The focus of the paper is on differences between and within cultures in adolescents' ideas about when children should begin work in the home, the value of household work for children, and whether or not such work should be paid. Comparisons are made between six countries, between three age groups (early, middle and late adolescence) and between genders on two kinds of household task: self-care and family-care. Of particular interest is the picture that emerges of Australian adolescents, a picture that in many ways reflects general cultural values, and that emerges as different from the views of adolescents in other countries.

Children and household work

The information that we have about what children are actually doing in terms of household work comes mainly from research in English-speaking countries (see Goodnow, 1988 for a review). The pattern appears to be that children are involved early in helping their mothers (Rheingold, 1982), and most school-aged children are assigned chores (Thrall, 1978). The chores tend to be self-care tasks such as making the bed and keeping the bedroom tidy. Children are expected to participate in family-care tasks but they are usually requested to help or expected to volunteer for such jobs rather than given responsibility for them (Goodnow & Delaney, 1989).

The household tasks that children do are linked strongly to gender roles. This is the case in middle childhood (White & Brinkerhoff, 1981b; Thrall, 1987; Goodnow, 1988) and in adolescence (Brannen, 1995; Hansen & Darling, 1985; Peters, 1994). Girls are asked to do jobs inside the house such as cleaning and cooking, and boys to do jobs outside the house such as lawn mowing and washing the car. Children themselves, when asked which sibling they could ask to do a job for them, said that they could only ask a brother to wash the car and a sister to clean the bath or basin, signaling that they saw some work as girls' work and some as boys' work (Goodnow et al., 1991).

Ideas and values

Expectations about children's household work practices reveal other ideas that appear to embody cultural values. Cultures may differ, for example, in expectations about when children should begin household work and in the perceived value of children's work in the home. In a study of Anglo-Australian and Lebanese-born Australian mothers, Goodnow, Cashmore, Cotton & Knight (1984) found that the Australian-born mothers expected their children to begin doing chores at about the age of 5 or 6 years. In contrast, Lebanese-born mothers did not expect their children to begin household work until much later. The Lebanese mothers also gave different reasons for their children's involvement. They cited the parents' need for help as a reason whereas the Australian-born mothers gave developmental reasons such as training in responsibility.

When White and Brinkerhoff (1981a) asked U.S. mothers why they expect their children to do household work, they found that the key word used was 'responsibility'. Most U.S. mothers in their study saw household work as character-building. Others talked about reciprocal obligations (e.g., 'It is their duty to help the family') and their own need for help with the work. A similar pattern of response has been found for Australian mothers who placed primary value on development of skills and character through children's involvement in self-care household tasks such as making their bed, keeping their rooms tidy and clearing up toys after they had played (Goodnow & Delaney, 1989). A few mothers mentioned how involvement in such work taught 'belonging and sharing' and fewer still cited the usefulness of what the children were doing.

Goodnow and Delaney found a different response, however, when mothers were asked the same question about work tasks that were of benefit to the whole family, tasks such as setting the table or cleaning the house. Mothers were then equally divided between development of responsibility and learning about belonging and sharing in their ideas about the value of family-care work. For these tasks, too, the idea of children making a useful contribution through cutting down the workload of parents was rarely mentioned. This is in contrast to studies of children's household work during the Great Depression (Elder, 1974) and in rural America (Straus, 1962) where children's contributions were valued highly.

Payment for household work

A further aspect of practices relating to household work is expectations about payment for that work. While payment for household work is discouraged in articles of advice to parents on the grounds that 'children may come to view household work as a paid job rather than as a family responsibility'(Adams, 1985, p. 4), parents in Australia nevertheless do pay children for jobs, generally by way of an allowance or pocket money to cover all jobs done, or by paying for only extra or big jobs (Feather, 1991; Warton & Goodnow, 1995). The option of piecework or payment for each job done is not favoured by most parents (Warton & Goodnow, 1995) but small payments are often used to encourage English children when they are first allocated chores (Newson & Newson, 1976). Australian children regard payment for a big job such as washing the car as reasonable but older children (11- and 14-year-olds as opposed to 8-year-olds) think that payment for self-care jobs such as making their bed is absurd (Warton & Goodnow, 1991).

Based on this prior research, the three issues of the age at which children should begin household work, the perceived value of household work and ideas about payment for household work were chosen to measure adolescents' ideas about the involvement of children in work around the house.

