EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF POWER WITHIN …ces.uc.pt/projectos/finfam/ficheiros/Ribeiro_Oliveira... · 2015. 9. 30. · PTDC/IVC-SOC/4823/2012-FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029372

PTDC/IVC-SOC/4823/2012-FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029372

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF POWER

WITHIN COUPLES RELATING TO FINANCIAL EXPENSES,

INCOME AND AGENCY

RAQUEL RIBEIRO, MIGUEL OLIVEIRA & FERNANDA JESUS

(FINFAM TEAM – CES)

31 August - 1 September 2015

International Seminar

Couples’ Finances in the Crisis: Gender, Power and Inequalities

PTDC/IVC-SOC/4823/2012-FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029372PTDC/IVC-SOC/4823/2012-FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029372

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

2007 FINANCIAL CRISIS

ECONOMIC GLOBAL CRISIS

PUBLIC SECTORLABOUR MARKET

CRISIS CONSEQUENCES WITHIN THE FAMILIES ?

Male unemployment in manufacturing,

construction, finance

Persistent unemployment

fiscal consolidation

cuts in welfare system

CONVERGENCE OF MALE AND FEMALE

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

STAFFING FREEZES

SUPPRESSION OF JOBS

IN SOCIAL SECTORS


FINFAM RESULTS

Participation of men in

domestic and parental tasks

Male

unemployment

National Survey(N = 1001)

Semi-structured interviews(N = 40)

Participation of women in

financial tasks

Participation of women in

domestic and parental tasks

Female

unemployment


-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Both

employed

Man

unemployed

Woman

unemployed

Average hour gap (woman’s hours – man’s hours)*

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Both

employed

Man

unemployed

Woman

unemployed

Weekdays Weekends

FINFAM RESULTS

Hig

her

fem

ale p

artici

pat

ion

Hig

her

mal

e p

artici

pat

ion

* Ribeiro, Coelho & Ferreira-Valente, 2015


Household work division according to partners’ unemployment

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cooking

Housecleaning

Grocery shopping

Caring the sick

Take children school

Cooking

Housecleaning

Grocery shopping

Caring the sick


Cooking

Housecleaning

Grocery shopping

Caring the sick


Woman

unemployed

Man

unemployed

Both

employed

χ2 p<.05

FINFAM RESULTS


DIAMANTINO*. Sometimes I take a walk (...) and I do something at home (...).

DEOLINDA*. Oh, he makes dinner in the evening. He hangs out the laundry ... Makes the

dinner...

DIAMANTINO. I do everything, of course. She comes home and the food is ready ... The table

set (...) I do not work ... I have to do it, isn’t it? We have to help each other…

DEOLINDA. (…) I would prefer to go back to the old times … it would be a good sign.

Domestic work weekdays

Man

un

em

plo

yed

DÁRCIO*. I take the kids, normally I go to the Coffee shop, I take a coffee and try something,

some work… I see if it appears something (...) in the afternoon I come home, come here ... (..)

I start dinner.

DÉBORA*. I when I get in (...) the dinner is on the table ... the kids at home ... and so is the

familiar dynamic between dinner, baths, TPC's kids, clothes ... So you may get an idea we had a

maid five hours a day, every day (...) she made us dinner ... she ensured all, isn't it?

DÁRCIO It was a quality of life that ...

DÉBORA. Now is a hustle and bustle ... Between clothes and cupboards ...

* fictitious name (names have been changed to ensure anonymity)


Household work division according to partners’ unemployment

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Dealing taxes

Paying bills

Managing accounts

Loans/savings

Dealing taxes

Paying bills

Managing accounts

Loans/savings

Dealing taxes

Paying bills

Managing accounts

Loans/savings

Woman

unemployed

Man

unemployed

Both

employed

χ2 p<.05

FINFAM RESULTS


DÉBORA*. Most of the bills are in direct debit payment. But it is me who controls the

banking accounts ... (…) Make sure of everything... Make the loans payments ... make sure

that everything is more or less under control (...) We did not had this concern before

(...) The bills came in by direct debit payment. In that time if someone took us money I

wouldn't realize it (...) Now it is different ... I check the accounts at least twice a week ...

Look at this, look at that..

Man

un

em

plo

yed

E. When something suddenly happens here at home, gest broken .. TV, fridge ... How do you do

to buy it?

ALZIRA*. Usually we use the Jumbo card ... Now I don’t buy anything! It can be broken

that I don’t buy!

ARMINDO*. And we have to buy.

ALZIRA. What?

ARMINDO. The oven.

ALZIRA. Oh, ok! But I’m not needing it!

ARMINDO. Sometimes it is necessary, right?

ALZIRA. It is out of question (...) Now it's out of the question to buy something! (…)

Now only when he starts working and earning….

Financial tasks

* fictitious name (names have been changed to ensure anonymity)


Does this perception of power depends on whether the

spouse is a man or a woman?

