. A perspective on how dual-earner parents experience time in Commonwealth of australia. In: Fontaine Anne Marie, Matias Marisa., editors. Family, Work & Parenting: International Perspectives. Legis Editora; Porto, Portugal: 2008. pp. 47–64. [Google Scholar]
• Burgard S, Ailshire J. Gender and time for slumber among U.S. adults. American Sociological Review. 2013;78(1):51–69. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Carlson M, Berger L. What Kids Become from Parents: Packages of Parental Involvement beyond Complext Family Forms. Social Service Review. 2013;87(2):213–249. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cawley J, Liu F. Maternal employment and childhood obesity: A search for mechanisms in time use information. Economics and Man Biological science. 2012;10:352–364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hunt-Lansdale PL, Moffitt R, Lohman B, Cherlin A, Coley R, Pittman L, et al. Mothers' transitions from welfare to work and the well-being of preschoolers and adolescents. Science. 2003;299:1548–1552. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Child Trends. Indicators on Children and Youth: Family Structure. Child Trends Databank Updated. 2015 Updated March 2015. Accessed April, fifteen 2015 from: http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/59_Family_Structure.pdf.
• Connelly R, Kimmel J. If you're happy and you lot know it: How do mothers and fathers in the the states actually experience about caring for their children? Feminist Economics. 2015;21(1):1–34. [Google Scholar]
• Cooper C, McLanahan S, Meadows S, Brooks-Gunn J. Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71(3):558–574. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cooper M. Cut Afloat: Families in Insecure Times. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA: 2014. [Google Scholar]
• Daly KJ. Deconstructing family fourth dimension: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:283–294. [Google Scholar]
• Deaton A. The Fiscal Crisis and the Well-being of Americans. Oxford Economic Papers. 2012;64(1):1–26. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Deaton A, Stone A. Ii Happiness Puzzles. The American Economic Review. 2013;103(iii):591–97. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Department of Labor. Labor Force Participation rates. 2013 accessed October 17, 2015 at: http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/LForce_rate_mothers_child_76_12_txt.htm.
• Duncan GJ, Huston A, Wisner T. Higher Ground: New Hope for the Working Poor and their Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• Edin One thousand, Kefalas G. Promises I Tin can Go on: Why Poor Women put Motherhood before Wedlock. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA: 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Edin K, Nelson TJ. Doing the All-time I Tin: Fatherhood in the Inner Metropolis. Academy of California Printing; Berkeley, CA: 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Evenson RJ, Simon R. Clarifying the Human relationship between Parenthood and Depression. Journal of Health and Social Beliefs. 2005;46(4):341–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Folbre Northward, Yoon J, Finnoff Thousand, Fuligni AS. By what measure? Family unit time devoted to children in the United States. Demography. 2005;42(2):373–390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fox B. When Couples Become Parents: The Cosmos of Gender in the Transition to Parenthood. University of Toronto Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
• Garey A. Weaving Work and Maternity. Temple University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
• Gennetian LA, Miller C. Children and Welfare Reform: A View from an Experimental Welfare Program in Minnesota. Kid Development. 2002;73(2):601–620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Glass J, Simon R, Andersson 1000. Parenthood and Happiness: Effects of Piece of work-Family unit Reconciliation Policies in 22 OECD Countries. Under review 2014 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hansen T. Parenthood and Happiness: A Review of Folk Theories versus Empirical Testify. Social Indicators Research. 2012;108(1):29–64. [Google Scholar]
• Harkness S. The Effect of Employment on the Mental Wellness of Lone Mothers in the United kingdom earlier and after New Labour'south Welfare Reforms. Working paper 2014 [Google Scholar]
• Hofferth South, Inundation SM, Sobek M. American time utilise survey data extract organisation (Version 2.4) [Machine-readable database] Higher Park, Maryland: Maryland Population Research Center, Academy of Maryland; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Huston AC, Duncan GJ, Granger R, Bos J, McLoyd VC, Mistry R, Crosby D, Gibson C, Magnuson K, Romich J, Ventura A. Work-based anti-poverty programs for parents can enhance the school performance and social behavior of children. Child Development. 2001;72:318–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jackson EL, Henderson KA. A Gender-Based Analysis of Leisure Constraints. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1995;17(1):31–51. [Google Scholar]
• Johnson R, Kalil A, Dunifon R. Employment Patterns of Less-Skilled Workers: Links to Children's Behavior and Academic Progress. Demography. 2012;49(ii):747–772. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kahneman D, Deaton A. High Income Improves Evaluation of Life only Not Emotional Well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010;107(38):16489–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kahneman D, Krueger AB. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2006;20(1):three–24. [Google Scholar]
• Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA. A survey method for characterizing daily life experiences: The day reconstruction method. Scientific discipline. 2004;306(5702):1776–1780. doi: ten.1126/science.1103572. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kalil A, Dunifon R, Crosby D, Su J. Piece of work hours, work schedules and sleep duration amid mothers and their young children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014b;76(5):891–904. [Google Scholar]
• Kalil A, Ryan R, Chor E. Time investments in children across family unit structures. Register of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2014a;654:150–16. [Google Scholar]
