The female-breadwinner well-being 'penalty': differences by men's (un)employment and country

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between female breadwinning and life satisfaction in heterosexual couples. We extend previous research by treating the man's employment status as a variable that helps to explain rather than confounds this relationship, and by comparing multiple countries through regression analyses of European Social Survey data (Rounds 2-9). Results provide evidence of a female-breadwinner well-being 'penalty': men and women are less satisfied with their lives under the female-breadwinner arrangement versus the dual-earner and male-breadwinner alternatives. The penalty is marginal when the male partner is part-time employed but sizeable when he is jobless. However, there are gender differences: after controls for composition, gender-role attitudes, and partners' relative incomes, the penalty becomes negligible for women while remaining large for men. Analyses suggest these gender differences are linked to high male unemployment among female-breadwinner couples: whereas women appear roughly equally adversely affected by a male partner's unemployment as by their own, men report substantially higher well-being when she is unemployed instead of him. Country comparisons indicate that while this female-breadwinner well-being penalty is largest in more conservative contexts, especially Germany, it is fairly universal across Europe. So, even in countries where women's employment is more widespread and cultural and institutional support for the male-breadwinner model is weaker, unemployed men with breadwinner wives are not immune from the social stigma and psychological difficulties associated with their gender non-conformity.

Full text

European Sociological Review, 2023, XX, 1–16
https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad034
Advance access publication 5 June 2023
Original Article
Received: April 2022; revised: May 2023; accepted: May 2023
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
The female-breadwinner well-being ‘penalty’:
differences by men’s (un)employment and country
HelenKowalewska* and AgneseVitali
Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
*Corresponding author. Email: hk775@bath.ac.uk
This article examines the relationship between female breadwinning and life satisfaction in heterosexual couples. We extend pre-
vious research by treating the man’s employment status as a variable that helps to explain rather than confounds this relationship,
and by comparing multiple countries through regression analyses of European Social Survey data (Rounds 2–9). Results provide
evidence of a female-breadwinner well-being ‘penalty’: men and women are less satisfied with their lives under the female-bread-
winner arrangement versus the dual-earner and male-breadwinner alternatives. The penalty is marginal when the male partner
is part-time employed but sizeable when he is jobless. However, there are gender differences: after controls for composition,
gender-role attitudes, and partners’ relative incomes, the penalty becomes negligible for women while remaining large for men.
Analyses suggest these gender differences are linked to high male unemployment among female-breadwinner couples: whereas
women appear roughly equally adversely affected by a male partner’s unemployment as by their own, men report substantially
higher well-being when she is unemployed instead of him. Country comparisons indicate that while this female-breadwinner
well-being penalty is largest in more conservative contexts, especially Germany, it is fairly universal across Europe. So, even
in countries where women’s employment is more widespread and cultural and institutional support for the male-breadwinner
model is weaker, unemployed men with breadwinner wives are not immune from the social stigma and psychological difficulties
associated with their gender non-conformity.
Introduction
Women are the main or sole breadwinner in an increas-
ing minority of heterosexual couples across Europe
(Klesment and Van Bavel, 2017; Kowalewska and
Vitali, 2021). The unpredictability of health, relation-
ships, and labour markets—laid bare by the COVID-
19 pandemic—means that most women will be the
breadwinner at some point in their relationship, even
if only temporarily (e.g. Glass et al., 2021). However,
research indicates that this emerging arrangement is
associated with lower well-being. Although results for
women are less conclusive, men’s life satisfaction is sig-
nicantly lower when she out-earns him (Rogers and
DeBoer, 2001; Hajdu and Hajdu, 2018; Salland, 2018;
Gash and Plagnol, 2021).
We extend previous research on women’s bread-
winning and couples’ well-being in two ways. First,
we examine the relationship between female bread-
winning and life satisfaction through regression anal-
yses of ESS data (2004–2018). Previous literature has
focused on one to three countries only with stronger
male-breadwinning norms and higher female part-
time employment, such as Germany and the United
Kingdom (e.g. Luhmann et al., 2014; Gash and Plagnol,
2021). The same holds for studies on unemployment
and/or employment hours and life satisfaction within
couples (e.g. Booth and Van Ours, 2013; Flèche et al.,
2020). Therefore, the generalizability of the associa-
tion between female breadwinning and lower well-be-
ing to other kinds of societal contexts remains unclear.
We contribute to addressing this gap by comparing
nine European countries, including those in which the
male-breadwinner model has less relevance culturally
and/or in social practice.
Second, we take an approach that emphasizes
employment as a psychological and symbolic resource.
We compare life satisfaction for men and women across
various breadwinning congurations—which is the
man’s employment status combined with the wom-
an’s—while controlling for total household income,
partners’ relative incomes, and other confounders.
Prior research on female breadwinning and life sat-
isfaction has overwhelmingly dened breadwinning
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

2KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
based on between-partner differences in income or
earnings (although see Blom and Hewitt, 2020). Yet,
looking at employment status is important for unrav-
elling how lower well-being in female-breadwinner
couples may relate to the male partner’s part-time or
non-employed status, and not simply his lower relative
income. The act of leaving the home and going out into
the world to perform physical paid labour is key to the
self-production of male identity for manual workers
(Winlow, 2001). Likewise, men in professional occupa-
tions perform hegemonic masculinity through spend-
ing long hours at their desks and visibly displaying
their physical exhaustion, commitment, and endurance
(e.g. Williams et al., 2013). Conversely, labour within
the home—and those who perform it—are deemed
‘feminine’, ‘expressive’, and ‘emotional’ (Demantas
and Myers, 2015).
We distinguish between two subtypes of
female-breadwinner couples: those in which the male
partner is part-time employed (‘one-and-a-half’ female
breadwinners) and those in which he is jobless (‘pure’
female breadwinners). This distinction is motivated by
competing expectations. On the one hand, well-being
is feasibly higher under the former. Any job is usually
better than no job for well-being (e.g. Winkelmann
and Winkelmann, 1998). Employment provides more
than a wage: it is a mechanism of social inclusion and
can provide social interaction, a structure to one’s day,
identity and social status, and a feeling of ‘being useful’
(Jahoda, 1982). On the other hand, well-being may be
similarly low under both couple subtypes. The ‘exi-
bility stigma’ means part-time employed men are often
labelled ‘unmanly’ and as lacking the stamina and
discipline for full-time employment (Williams et al.,
2013). Part-time employment could also reect a lack
of suitable full-time jobs rather than a genuine choice
and is often lower quality than full-time employment
(Kauhanen and Nätti, 2015).
For similar reasons, we further differentiate ‘pure’
breadwinners by whether the jobless partner is unem-
ployed or inactive. We might expect lower well-being
under the former, since male unemployment is gener-
ally associated with the biggest psychological costs,
such as self-doubt, uncertainty, loneliness, and stigma
(e.g. Winkelmann and Winkelmann, 1998; Knabe and
Rätzel, 2011). Additionally, unemployment is (presum-
ably) undesired, whereas inactivity may reect a choice
to, for instance, spend more time with family (our sam-
ple excludes individuals who are inactive for health
or disability reasons, which is associated with lower
well-being, e.g. Stam et al., 2016). Alternatively, pure
female-breadwinner couples’ well-being may be low
regardless of his labour force status. Either way, the
couple’s arrangement is gender-atypical. Inactivity can
also be unplanned and unchosen due to, for example,
needing to suddenly care for an ailing relative or a lack
of affordable childcare. Furthermore, many inactive
men are the ‘discouraged unemployed’: individuals
who exited from unemployment by redening them-
selves as ‘inactive’. In our sample, 78% of inactive men
report having searched for employment in the last 5
years (versus 36% of inactive women).
Our results indeed underscore the importance of dif-
ferentiating female-breadwinner couples by the man’s
labour force status to account for the psychological,
social, and symbolic dimensions of male employment—
especially for men themselves—beyond absolute and
relative incomes. We nd evidence of a female-bread-
winner well-being ‘penalty’: life satisfaction is lower
when she is breadwinning versus if he is the sole, main,
or joint breadwinner.1 While this penalty is narrow
when he is part-time employed, it is large when he is
jobless, especially if he is unemployed.
Crucially, we observe variation by respondents’ gen-
der. After controlling for compositional characteristics
and partners’ relative incomes, the penalty becomes
negligible for women while remaining sizeable for men.
In fact, jobless men’s well-being is higher when their
female partner is also jobless rather than employed. We
conclude that men attach greater importance to their
own over their partner’s employment status; moreo-
ver, her breadwinner status seemingly threatens jobless
men’s perceptions of their masculinity and amplies the
negative well-being consequences of their own jobless-
ness. Cross-national comparisons indicate that while
this well-being penalty is near universal, it is largest in
more conservative societies.
Theoretical expectations
Six hypotheses underpin our research (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 1 posits that life satisfaction is lowest for
couples in which partners perform similar roles to one
another, i.e. dual-earner couples (both in market work)
and jobless couples (both in the home). Life satisfac-
tion is highest for single or ‘pure’ breadwinner cou-
ples, when each partner ‘specializes’ in either market
work or domestic work (Becker, 1985). According to
the ‘time-availability’ perspective (e.g. Presser, 1994),
complementarity between partners mitigates the stress
of each trying to balance a job and domestic responsi-
bilities, which leaves both partners with more time for
leisure (e.g. Jacobs and Gerson, 2004). Specialization
may also enhance interdependence and mutual obli-
gation between partners (Blom and Hewitt, 2020).
Technically, this theory is gender-neutral: it should not
matter who specializes in what.
H1 (role specialization): Life satisfaction is lowest
for dual-earner and jobless couples, moderate for
one-and-a-half breadwinner couples, and highest
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

3THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
for pure-breadwinner couples, with equally high
satisfaction for pure male-breadwinner and pure
female-breadwinner couples.
Hypothesis 2 is based on ‘role collaboration’
(Rogers, 2004): life satisfaction is highest when part-
ners share similar labour market experiences, lead
similar daily lives, and hold a similar labour force sta-
tus. Such similarities may promote empathy, mutual
understanding, emotional intimacy, and cooperation
between partners—with benets for their well-being
(Blom and Hewitt, 2020). Therefore, reecting their
dissimilar daily lives and experiences, pure-breadwin-
ner couples should report lower life satisfaction than
two-breadwinner couples, regardless of the sole bread-
winner’s gender. One-and-a-half breadwinner couples
should report moderate well-being—again, regardless
of the main breadwinner’s gender—given their partial
role collaboration.
According to this theory, pure-breadwinner cou-
ples should have lower life satisfaction than even
jobless couples (although jobless couples have lower
well-being than dual earners given the disadvan-
tages of worklessness, discussed below). Compared
Life satisfaction
Hypothesis 1 (role specialisation)
Men Women
Life satisfaction
Hypothesis 4 (autonomy)
Men Women
Life satisfaction
Men Women
Hypothesis 3 (shared fate)
Life satisfaction
Hypothesis 5 (gender-role ideology)
Men and women in conservative countries
Men and women in progressive countries
Life satisfaction
Hypothesis 2 (role collaboration)
Men Women
MBW,
unemployed
woman
MBW,
inactive woman
FBW,
unemployed man
FBW,
inactive
man
Life satisfaction
Hypotheses 6a (inactive/unemployed)
and 6b (inactive/unemployed + gender)
Men and women under H6a
Men and women under H6b
Figure 1 Hypothesized patterns of life satisfaction by couples’ breadwinning arrangement.
Notes: ‘MBW’ = only man is employed. ‘1.5MBW’ = man works ≥30 h per week, woman works <30 h. ‘DE’ = both partners are employed for a
similar number of hours. ‘1.5FBW’ = woman works ≥30 h, man works <30 h. ‘FBW’ = only woman is employed. ‘JL’ = both partners are jobless.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

4KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
with pure-breadwinner couples, jobless couples share
more similar labour market experiences, social sta-
tus, and daily routines—which should foster empa-
thy (Luhmann et al., 2014). What is more, someone
experiencing joblessness may perceive themselves more
positively if their partner is also jobless, since jobless-
ness becomes the household norm and less ‘deviant’
(Clark, 2003). By contrast, under the pure-bread-
winner arrangement, the jobless partner must watch
their partner ‘go out to work’ every day, which may
heighten feelings of guilt and inadequacy. This can in
turn impact negatively on the breadwinning partner’s
well-being, whether directly (‘your pain is my pain’)
and/or indirectly (e.g. through tension in the house-
hold) (e.g. Demerouti et al., 2005; Song et al., 2011).
H2 (role collaboration): Life satisfaction is highest
for dual-earner couples, moderate for one-and-a-
half breadwinner and jobless couples, and lowest
for pure-breadwinner couples, with equally low
satisfaction for pure male-breadwinner and pure
female-breadwinner couples.
Hypothesis 3 instead posits that jobless couples will
experience lower well-being than pure-breadwinner
couples (and two-breadwinner couples). Couples face
greater uncertainty and nancial insecurity when two
people are out of work rather than just one. A partner’s
joblessness may further deplete a jobless individual’s
‘coping resources’, who must support the partner’s
psychological well-being on top of dealing with their
own joblessness (Inanc, 2018). Conversely, having an
employed partner can alleviate some of the negative
well-being consequences of one’s own joblessness
through access to pooled household resources (e.g.
higher household income, the employed partner’s net-
works). Moreover, individuals often incorporate their
romantic partner into their own identity and self-
worth (‘shared fate’). Under the pure-breadwinner
arrangement, then, the jobless partner may take pride
in and feel partly responsible for their partner’s suc-
cesses, with their own joblessness paling in importance
(Pinkus et al., 2012).
H3 (shared fate): Life satisfaction is lowest for job-
less couples.
An additional relevant theoretical approach is the
‘autonomy perspective’ (e.g. Gupta, 2007; Tisch,
2021): life satisfaction depends only on one’s own
employment status and is unrelated to the partner’s
employment status. Having a ‘good’ job is associated
with the highest life satisfaction (and job satisfaction,
e.g. Drobnič et al., 2010); yet any job typically offers
pecuniary and non-pecuniary benets over jobless-
ness, especially unemployment (e.g. Winkelmann and
Winkelmann, 1998). Employment also provides social
connections, which predict higher life satisfaction
(Stiglitz et al., 2009), while earnings allow for social
participation (e.g. going out with friends, attending
gym classes). We further expect that full-time employed
individuals should have higher life satisfaction than
part-time employed individuals, again, independent of
gender. Full-timers generally have higher earnings, bet-
ter job security, greater access to statutory and occu-
pational benets, and improved training opportunities
(Kauhanen and Nätti, 2015).
H4 (autonomy): Life satisfaction increases the
‘more’ employed one is—regardless of the partner’s
employment status:
• Men report equally low satisfaction in pure
female-breadwinner and jobless couples, moder-
ate satisfaction in one-and-a-half female-bread-
winner couples, and equally high satisfaction in
male-breadwinner (both pure and one-and-a-half)
and dual-earner couples.
• Women report equally high satisfaction in
female-breadwinner (both pure and one-and-a-
half) and dual-earner couples, moderate satisfac-
tion in one-and-a-half male-breadwinner couples,
and equally low satisfaction in pure male-bread-
winner and jobless couples.
Hypothesis 5 draws on ‘gender-role ideology’. It
predicts lower life satisfaction for men under the
female-breadwinner arrangement versus all other cou-
ple-types due to the gendered meanings attached to
breadwinning. Providing nancially for their families
is part of how men ‘do gender’ (West and Zimmerman,
1987). While cultural norms increasingly dictate that
men will be involved in family life, it is expected that
they are breadwinners rst (Ranson, 2010): this is how
men exhibit ‘good’ fathering (Townsend, 2002). Thus,
staying ‘in the home’—the domain historically associ-
ated with femininity—threatens men’s perceptions of
their masculinity (Meisenbach, 2010); and yet, mascu-
linity is a strong predictor of men’s sense of self and
well-being (e.g. Burkley et al., 2015). Jobless men may
also be vulnerable to isolation and loneliness, since
they are less likely than women to have community or
care-based social networks to draw upon (e.g. Russell,
1999).
H5 likewise predicts lower life satisfaction for
women under the female-breadwinner versus alterna-
tive arrangements. This partly reects the ‘crossover’ of
the jobless man’s lower well-being to his partner (e.g.
Baranowska-Rataj and Strandh, 2021), with women
more adversely affected by a partner’s unemployment
than men (e.g. Inanc, 2018). It also reects the mis-
match between cultural ideals of ‘good’ mothering
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

5THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
and the breadwinner role. The ‘intensive mothering’
ideology prescribes that dependent children’s needs
are prioritized, that the ‘best’ childcare is emotionally
absorbing and labour intensive, and that the mother—
not the father—performs these tasks, regardless of her
labour force participation (Hays, 1996). However, in
seeking to protect the family’s main income source,
breadwinner women may signal their ‘ideal’ worker sta-
tus by, for example, working longer hours or taking on
additional responsibilities that clash with homelife—
despite breadwinner women’s higher average domestic
loads than breadwinner men (e.g. Latshaw and Hale,
2016). Relatedly, research has found that breadwin-
ner women with jobless and part-time employed male
partners enjoy less leisure and sleep/personal care time
on average than their male partners and women in
male-breadwinner couples (Latshaw and Hale, 2016).
They also report higher stress than full-time employed
fathers with stay-at-home wives (Zimmerman, 2000).
These stresses and strains may, in turn, crossover to
their male partners, thereby reinforcing jobless men’s
lower well-being under the female-breadwinner
arrangement.
In highlighting social and cultural factors, H5 alludes
to cross-national variation. The lower life satisfaction
associated with the female-breadwinner couple-type
should be amplied in stronger male-breadwinner
contexts, where societal-level beliefs, norms, and
expectations and/or policies continue to cast men as
breadwinners (Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain, United
Kingdom; see ‘Data and Method’ for more detail). Here,
the stresses associated with female-breadwinner cou-
ples’ gender-atypicality should be greater. Their devi-
ation from prevailing gender norms and expectations
may lead to social sanctions and stigma—for example,
ridicule, gossiping, criticism—which consolidate feel-
ings of shame and impact negatively these couples’ sense
of social identity (Stam et al., 2016; Gonalons-Pons
and Gangl, 2021). We anticipate a weaker association
between female breadwinning and life satisfaction in
more progressive countries with greater policy support
for the dual-earner model (Finland, France) or where
women’s labour force participation is part of the social
fabric (Portugal, Slovenia).
H5 (gender-role ideology): Life satisfaction is lowest
for women and men in female-breadwinner couples,
especially in more conservative country contexts.
Hypotheses 6a and 6b focus strictly on pure-breadwin-
ner couples. H6a posits that life satisfaction depends
on whether the jobless partner in these couples is
‘unemployed’ or ‘inactive’. Studies generally nd that
unemployment is associated with bigger declines
in well-being than inactivity (e.g. Stam et al., 2016).
Furthermore, when the jobless partner is unemployed,
they are (presumably) seeking to ‘specialize’ in market
work again, which may lead to role conict from both
partners trying to balance paid work/job-seeking and
domestic work (Rao, 2020). Conversely, when the job-
less partner is inactive, couples may experience reduced
role conict, especially if the inactive partner ‘special-
izes’ in domestic work and frees up the employed part-
ner’s time and energy for their paid job.
H6b instead posits that female-breadwinner couples
always report lower well-being than male-breadwinner
couples regardless of his labour force status. Like H5,
H6b underlines the importance of gender. Arguably,
male inactivity is just as ‘deviant’ as male unemploy-
ment from the male-provider role, if not more so when
the inactive man is a homemaker or stay-at-home
parent and explicitly assigned a feminized role. By
contrast, when the male partner is unemployed, he is
presumably seeking to (re-)enter employment and ‘do
masculinity’ again; hence, female-breadwinner cou-
ples do not necessarily ‘undo’ the gendered division
of domestic responsibilities on the assumption he will
soon nd employment again and things will be ‘back to
normal’ (Legerski and Cornwall, 2010).
H6b anticipates higher well-being under the
male-breadwinner versus female-breadwinner arrange-
ment even when the former is due to her unemploy-
ment. Women typically have stronger neighbourhood
and kinship links than men to draw upon during unem-
ployment, particularly those (re)produced through
performing family responsibilities, such as the ‘school
run’ or ‘playdates’ (Russell, 1999). Additionally, social
norms and patterns make it more acceptable for unem-
ployed women than unemployed men to engage in
alternate roles that provide purpose and self-esteem,
like ‘parent’, ‘carer’, or ‘volunteer’ (Waters and Moore,
2002).
H6a (inactive/unemployed): Among pure-bread-
winner couples, life satisfaction is higher when the
jobless partner is inactive rather than unemployed,
regardless of the breadwinner’s gender.
H6b (inactive/unemployed + gender): Life satisfac-
tion is always lower when she rather than he is the
only breadwinner, regardless of the jobless partner’s
labour force status.
Data and method
We include nine countries with sufcient female-bread-
winner couples aggregated from Rounds 2–9 of the
European Social Survey (ESS) and that are repre-
sentative of different welfare and gender regimes
(Supplementary Table S1). Despite male-breadwin-
ner tendencies—such as a home-care allowance for
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

6KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
stay-at-home parents (read: mothers)—Finland repre-
sents the dual-earner (e.g. Korpi et al., 2013) or ‘weak’
male-breadwinner society (Lewis, 1992). Feminist
scholars have likewise identied greater support for
women’s employment in France (e.g. Saraceno and
Keck, 2010); yet, certain similarities with Continental
European countries—such as on gender attitudes,
women’s employment rates, and taxes (Supplementary
Table S1)—make France a ‘moderate’ male-breadwin-
ner model. Meanwhile, Germany, Great Britain, and
Ireland share a strong (albeit fading) male-bread-
winner legacy (Lewis, 1992), although cultural and
policy support for women’s caregiving is strongest in
(Western) Germany (Leitner, 2003; Supplementary
Table S1). Great Britain and Ireland instead rely
heavily on market provision of childcare and other
welfare, meaning (mostly lower-skilled) women are
sometimes unable to afford to take a paid job, despite
the strong ‘welfare-to-work’ rhetoric (e.g. Korpi et al.,
2013).
We include representatives from Southern and
Eastern Europe, too. In Portugal and Spain, support
for women’s caregiving is more ‘implicit’ (Leitner,
2003). Underdeveloped state and market-based care
services and benets to nancially support the fami-
ly’s caring function, amid strong inter-generational
and gendered caregiving norms, leave care work to
the family (women) ‘by default’ (Saraceno and Keck,
2010; Supplementary Table S1). Still, cultural and pol-
icy support for women’s employment since the exodus
of men to ght in the colonial wars has kept wom-
en’s employment participation comparatively high in
Portugal, despite women’s disproportionate share of
family labour (Tavora, 2012; Supplementary Table S1).
Slovenia also has comparatively high female labour
force participation, although this partly reects more
developed family policies. Poland instead lags behind
and is more traditional (Javornik, 2014; Supplementary
Table S1).
We model life satisfaction separately for men and
women via linear regression using individual-level,
weighted data. Our sample (N = 20,850 men and
N = 22,028 women) comprises working-age (18–
65) households with a ‘male’ and ‘female’ partner,
whether married/unmarried or with/without chil-
dren. We exclude couples living with other adults
who are not their children and couples in which one
or both partners are in education, permanently sick/
disabled, retired, or in community or military service.
Our dependent variable, life satisfaction, is based
on responses to: ‘All things considered, how satis-
ed are you with your life as a whole nowadays?’
Answers range from 0 (‘extremely dissatised’) to 10
(‘extremely satised’), with sample averages of 7.24
for men and 7.31 for women.
In the rst set of analyses, we pool data for all coun-
tries and estimate life satisfaction as a function of cou-
ple-type (‘pooled analyses’) across four models (see
below). In the second set of analyses, we interact cou-
ple-type with country2 (‘country comparisons’). The
country comparisons are based on Model 2 only (see
below). Altogether, we have six couple-types:
1. ‘Pure’ male breadwinner (MBW): employed man,
jobless woman.
2. ‘One-and-a-half’ male breadwinner (1.5MBW):
full-time employed man (≥30 h per week), part-
time employed woman (<30 h).
3. Dual-earner (DE): man and woman employed for
similar hours.
4. ‘One-and-a-half’ female breadwinner (1.5FBW):
full-time employed woman, part-time employed
man.
5. ‘Pure’ female breadwinner (FBW): employed
woman, jobless man.
6. Jobless couples (JL): both jobless.
Table 1 shows the shares of couple-type by coun-
try. Due to small sample sizes, ‘one-and-a-half’
female-breadwinner couples are excluded from the
country comparisons; hence, these analyses are based
on couple-types 1–3, 5, and 6 only. Supplementary
Tables S2a and S2b present descriptive statistics for
the couple-types across the pooled sample of coun-
tries and survey waves for men and women, respec-
tively. We acknowledge that our analyses do not
claim causal links between transitions into and out of
employment and life satisfaction; rather, they describe
the cross-sectional association between both partners’
employment statuses and life satisfaction at the time
of the survey.
Our four models are as follows. Model 1 controls
for country and survey wave only. Model 2 then adds
several controls: partners’ ages, as life satisfaction is
U-shaped over the life course; partners’ education
levels, as education and well-being are associated; a
child under two and number of children, since having
younger and more children is associated with lower life
satisfaction (Layard et al., 2012); whether the respond-
ent is married (positively related to life satisfaction),
foreign-born, and in poor health (both associated with
lower life satisfaction) (Layard et al., 2012); domicile,
as living in urban contexts is associated with lower life
satisfaction (Weckroth and Kemppainen, 2021); total
household income, since higher incomes are associ-
ated with higher life satisfaction (Layard et al., 2012)
and female-breadwinner couples have lower aver-
age incomes (e.g. Kowalewska and Vitali, 2021); and
respondents’ feelings about their household income
nowadays to encompass a broader range of needs and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

7THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
resources (e.g. publicly funded childcare) than objec-
tive household income.
The sample sizes permitted by pooling data for
all countries and waves allow for including ‘one-
and-a-half’ female-breadwinner couples and several
robustness checks. To account for possible attitudinal
variation across and within countries and couple-types,
Model 3 adds a control based on dis/agreement with:
‘When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to
jobs than women’. Model 4 adds a control for part-
ners’ relative incomes based on responses to: ‘Around
how large a proportion of the household income do
you provide yourself?’ We run Models 3 and 4 on a
restricted sample from Rounds 2 and 5 (N = 5,192 men
and 5,650 women), since these are the only ESS rounds
in which data on relative incomes are collected.
The pooled sample also provides adequate sample size
to assess how well-being varies for pure female-bread-
winner versus pure male-breadwinner couples by
whether the jobless partner is unemployed (‘actively
looking for job’) or inactive (‘not actively looking for
job’/‘doing housework, looking after children or other
persons’). Thus, we replicate Model 2 using four couple
subtypes as our main independent variable: (i) MBW,
W unempl: employed man, unemployed woman; (ii)
MBW, W inact: employed man, inactive woman; (iii)
FBW, M unempl: employed woman, unemployed man;
(iv) FBW, M inact: employed woman, inactive man.
Results
Pooled analyses
Figure 2 displays life satisfaction as a function of our
six main couple-types based on the pooled data for all
countries and waves. Supplementary Table S3 reports
the coefcient estimates. Using these estimates, Table
2 shows the results of pairwise comparison tests to
assess whether differences in life satisfaction between
pairs of couple-types (based on Model 2) are statisti-
cally signicant. A positive (negative) difference indi-
cates higher (lower) average life satisfaction in the rst
couple-type.
Before compositional controls (Model 1), men and
women never report higher life satisfaction when
one partner is employed (MBW/FBW) versus both
(1.5MBW/DE/1.5FBW).3 While introducing individual
Table 1 Distribution of household-level employment arrangements among heterosexual couples by country (male and female
respondents combined), %
PT ES SI IE FI PL FR DE GB Total
Share of couple-type
MBW 27.45 34.23 15.04 33.39 14.07 28.67 16.62 21.80 18.10 22.55
1.5MBW 5.48 9.19 3.31 18.51 5.03 5.64 12.68 29.58 26.99 18.62
DE 54.33 44.65 72.46 34.76 73.62 58.34 62.80 42.38 47.96 50.82
1.5FBW 2.15 1.34 1.65 1.79 1.87 0.85 1.99 1.44 2.15 1.67
FBW 6.18 5.84 5.53 4.57 4.01 3.92 3.56 2.61 2.39 3.54
JL 4.41 4.74 2.01 6.98 1.40 2.57 2.36 2.20 2.40 2.80
N 3,366 5,264 2,407 5,605 5,271 3,461 4,832 7,508 5,164 42,878
Single-breadwinner couples by the jobless partner’s labour force status
Male breadwinner, unemployed woman 29.71 14.83 19.59 6.06 21.50 12.19 22.92 7.38 6.18 12.90
Male breadwinner, inactive woman 70.29 85.17 80.41 93.94 78.50 87.81 77.08 92.62 93.82 87.10
N 942 1804 361 1846 743 977 789 1528 941 9931
Female breadwinner, unemployed man 78.06 75.18 54.13 64.22 61.39 62.80 71.35 56.22 59.49 66.66
Female breadwinner, inactive man 21.94 24.82 45.87 35.78 38.61 37.20 28.65 43.78 40.51 33.34
N 213 301 133 264 210 139 178 215 122 1,775
Jobless couples by partners’ labour force statuses
Both partners are unemployed 38.63 30.14 18.98 18.61 38.49 31.93 15.94 20.12 18.82 23.52
Both partners are inactive 32.72 17.68 43.62 31.33 27.33 23.74 22.86 32.77 25.22 24.91
Unemployed man, inactive woman 26.68 47.65 31.32 47.72 27.41 40.28 57.51 43.36 47.53 46.90
Inactive man, unemployed woman 1.96 4.53 6.08 2.35 6.77 4.05 3.69 3.75 8.43 4.68
N 148 247 48 396 74 87 111 188 125 1,424
Notes: ‘MBW’ = man is employed, woman is not. ‘1.5MBW’ = man works ≥30 h per week, woman works <30 h per week. ‘DE’ = both
members of the couple are employed for a similar number of hours. ‘1.5FBW’ = woman works ≥30 h per week, man works <30 h per week.
‘FBW’ = woman is employed, man is not. ‘JL’ = neither partner is in employment. Country legend: PT = Portugal, ES = Spain, SI = Slovenia,
IE = Ireland, FI = Finland, PL = Poland, FR = France, DE = Germany, GB = Great Britain.
Source: European Social Survey, Rounds 2 (2004) to 9 (2018).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

8KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
and couple-level controls (Model 2) reduces this gap,
it does not eliminate it (Figure 2). So, against H1 (role
specialization), couples report higher life satisfaction
when partners share breadwinning versus when only
one partner ‘specializes’ in it.
Higher life satisfaction for two-breadwinner versus
single-breadwinner couples seemingly supports H2
(role collaboration); yet, the breadwinner’s gender
matters more than this hypothesis predicts. Following
H5 (gender-role ideology), life satisfaction increases as
5 6 7 8
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
1.5FBW
FBW
JL
Model 1
5 6 7 8
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
1.5FBW
FBW
JL
Model 2
Men
5 6 7 8
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
1.5FBW
FBW
JL
Model 1
5 6 7 8
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
1.5FBW
FBW
JL
Model 2
Women
Figure 2 Predicted life satisfaction scores by couple-type, separate models for men and women, pooled sample for nine European
countries (N = 20,850 for men, N = 22,028 for women).
Notes: ‘MBW’ = man is employed, woman is not. ‘1.5MBW’ = man works ≥30 h, woman works <30 h. ‘DE’ = both members of the couple
are employed a similar number of hours. ‘1.5FBW’ = woman works ≥30 h, man works <30 hours. ‘FBW’ = woman is employed, man is not.
‘JL’ = jobless couple. Model 1 = the ‘null’ model, i.e., with no controls. Model 1 includes controls for country and survey wave. Model 2 adds
basic socioeconomic and sociodemographic controls. Supplementary Table S3 reports the coefficient estimates. Table 2 reports the statistical
significance of differences across coefficient estimates.
Source: European Social Survey, Rounds 2 (2004) to 9 (2018).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

9THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
the couple’s breadwinning conguration approaches
the male-breadwinner norm and decreases as it
strays further from it. More specically, we identify
a female-breadwinner well-being ‘penalty’: men and
women report lower well-being when she is bread-
winning versus if he is or breadwinning is shared. For
all pairwise comparisons, this female-breadwinner
well-being penalty is stronger for men than women
(Table 2). The pairwise comparisons also indicate that
the compositional factors controlled for in Model
2 explain some of this penalty, as the penalty is gen-
erally smaller than in Model 1. Indeed, the inclusion
of compositional factors in Model 2 increases the
adjusted R2 by 0.112 for men and 0.115 for women
(Supplementary Table S3).
The female-breadwinner well-being penalty appears
to be associated mainly with the ‘pure’ female-bread-
winner model, under which the male partner is jobless,
rather than the ‘one-and-a-half’ female-breadwinner
couple, under which he is part-time employed. Men
in one-and-a-half female-breadwinner couples report
only negligibly lower life satisfaction than men in dual-
earner and male-breadwinner couples (1.5FBW < DE:
−0.088, 1.5FBW < MBW: −0.063; 1.5FBW < 1.5MBW:
−0.130; all P < 0.10; Table 2). Women likewise report
only slightly lower well-being, if not higher well-being,
under the one-and-a-half female-breadwinner arrange-
ment compared with the dual-earner and male-bread-
winner alternatives (1.5FBW < DE: −0.016; 1.5FBW
< 1.5MBW: −0.100; 1.5FBW > MBW: 0.061; all P <
0.10). Altogether, these ndings offer limited support
for H2 (role collaboration).
Further against H2, both partners’ well-being is lower
(P < 0.05)—rather than the same—when she is the sole
breadwinner instead of him, especially for men (FBW
< MBW: −0.567 for men and −0.240 for women; Table
2). Lower well-being under the ‘pure’ female-bread-
winner versus ‘pure’ male-breadwinner arrangement
also provides evidence against H3 (shared fate). In
fact, jobless couples report higher well-being than
pure female-breadwinner couples (JL > FBW: 0.200, P
< 0.05 for men and 0.157, P < 0.10 for women) but
lower well-being than pure male-breadwinner couples
(JL < MBW: −0.367, P < 0.05 for men and −0.083, P <
0.10 for women)—again, with stronger effects for men.
Overall, the results indicate men’s well-being is
more closely tied to their own employment status
than their partner’s. This pattern ts with H4 (auton-
omy hypothesis). While men prefer to hold or equally
share breadwinner status over the female-breadwinner
arrangement, well-being differences by couple-type are
negligible for men as long as he has a job (1.5FBW <
MBW: −0.063; 1.5FBW < 1.5MBW: −0.130; 1.5FBW <
DE: −0.088; DE < 1.5MBW: −0.042; DE < MBW:0.025;
1.5MBW > MBW: 0.067; all P < 0.10; Table 2). The
biggest (P < 0.05) differences in life satisfaction for
men are in couple-types where he is jobless rather than
employed (FBW < MBW: −0.567; FBW < 1.5MBW:
−0.634; FBW < DE: −0.592; FBW < 1.5FBW: −0.504;
JL < MBW: −0.367; JL < 1.5MBW: −0.434; JL < DE:
−0.393; JL < 1.5FBW: −0.305).
Unlike for men, women’s well-being is always higher
when both partners are employed instead of just her.
Her own employment status is relevant for her well-be-
ing (e.g. DE > MBW: 0.076, P < 0.05; 1.5MBW >
MBW: 0.161, P < 0.05; Table 2), and some ndings
for women do align with the autonomy hypothesis
(e.g. 1.5FBW > MBW: 0.061, P < 0.10). Still, the evi-
dence for women is, overall, less in favour of H4 and
more against it. As aforementioned, women prefer that
he is the sole breadwinner instead of her, in accord-
ance with H5 (gender-role ideology). Breadwinning
women also have lower average life satisfaction—and
not higher satisfaction, as H4 would predict—than
women in one-and-a-half male-breadwinner cou-
ples (FBW < 1.5MBW: −0.401, P < 0.05; 1.5FBW <
Table 2. Pairwise comparisons of predictive margins from Model
2 in Figure 2
Men Women
Diff. SE Diff. SE.
1.5MBW vs. MBW 0.067†0.043 0.161* 0.042
DE vs. MBW 0.025†0.033 0.076* 0.033
1.5FBW vs. MBW −0.063†0.090 0.061†0.105
FBW vs. MBW −0.567* 0.065 −0.240* 0.067
JL vs. MBW −0.367* 0.075 −0.083†0.075
DE vs. 1.5MBW −0.042†0.038 −0.084* 0.037
1.5FBW vs. 1.5MBW −0.130†0.092 −0.100†0.106
FBW vs. 1.5MBW −0.634* 0.069 −0.401* 0.070
JL vs. 1.5MBW −0.434* 0.080 −0.244* 0.080
1.5FBW vs. DE −0.088†0.087 −0.016†0.102
FBW vs. DE −0.592* 0.062 −0.316* 0.065
JL vs. DE −0.393* 0.075 −0.160* 0.076
FBW vs. 1.5FBW −0.504* 0.104 −0.301* 0.119
JL vs. 1.5FBW −0.305* 0.112 −0.144†0.125
JL vs. FBW 0.200* 0.089 0.157†0.093
Notes: *<0.05; †<0.10. ‘MBW’ = man is employed, woman is not.
‘1.5MBW’ = man works ≥30 hours per week, woman works <30
hours per week. ‘DE’ = both members of the couple are employed
for a similar number of hours. ‘1.5FBW’ = woman works ≥30
hours, man works <30 hours. ‘FBW’ = woman is employed, man
is not. ‘JL’ = neither partner is in employment. Comparisons are
based on a linear regression model estimating life satisfaction as
a function of couple-type, separately for men and women, and
controlling for country, survey wave, and basic socioeconomic
and sociodemographic characteristics (Model 2 in Figure 2 and
Supplementary Table S3).
Source: European Social Survey, Rounds 2 (2004) to 9 (2018).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