Country comparisons

A primary interest in the study was differences in the ideas of adolescents from six countries: Australia, the USA, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary. It was hypothesised that cultures with a more individualistic orientation such as the USA and Australia would emphasise self-care household tasks for children and place less emphasis on family-care tasks compared with countries with a social contract that implies a greater care for others and sees the individual primarily as a member of a group. Former communist countries such as Hungary, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and countries with a generous social welfare system such as Sweden may all transmit values of responsibility to the group more readily than responsibility for self, and this may be reflected in the ideas held about household work.

Gender comparisons

In addition to differences in the ideas of adolescents from the six countries, hypotheses about gender differences were advanced. On the basis of Offer, Ostrov, Howard and Atkinson's (1987) cross-cultural study which found a greater degree of social commitment in adolescent girls than boys, it was hypothesised that girls in the present study would show in their responses more sense of responsibility for others than would boys. At least in terms of practices in Britain, it seems that adolescent girls are more likely than adolescent boys to do household tasks which benefit others (Brannen, 1995). No differences were expected between young men and young women in their views on payment for household work.

In summary, to test the hypotheses about cultural, age and gender differences in ideas about household work and payment for household work relating to two types of task (self-care and family-care), male and female adolescents of three age levels from six countries were asked a series of questions tapping their views on the following issues:

1. how early children should begin doing chores

2. the value of children's involvement in household work, and

3. whether or not children should be paid for household work

Adolescents from six countries took part in the study. The countries were selected on the basis of two criteria:

1. the history of their experience as a democracy, and

2. the role of the state in the provision of social welfare

For the purposes of the analysis, three countries can be seen as countries in transition (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary) and three as established Western democracies (Australia, Sweden, and the USA). Of the latter, one can be seen as a modern social welfare state (Sweden) and two (Australia and the USA) as countries that hold a more individualist interpretation of the social contract.

In each country, a minimum of 500 adolescents aged 11 to 23 years participated. For the purpose of comparison between early, middle and late adolescence, three age levels were created (11 to 14 years, 14 to 16 years, and 16 to 23 years). Sampling was as representative as possible in terms of school type and socio-economic status of families in an area surrounding a major city in each country.

Procedure

Adolescents completed questionnaires in their classrooms during two sessions separated by a week.

Measures

The following three questions were asked twice, once in the context of self-care household tasks and again for family-care tasks. Students were asked to circle one choice only for each question. The general introduction to the six questions was: 'In the future, you may be a parent. We are interested in some of your ideas about bringing up children. Some people think children should do jobs around the house. Others think children shouldn't have jobs to do.'

Self-care and family care tasks were introduced as follows:

'First let's talk about the kinds of jobs when children have to clean up their own things--like putting their toys away or making their bed or cleaning up their part of the room' and 'Now let's talk about more general household work --like doing the dishes, sweeping the floors, or other jobs in the household'. The questions were:

1. At what age do you think children should be expected to do household work?

A. Never

B. Under the age of 6

C Around 6 or 7 but not before

D. Between 8-10 but not before

E. When they're 11 or older

2. What would you say is the major value of having children do household work?

A. None. No value.

B. It helps the parents. It takes away some of the parents' workload.

C. It's good training for the child in responsibility and self-discipline.

D. It helps children learn that they're part of a family and everyone

should help the group.

3. Do you think that children should earn money (pocket money) for doing such household work?

A. Yes. They should be paid for each job they do.

B. Yes. They should be paid an allowance/ pocket money as a general payment for the jobs they do.

C. Sometimes. They should be paid only for extra or big jobs.

D. No. They should not be paid for the jobs they do.

Analysis

The effects of country (6), age (3), gender (2) and type of task (2) were investigated using the weighted least-squares model described by Grizzle, Starmer and Koch (1969) and developed for repeated measures analyses of categorical variables by Koch, Landis, Freeman, Freeman & Lehnen (1977), as implemented in the SAS procedure CATMOD (SAS Institute, 1989). Full factorial models were fitted for each measure then reduced by eliminating non-significant terms, starting with the highest -level interactions and ending with the main effects. The fit of the reduced models obtained in this way was tested by examining the residual. A significance level equal to the alpha level of .001 multiplied by the number of effects omitted from the model was used to test the significance of the residual.