• Kalil A, Ryan R, Corey M. Diverging destinies: Maternal education and the developmental gradient in time with children. Census. 2012;49:1361–1383. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kapteyn A, Lee J, Tassot C, Vonkova H, Zamarro G. Dimensions of subjective well-being. Playa Vista, CA: Dornsife Center for Economic and Social Research; 2013. (CESR working paper series, paper n. 2013–05). [Google Scholar]
• Latshaw BA, Unhurt SI. The Domestic Hand-off: Stay-at-home Fathers' Time Use in Female Breadwinner Families. Journal of Family Studies. doi: 10.1080/13229400.2015.1034157. (forthcoming) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lucas RE, Clark AE, Georgellis Y, Diener E. Unemployment Alters the Set Point for Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science. 2004;15(i):viii–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Margolis R, Myrskylä M. A Global Perspective on Happiness and Fertility. Population and Development Review. 2011;37(1):29–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mattingly Thousand, Bianchi S. Gender differences in the quantity and quality of complimentary time: The U.S. experience. Social Forces. 2003;81(three):999–1030. [Google Scholar]
• McLanahan Due south, Adams J. Parenthood and Psychological Well-Being. Almanac Review of Sociology. 1987;13:237–57. [Google Scholar]
• McLanahan Southward, Beck AN. Parental Relationships in Fragile Families. Time to come of Children. 2010;20(2):17–37. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McLanahan S, Tach L, Schneider D. The causal effects of father absence. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013;399:399–427. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Milkie MA, Mattingly MJ, Nomaguchi Thou, Bianchi SM, Robinson JP. The fourth dimension squeeze: Parental statuses and feelings about time with children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:739–61. [Google Scholar]
• Munkata 1000, Ichii Southward, Nunokawa T, Saito Y, Ito Due north, Fukudo Southward, Yoshinaga K. Influence of night shift work on psychologic country and cardiovascular and neuroendocrine responses in healthy nurses. Hypertension Research. 2001;24(1):25–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• National Enquiry Council. The subjective well-being module of the American time use survey: Assessment for its continuation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Printing; 2012. (Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Beingness in a Policy-Relevant Framework. Commission on National Statistics, Segmentation of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). [Google Scholar]
• Nelson Chiliad. Parenting Out of Command: Broken-hearted Parents in Uncertain Times. New York University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
• Nelson SK, Kushlev One thousand, Lyubomirsky S. The pains and pleasures of parenting: When, why and how is parenthood associated with more or less well-being? Psychological Bulletin. 2014;140(3):846–895. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nomaguchi KM, Milkie MA. Costs and Rewards of Children: The Effects of Becoming a Parent on Adults' Lives. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65(two):356–74. [Google Scholar]
• Nomaguchi KM, Milkie MA, Bianchi SM. Fourth dimension strains and psychological well-being: Do dual-earner mothers and fathers differ? Journal of Family Problems. 2005;26(6):756–792. [Google Scholar]
• Offering S. Time with children and employed parents' emotional well-beingness. Social Science Research. 2014;47:192–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Parcel TL, Menaghan EG. Early parental work, family social upper-case letter, and early babyhood outcomes. American Journal of Sociology. 1994;99(4):972–1009. [Google Scholar]
• Pew Inquiry Eye. Breadwinner moms. 2013a www.pewresearch.org.
• Pew Enquiry Heart. Modern parenthood: Roles of moms and dads converge every bit they balance piece of work and family. 2013b www.pewresearch.org.
• Raley Southward, Bianchi SM, Wang W. When do fathers care? Mothers' economical contribution and fathers' involvement in child care. American Journal of Folklore. 2012;117(5):1422–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rogers S, White L. Satisfaction with parenting: The role of marital happiness, family structure and parents' gender. Journal of Wedlock and Family. 1998;threescore(2):293–308. [Google Scholar]
• Russell JA. A circumplex model of impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980;39:1161–1178. [Google Scholar]
• Senior J. All joy and no fun: The paradox of modern parenthood. New York: Harper Collins; 2014. [Google Scholar]
• Smith-Coggins, Rosekind R, Hurd S, Buccino One thousand. Relationship of day vs. night sleep to physician performance and mood. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1994;24(v):928–934. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Soupourmas F, Ironmonger D, Dark-brown P, Warner-Smith P. Testing the Practicality of a Persona Digital Assistant Questionnaire versus a Beeper and Booklet Questionnaire in a Random-Time Experience-Sample Method Context. Annals of Leisure Research. 2005;8(2–three):1422–152. [Google Scholar]
• Stanca L. Suffer the fiddling children: Measuring the consequence of parenthood on well-being worldwide. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation. 2012;81:742–750. [Google Scholar]
• Stone A, Mackie C. Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of feel. Washington, DC: National Academies Printing; 2013. (National Research Council Report). [Google Scholar]
• U.Due south. Census Bureau. America'southward Families and Living Arrangements: 2012. 2013 http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Demography/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-570.pdf.
• Villalobos Ana. Motherload: Making it All Improve in Insecure Times. University of California Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
• Waldfogel J, Craigie T, Brooks-Gunn J. Fragile families and kid well-existence. The Hereafter of Children. 2010;20(2):87–112. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Woo H, Raley RK. A Small Extension to "Costs And Rewards of Children: The Furnishings of Becoming a Parent on Adults' Lives" Journal of Matrimony and Family unit. 2005;67:216–21. [Google Scholar]
• Yetis-Bayraktar A, Budig MJ, Tomaskovic-Devey D. From the shop floor to the kitchen flooring: Maternal occupational complexity and children's reading and math skills. Piece of work and Occupations. 2013;40:37–64. [Google Scholar]

fincherforetump.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5497991/

Share this post