How "doing", "not doing" or "sharing” financial tasks is taken

as a cue to ascribe more or less power to the spouses in a

household?

Does it depends on the kind of financial task?


OBJECTIVES

Inquiry into how people usually perceive the relative power of

male and female spouses within heterosexual couples;

Evaluate how such perception of power is determined by the:

Sex of the couple’s reference element;

Relative contribution of spouses to household income;

Relative distribution of financial tasks between spouses;

Quality of the financial task;


PARTICIPANTS

129 adults living in Portugal

38,07

44,09

19 34 49 64 79

Women

Men

Age mean

86 43Women

Men

Respondent sex

7 1,2

25,6

12,8

55,872,1

11,6 14

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Man Woman

ISCED 8

ISCED 5 and 6

ISCED 3

ISCED 2

Level of education


PARTICIPANTS

26,6

16

34

17

5,31,1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Equal incomes

Man has much higher income

Man has higher income

Woman has higher income

Woman has much higher income

Woman has no income

2,2 2,2

44,9

11,2

37,1

2,20

20

40

60

WW HKA JP PP IMS other

Relative income contribution of the partners

Money management arrangementsLives with a partner

%

%

YES

73.4%

NO

26.6%


MEASURES AND PROCEDURE

1.Higher

2.Lower

3.Equal

A

IncomeB

Agency

1.Does

2.Does not

3.Both do

1.Grocery shopping

2.Credits

3.Savings

C

Task

Marco Carolina

QUESTIONNAIRE with SCENARIOS

Couple’s reference element (2 versions):

RELATIVE POWER 0 – 100 %

27 s

cen

ari

os


MEASURES AND PROCEDURE

Dependent variable:

Relative power (0-100%) of the couple’s reference element

Marco/Carolina

Independent variables:

i) Within subjects:

a) Relative income (reference element: higher vs. lower vs. equal);

b) Agency in the task (reference element: does vs. does not vs. both do).

c) Quality of family financial task (current vs. credit vs. savings);

ii) Between subjects:

a) Sex of the couple’s reference element (Marco vs. Carolina);

e) Sex of the respondent (Masculine vs. Feminine)


RESULTS

Main effect Income (higher vs. lower vs. equal): p < .001

Main effect Agency (does vs. does not vs. both do): p < .001

Main effect Task (grocery vs. credit vs. savings): non significant

Interaction Income * Agency: p = .003

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Does Does not Both do

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


35

40

45

50

55

60

65


Grocery shopping Credit Savings

Equal

power

% % %

Income, Agency, & Task


RESULTS

Main effect Respondent Sex (Male vs. Female): non significant

Main effect Reference element sex (Marco vs. Carolina): non significant

Interaction Respondent Sex * Reference element sex: marginal p = .058

Interaction Agency * Respondent Sex: marginal p = .058

53,2

44,6

48,4

59

42

50,4

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


Men Women

50,4

46,7

50,1 50,7

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Marco Carolina

Men Women

% %

Men ascribe

less power to Caroline

Women value

more “doing”

Respondent & Couple’s Referent Element Sex


Does marital experience influences relative power

perceptions ?

19,5

37,5

16,4

26,6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Equal incomes

Man has higher income

Woman has higher income

No partner

Sex of the couple’s reference element (Marco vs. Carolina): χ2 ns

Sex of the respondent (Masculine vs. Feminine): χ2 ns

%


RESULTS

Main effect Income (Higher vs. Lower vs. Equal): p < .001

Main effect Agency (does vs. does not vs. both do): p < .001

Main effect Expense (grocery vs. credit vs. savings): non significant

Interaction Income * Agency: p = .003

Interaction Income * Agency * Marital experience: non significant

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Does Does not Both do35

40

45

50

55

60

65


35

40

45

50

55

60

65


35

40

45

50

55

60

65


Equal

power

Equal income

(n=25)

Man higher

(n=48)Woman higher

(n=21)

No partner

(n=34)

% % % %

Marital Experience


RESULTS

Interaction Agency * Task: p = .001

Interaction Agency * Task * Marital experience: p = .008

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70


30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70


30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Does Does not Both do30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70


Equal income

(n=25)

Man higher

(n=48)

Woman higher

(n=21)

No partner

(n=34)

Equal

power

% % % %

Marital Experience


CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, & FUTURE RESEARCH

Conclusions:

Different factors determine the perception of relative power inheterosexual couples, namely income and agency;

No main effect concerning Sex of the couple’s referenceelement (Marco vs. Carolina);

Limitations and future research:

Confounding operationalization of “doing” and “deciding” onagency independent variable (trata);

Tighter experimental control (paper and pencil vs. online)

Sample size – increase group size by sociodemographicvariables (e.g. money management arrangements...)


THANK YOU!

Documents

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF POWER WITHIN …ces.uc.pt/projectos/finfam/ficheiros/Ribeiro_Oliveira... · 2015. 9. 30. · PTDC/IVC-SOC/4823/2012-FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-029372