Results

Results will be presented for each of the three questions in turn, noting significant effects and interactions and using these as a guide to identifying key differences, in particular those effects involving country and gender differences. Type of task emerged as an important variable for all three questions. Interactions involving age differences will be noted but are of secondary interest in this paper.

1. Age at which household work should begin

For this question, two interactions were found to be significant: age by type of task and country by gender by type of task. The first indicated that older adolescents were more likely than younger adolescents to say that children should start doing self-care tasks at an early age. There were no such age differences apparent for family-care tasks. The country by gender by type of task interaction deserves further attention and some features will be outlined following an account of general response to the question.

Very few adolescents thought that children should not be involved in household work. The range of response over countries was 1-2% for self-care tasks and 2-5% for family-care tasks. In all countries, the majority of adolescents thought that children should begin self-care tasks early, either from age 6 or 7 (range 29-39%) or younger (range 18-54%). In contrast, fewer in each country thought that children should begin family-work tasks at the age of 7 or younger (see Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the distinction made between self-care and family care-tasks when the two responses indicating an older age of starting chores were considered (responses D and E combined). In each country, the majority of adolescents thought that children should begin family-care work at 8 years or older.

Gender comparisons indicate that in each country, more girls than boys thought that children should begin self-care tasks at an early age (7 years or younger) (see Figure 3). Gender differences were less marked and less consistent over countries when family-care tasks were considered for responses that children should begin at 8 years or older (see Figure 4).

2. Major value of household work for children

Three two-way interactions emerged as significant in the analysis of this question: age by type of task, country by type of task, and gender by type of task. The age by type of task interaction indicated that older adolescents were more likely than younger adolescents to think that involvement in self-care tasks was of value in the development of self-reliance. There was no such age difference in response to the question on family-care tasks. Results involving country and gender differences related to the second and third interactions are presented more fully below following a general account of responses from the sample.

Almost all of the adolescents thought that children's involvement in household work had some value. The range of 'no value' responses over the six countries was only 2-3% for self-care tasks and 1-3% for family-care tasks. Only a small percentage saw the major value as helping parents (range 7-14% for self-care tasks; 13-24% for family-care tasks). The majority of answers in all countries referred to the developmental value of household work for children. Adolescents saw household work as a way to encourage the development of responsibility in children. As would be expected, in most countries, individual responsibility was the most popular response for the value of self-care tasks, and responsibility for the group as the most frequently chosen value for family-care tasks.

There were, however, different patterns of response for the countries when individual and group responsibility items were considered. The USA and Australia stood out as countries in which adolescents favoured the development of individual responsibility in relation to children's household work (see Figure 5). Although in both countries, individual responsibility was considered a more important value for self-care tasks than for family-care tasks, the individual responsibility response was high for both kinds of household work (For self-care: USA, 73%; Australia, 63%. For family-care: USA, 56%; Australia, 49%). The lowest choice of individual responsibility as a response for the value of household work for children was for the Czech Republic ( 40% for self-care; 28% for family-care).

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden were similar in their high level of nomination of the development of group responsibility as the major value of household work for children (For self-care: Czech Republic, 44%; Hungary, 41%; Sweden, 43%. For family-care: Czech Republic, 47%; Hungary, 46%; Sweden, 40%) Fewer than a third of adolescents in the USA and Australia nominated group responsibility as a major value, regardless of the type of household tasks involved (see Figure 6). Bulgaria lay between the two groups of countries in its responses to the two kinds of responsibility, tending to favour individual responsibility but not to the same extent as the USA and Australia (Bulgaria: Individual responsibility: 55% for self-care; 42% for family care. Group responsibility: 30% for self-care; 36% for family care).

For the group responsibility and help parents responses, there were gender differences, and these differences were consistent across countries. Girls nominated group responsibility as a major value of household work for children more than did boys, and this difference was apparent for the questions on self-care and family-care tasks (see Figures 7 and 8). Within the comparatively small numbers who nominated helping parents as the major value of household work for children, there were more boys than girls choosing this response. This was the pattern for all countries and for both self-care and family-care questions (see Figures 9 and 10).

3. Payment for household work

Differences between countries emerged strongly for this question, in interaction with gender and with type of task. There was also a main effect for age: the youngest group of adolescents was more likely than older children to say that a general payment should be given, and less likely to say that there should be no pay for work done in the house. Differences between countries will be the focus of results presented below.

