Gendered domestic labor and family leadership: associations with work–family difficulty and expectations for daughters

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.3389/fsoc.2026.1943089
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article examines whether a female-concentrated division of unpaid domestic labor is associated with a reported household financial-management arrangement, normative endorsement of husband/breadwinner headship, work–family difficulty, perceived barriers, and expectations for daughters in contemporary Kazakhstan. We analyze data from a 2025 national quota survey covering all 17 regions of Kazakhstan and its three cities of republican status ( N = 2,400; 1,638 married or cohabiting respondents) using binary logistic regression on outcome-specific complete cases ( N = 1,460–1,523). A one-standard-deviation increase in the domestic-labor index was associated with higher odds that the husband managed the household budget (OR = 1.92), endorsement of the husband or breadwinner as head of household (OR = 1.40), difficulty reconciling work and family (OR = 1.26), and marriage-oriented expectations for daughters (OR = 1.21). The association with naming domestic labor as a barrier to women's participation was not statistically significant after adjustment. The leadership association was stronger among men. Because respondents were individuals, the outcomes capture reported arrangements and attitudes rather than couple-level behavior, and the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. The results are robust to excluding “difficult to answer” responses rather than coding them as the reference category.