Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Mar 8.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2004 Mar;18(1):225–236. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.225

Table 2.

Correlations Among Division-of-Labor and Subjective Evaluation Variables for Whole Sample and by Part-Time and Full-Time Status

Subjective evaluation
Division-of-labor variable T2 fairness T2 satisfaction
T1 HHT
 Whole sample (N = 94) −.30** −.21*
 Part-timers (n = 25) −.27 −.09
 Full-timers (n = 69) −.28* −.24*
T2 HHT
 Whole sample −.24* −.40***
 Part-timers −.49* −.48*
 Full-timers −.56*** −.36**
ΔHHT
 Whole sample .25* .18
 Part-timers .13 .30
 Full-timers .32** .13
Satisfaction with HHT
 Whole sample .52***
 Part-timers .85a**
 Full-timers .40b***
T1 CCT (expectations)
 Whole sample (N = 90) −.23* −.20
 Part-timers (n = 24) −.32 − .49a*
 Full-timers (n = 66) −.13 − .04b
T2 CCT
 Whole sample −.53*** −.45***
 Part-timers −.56*** −.45*
 Full-timers −.50*** −.44***
ΔCCT (violated expectations)
 Whole sample .42*** .38***
 Part-timers .42* .21
 Full-timers .45*** .43***
Satisfaction with CCT
 Whole sample .38***
 Part-timers .66***
 Full-timers .28*

Note. Correlations with different subscripts are significantly different. HHT = household tasks; CCT = child-care tasks; ΔHHT = change in household tasks; ΔCCT = violated expectations about child care.

p < .10 (marginally significant).

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.