10 KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
1.5MBW: −0.100, P < 0.10). Further against H4,
breadwinner women report lower (not similar) life
satisfaction than women in dual-earner couples (FBW
< DE: −0.316, P < 0.05; 1.5FBW < DE: −0.016, P <
0.10), and higher (not similar) well-being when their
partner has a part-time rather than no job (FBW <
1.5FBW: −0.301, P < 0.05).
Country comparisons
Figure 3 displays well-being for men and women sep-
arately as a function of couple-type interacted with
country (excluding one-and-a-half female-breadwin-
ner couples due to insufcient sample sizes by country).
Again, we formally test whether differences between
coefcients (Supplementary Table S4) are statistically
signicant through pairwise comparisons of life satis-
faction (Supplementary Table S5).
Overall, the country-level analyses provide mixed
support for H5 (gender-role ideology). Some results
for men fail to support H5. While the well-being
penalty associated with the pure female-breadwin-
ner arrangement is smallest for men in Portugal and
Slovenia, it is also small for men in more traditional
Poland (e.g. FBW < MBW: −0.103 for Portugal,
−0.212 for Slovenia, and −0.257 for Poland; all P <
0.10; Supplementary Table S5). Further against H5,
the well-being penalty for men in pure female-bread-
winner couples is present across all nine countries,
including more gender-egalitarian France and Finland
(France: FBW < MBW: −0.586, FBW < 1.5MBW:
−0.882, and FBW < DE: −0.918; Finland: FBW <
MBW: −0.566, FBW < 1.5MBW: −0.589, and FBW <
DE: −0.669; all P < 0.05; Supplementary Table S5).
Additionally, men in France and Finland report higher
well-being under the jobless versus pure female-bread-
winner arrangement (JL > FBW: 0.342, P < 0.10 for
France and 0.657, P < 0.05 for Finland); yet, men in
France report lower well-being under the jobless ver-
sus pure male-breadwinner arrangement (JL < MBW:
−0.243, P < 0.05), while men in Finland report roughly
equal well-being under these two couple-types (JL >
MBW: 0.091, P < 0.10).
Other results do, however, support H5. Notably, the
well-being penalty is severest for men in more conserva-
tive contexts. In Germany, men report higher well-being
when both partners are employed instead of just him; yet,
their life satisfaction is 1.11–1.42 points (of 10) lower
when she is the sole breadwinner versus if he is the main
or sole breadwinner or breadwinning is equally shared
(Supplementary Table S5). Furthermore, although men
prefer that at least one partner is employed, the well-be-
ing disadvantage associated with the jobless couple-type
is smaller when compared with the pure female-bread-
winner arrangement—i.e. when he is jobless—versus
the pure male-breadwinner one (JL < FBW: −0.119, P <
0.10; JL < MBW: −1.231, P < 0.05).
The female-breadwinner well-being penalty is rel-
atively large in the other strong male-breadwinner
societies of Britain and Ireland as well as ‘implicitly’
familialist Spain (e.g. FBW < MBW: −0.616, P < 0.05
for Spain, −0.609, P < 0.05 for Ireland, and −0.423, P <
0.10 for Britain). Men’s well-being is generally highest
when they are employed with limited differences by the
female partner’s employment status (e.g. DE < MBW:
−0.087 for Spain, −0.087 for Ireland, and −0.035 for
Britain, all P < 0.10). In addition, men in Ireland and
Britain report lower well-being when both partners are
jobless versus if only she is (JL < MBW: Ireland: −0.571,
P < 0.05; GB: −0.200, P < 0.10; Supplementary Table
S5), but similar or higher well-being when both part-
ners are jobless versus if only he is (JL > FBW: 0.038,
P < 0.10 for Ireland and 0.223, P < 0.10 for GB).
Meanwhile, although men in Spain apparently prefer
the jobless couple-type, this preference is greater when
the alternative is the pure female-breadwinner arrange-
ment rather than the pure male-breadwinner one (JL
> FBW: 0.761, P < 0.05; JL > MBW: 0.145, P < 0.10).
Well-being by couple-type follows similar cross-na-
tional patterns for women as for men. However, as in
the pooled results, the well-being penalty associated with
the pure female-breadwinner arrangement is generally
smaller for women; hence, cross-national differences are
also smaller. Across most countries, women’s life satis-
faction is 0.05–0.24 points lower when she is the bread-
winner instead of him (P < 0.10; Supplementary Table
S5) except in Germany and Poland, where the penalty is
larger (−0.637 and −0.553, respectively; P < 0.05).
Robustness checks (pooled sample)
The sample sizes permitted by pooling all countries
allow for running various robustness checks. For
both men and women, results are robust to includ-
ing controls for gender-role attitudes (Model 3) and
partners’ relative incomes (Model 4 in Supplementary
Figure S1 and Supplementary Table S6a and b). Since
the latter control is collected in ESS Rounds 2 and 5
only, we replicate Model 1 (country and survey wave
controls) and Model 2 (Model 1 + compositional con-
trols) on the same restricted sample for comparability.
While controlling for compositional factors increases
the adjusted R2 for men and women (Model 2 versus
Model 1), including controls for gender-role attitudes
and relative incomes does not change the adjusted
R2 (Models 3 and 4 versus Model 2; Supplementary
Table S6a and b). Coefcients for Models 3 and 4 are
not statistically signicant either with one exception:
life satisfaction is higher for women, on average, when
she makes no contribution to total household income
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

11THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
5 6 7 8 95 6 7 8 9
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
DE ES FI FR GB
IE PL PT SI
Predicted Life Satisfaction
Men
5 6 7 8 95 6 7 8 9
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MBW
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MB
W
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MB
W
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MB
W
DE
FBW
JL
MBW
1.5MB
W
DE
FBW
JL
DE ES FI FR GB
IE PL PT SI
Predicted Life Satisfaction
Women
Figure 3 Predicted life satisfaction scores by couple-type and country, separate models for men and women (N = 20,429 for men, N =
21,716 for women)
Notes: ‘MBW’ = man is employed, woman is not. ‘1.5MBW’ = man works ≥30 h per week, woman works <30 h per week. ‘DE’ = both members
of the couple are employed a similar number of hours. ‘FBW’ = woman is employed, man is not. ‘JL’ = jobless couple. Basic socioeconomic and
sociodemographic controls are included (Model 2). Supplementary Table S4 reports the coefficient estimates. Supplementary Table S5 reports the
statistical significance of differences across coefficient estimates.
Source: European Social Survey, Rounds 2 (2004) to 9 (2018).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