There was little support from respondents in all countries for the idea of payment for each household job. The range across countries for this response option was 1-10% for self-care tasks and 2-12% for family-care tasks. The highest support for 'piecework' came from the USA both for self-care (10% of responses) and for family-care tasks (12%). There was some support for payment for extra or big jobs, particularly from adolescents in Hungary (42% chose this option for self-care tasks and 41% for family care tasks).

A general payment or allowance was favoured mostly by adolescents in Sweden (62% for self-care, 57% for family-care), Australia (48% for self-care, 53% for family-care), and the USA (46% for self-care, 51% for family-care). In contrast, adolescents from the other three countries were more likely to say that there should be no pay associated with household work :Bulgaria (54% for self-care, 55% for family care), the Czech Republic (48% for self-care, 45% for family care) and Hungary (35% for self-care, 38% for family care) Figures 11 and 12).

Discussion

In this study, differences in adolescents' ideas about children's involvement in household work emerged between countries and within countries (in terms of age and gender differences). The differences that emerged can be seen as differences in emphasis rather than differences in kind. Adolescents in all countries, male and female, and at all three age levels indicated ideas over the full range of options offered in the three questions. They did, however, differ in terms of the emphasis given to the development of individual and group responsibility through children's involvement in household work, and in terms of their willingness to consider payment for children's household work.

Between countries, the most startling differences in emphasis were found for ideas about payment for household work by children. While most adolescents from Australia, the USA and Sweden did not agree with payment for each household job, they did support some payment, either through an allowance linked to household work (the preferred option for all three) or through payment for extra or big jobs. In contrast, adolescents in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary were in favour of no pay for household work (the preferred option for all three) or only payment for extra or big jobs. It is suggested that these differences reflect a general difference in values between individualistic countries that emphasise monetary reward for individual effort, and countries which emphasise more group values which may be threatened by the introduction of monetary rewards.

The lack of distinction made by adolescents in all countries between payment for self-care and family-care work is contrary to previous research (Goodnow et al., 1991) in which Australian older children and adolescents ridiculed the idea of being paid for self-care jobs. The linking of money with work around the house is also at a higher level here than would be predicted from Clark's work on the incompatibility perceived by adults of an exchange model and work within the family (e.g., Clark & Waddell, 1985). It may simply reflect practices in the countries concerned, information which unfortunately was not collected as part of this study. Nevertheless, the consistent view about payment for household work which emerged from each country indicates that this may be an area of clear cultural difference which is being transmitted through everyday practices in the home.

Differences were also found between countries in the perceived value of household work for children. Whereas most adolescents in all countries saw responsibility training as the main value of this work, adolescents in the USA and Australia placed a particularly high value on the development of individual responsibility whereas adolescents in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden placed a higher value on the development of responsibility to the group. All saw family-care tasks as holding more value than self-care tasks for the development of group responsibility.

One clear within-culture difference was in terms of gender, with girls showing greater social responsibility than boys. First, girls favoured an earlier start to self-care work than did boys. This may be a reflection of a higher sense of responsibility for themselves or towards the family on the part of the girls or it may simply reflect practice: differences in the ages at which boys and girls are expected to begin to contribute to work in the home. More compelling is the evidence that girls, more than boys, see family-care tasks as a way to promote responsibility to the group. This finding indicates that girls may place a higher value than boys on this aspect of social responsibility.

Although it was not a high frequency response, more boys more than girls saw household work as helping parents. It is tempting to interpret these two findings as supporting girls' seeing household work as a personal responsibility but boys seeing it as a parental responsibility and their role as one of a helper. It may be, however, that the tasks boys and girls are given are of different kinds. Girls may be given more regular household tasks which benefit the whole family and boys less regular jobs which more obviously take the load off parents.

The differences in emphasis between cultures and within cultures may reflect both differences in cultural values and differences in practices that involve children in household work. Indeed, as Goodnow, Miller & Kessel (1995) have argued, it may be that such everyday practices as the allocation of household work tasks are one way that cultural values are transmitted.

Views of Australian adolescents

Australian adolescents emerged in this study with views about household work that were closer to those of adolescents in the USA than in Europe. Most thought that children should begin self-care tasks at or before the age of 6 or 7 years, and that work done for the benefit of the family should begin later, over the age of 8 years with many saying 11 years or over for this kind of work. These views are in line with current middle-class Anglo-Australian practice (Goodnow & Delaney, 1989; Bowes & Goodnow, 1996).

Adolescents in Australia, like adolescents in other countries, saw self-care tasks as important for the training of individual responsibility, and family-care tasks as more important for training group responsibility in children. Their responses, however, placed more emphasis on individual than on group responsibility and this was particularly so for boys. The ideas of Australian adolescents were not compromised by the idea of payment for household work although they saw a general payment (pocket money) as more appropriate than payment for each job.

In their responses, Australian adolescents reflected practices related to household work in this country but also voiced a valuing of individual responsibility or self-reliance, over responsibility to others in the family. These relative values were different from those of European adolescents whose answers indicated a higher value placed on responsibility to others.

Household work practices and children's developing social responsibility

The research raises the question of the values we wish to transmit to our children in Australia, and the ways in which those values might be passed on. The adolescents in this study have shown that we are doing a good job in transmitting values of self-reliance and individual responsibility. If we wish also to promote concern about and responsibility toward others, one way may be to allocate more family-care tasks to children, a practice linked by Grusec, Goodnow and Cohen (in press) and Brannen (1995) to prosocial behaviour in children. More emphasis on family-care tasks through more involvement and at an earlier age, and less on payment for work done for the family may assist in promoting in our children a greater sense of social responsibility.

Bowes, J.M., & Goodnow, J.J. (1996). Work for home, school or labor force: The nature and sources of changes in understanding. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 300-321.

Brannen, J. (1995). Young people and their contribution to household work. Sociology, 29, 317-338.

Clark, M.S., & Waddell, B.(1985). Perceptions of exploitation in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.

Elder, G. (1974). Children of the great depression. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Feather, N. T. (1991). Variables relating to the allocation of pocket money to children: Parental reasons and values. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 221-234.

Goodnow, Cashmore, Cotton, S., & Knight, R. (1984). Mothers' developmental timetables in two cultural groups. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 193- 205.

Goodnow, J.J. (1988). Children's household work: Its nature and functions. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 5-26.

Goodnow, J.J., & Bowes, J.M. (1994). Men, women and household work. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Goodnow, J.J., & Delaney, S. (1989). Children's household work: Task differences, styles of assignment, and links to family relationships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 209-225.

Goodnow, J.J., Bowes, J.M., Warton, P.M., Dawes, L.J., & Taylor, A.J. (1991). Would you ask someone else to do this task? Parents' and children's ideas about household work requests. Developmental Psychology, 27, 817-828.

Goodnow, J.J., Miller, P.J., & Kessel, F.(1995). Cultural practices as contexts for development. New Directions for Child Development, No. 67, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grizzle, J.E., Starmer, C.F., & Koch, G.G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics, 25, 489-504.

Grusec, J.E., Goodnow, J.J., & Cohen, L. (in press). Household work and the development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology.

Hansen, S.L., & Darling, C.A. (1985). Attitudes of adolescents toward division of labor in the home. Adolescence, 20, 61-72.

Koch, G.G., Landis, J.R., Freeman, J.L., Freeman, D.H., & Lehnen, R.G. (1977). A general methodology for the analysis of experiments with repeated measures of categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 133-158.

Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1976). Seven years old in the home environment. London: Allen & Unwin.

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., Howard, K.I., & Atkinson, R. (1987). The teenage world: Adolescents' self-image in ten countries. New York: Plenum.

Peters, J. (1994). Gender socialization of adolescents in the home: Research and discussion. Adolescence, 29, 913-934.

Rheingold, H.L. (1982). Little children's participation in the work of adults: A nascent prosocial behavior. Child Development, 53, 114-125.

SAS Institute Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 4 (4th Edn). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Straus, M.A. (1962). Work roles and financial responsibility in the socialization of farm, fringe and town boys. Rural Sociology, 27, 257-274.

Thrall, C.A. (1978). Who does what: Role stereotypy, children's work, and continuity in the household division of labor. Human Relations, 31, 249-265.

Warton, P.W., & Goodnow, J.J. (1991). The nature of responsibility: Children's understanding of 'your job'. Child Development, 62, 156-165.

Warton, P.M., & Goodnow, J.J. (1995). Money and children's household jobs: Parents' views of their interconnections. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 335-350.

White, L.K., & Brinkerhoff, D.B. (1981a). Children's work in the family: Its significance and meaning. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 789-798.

White, L.K., & Brinkerhoff, D.B. (1981b). The sexual division of labor: Evidence from childhood. Social Forces, 60, 170-181.