12 KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
versus providing it all (P < 0.001; Supplementary
Table S6b).
The pairwise comparisons conrm these patterns.
For men, controlling for gender-role ideology and
relative incomes has a limited impact (Models 3 and
4 versus Model 2; Supplementary Table S7). In fact,
even after all controls, men remain signicantly and
substantially less pleased with how their lives are
going when she is the sole breadwinner (FBW < MBW:
−0.585; FBW < 1.5MBW: −0.712; FBW < DE: −0.653;
all P < 0.05 in Model 4). Therefore, we suggest that
for men, the female-breadwinner well-being penalty is
about more than compositional factors: it reects the
non-pecuniary costs of their joblessness, too.
Controlling for gender attitudes also has limited
impact on the pairwise comparisons for women (e.g.
FBW < MBW: −0.209, P < 0.10 in Model 2 versus
−0.210, P < 0.10 in Model 3; Supplementary Table
S7), although relative incomes seemingly play a (n
albeit limited) role. While other pairwise comparisons
show limited change from Models 2 to 4, including the
control for relative incomes virtually eliminates the
well-being penalty for women in pure female-bread-
winner couples versus pure male-breadwinner couples
(FBW > MBW: −0.209, P < 0.10 in Model 2 versus
0.048, P < 0.10 in Model 4) and jobless couples (JL
> FBW: 0.197, P < 0.10 in Model 2 versus 0.067, P <
0.10 in Model 4). For women, then, the gender ‘devi-
ance’ of her providing all the income instead of him
partly contributes to explaining the female-breadwin-
ner well-being penalty.
As a nal robustness check, we interact couple-type
by household income. Supplementary Figure S2 shows
that the results are robust to the household’s income
position: while the female-breadwinner well-being
penalty is largest when families are in the bottom 20%
of household incomes, the penalty persists even for
households in the top 20%.
Unemployment versus inactivity (pooled
sample)
Figure 4 focuses on pure-breadwinner couples to illu-
minate how well-being varies by whether the jobless
partner is unemployed or inactive. Supplementary
Tables S8 and S9 report the coefcients and pairwise
comparisons. Results indicate that the female-bread-
winner well-being penalty is driven mainly by male
unemployment. The well-being penalty associated
with the female-breadwinner versus male-breadwinner
model is largest—especially for men—when the former
is due to male unemployment and the latter is due to
female inactivity (FBW, M unemp < MBW, W inact:
−0.738 for men, P < 0.05 and −0.303 for women, P
< 0.05; Supplementary Table S9). As the male partner
is usually unemployed in pure female-breadwinner
couples, whereas the female partner is usually inactive
in pure male-breadwinner couples, it is unsurprising we
observe a large female-breadwinner well-being penalty
in the pooled sample and countries with high shares of
male-breadwinner/female-caregiver couples (Germany,
the United Kingdom, and Ireland; Table 1).
Other results reinforce the stronger association
between women’s breadwinning and low well-being
under male unemployment. Breadwinner women and
their jobless partners report higher life satisfaction when
he is inactive rather than unemployed (FBW, M inact >
FBW, M unemp: 0.491, P < 0.05 for men and 0.167,
P < 0.10 for women; Supplementary Table S9). When
the man is inactive, female breadwinning carries a much
smaller well-being penalty, if any (FBW, M inact < MBW,
W inact: −0.246, P < 0.05 for men and −0.136, P < 0.10
for women; FBW, M inact > MBW, W unemp: 0.066 for
men, P < 0.10 and 0.176 for women, P < 0.10).
Nevertheless there are gender differences. Men’s
well-being is lower under the female-breadwinner
versus male-breadwinner arrangement even when
both arrangements are due to unemployment (FBW,
M unemp < MBW, W unemp: −0.425, P < 0.05;
Supplementary Table S9), whereas women’s well-being
is no different (FBW, M unemp = MBW, W unemp).
So, unlike men, women appear as sharply affected by a
partner’s unemployment as by their own. Overall pat-
terns for women appear supportive of H6a: well-be-
ing is lower under the pure-breadwinner arrangement
when the jobless partner is unemployed rather than
inactive, with limited differences by the breadwinning
partner’s gender (Figure 4). For men, though, a combi-
nation of H6a and H6b explains the results: while men
in pure-breadwinner households prefer that the jobless
partner is inactive rather than unemployed, they would
rather be the breadwinning partner.
Discussion
In examining variation in subjective well-being by het-
erosexual couples’ breadwinning conguration, our
study adds to a growing literature showing an asso-
ciation between female breadwinning and lower life
satisfaction across industrialized countries (e.g. Rogers
and DeBoer, 2001; Hajdu and Hajdu, 2018; Salland,
2018; Gash and Plagnol, 2021). We nd evidence of
a female-breadwinner well-being ‘penalty’: men and
women are less satised with their lives when she is
the sole breadwinner versus if he is breadwinning or
breadwinning is shared. In dening breadwinning by
employment status rather than relative incomes and
comparing multiple countries, we uncover variation in
this penalty by country and the male partner’s labour
force status, with further differences by respondents’
gender.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

13THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
While female breadwinning yields a large pen-
alty when the male partner is jobless, the penalty is
smaller for men and negligible for women when he
is part-time employed after all controls. Although
these men may be involuntarily part-time employed,
prior research generally agrees that any job is bet-
ter than no job for well-being (e.g. Winkelmann and
Winkelmann, 1998). Potentially, part-time employ-
ment confers the man sufcient resources and bene-
ts—e.g. social contacts, independence, identity—to
lessen the potential ‘threat’ to masculinity posed
by the female partner’s breadwinner status. At the
same time, having a partner in part-time employ-
ment may reduce breadwinner women’s role strain
and stress from economically sustaining the family
while managing their (usually high share of) domes-
tic responsibilities (e.g. Latshaw and Hale, 2016).
However, we cannot rule out a potential selection
effect: for instance, the identities of men in this cou-
ple-type may emphasize non-work activities, mean-
ing their self-worth is less bound up in their careers
or holding breadwinner status. We also cannot rule
out preference adaptation among these part-time
employed men and their breadwinner partners.
The larger well-being penalty observed for
female-breadwinner couples in which the man is jobless
partly reects these couples’ composition. Compared
with two-earner and male-breadwinner couples,
these couples are more likely to have low household
incomes, be unmarried, be migrants, and nd it ‘dif-
cult’ or ‘very difcult’ to cope with their household
income. Additionally, a higher proportion of male part-
ners in this couple-type report ‘fair’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’
health and are low-educated (Supplementary Table
S2a and b). All these characteristics are associated with
lower life satisfaction (e.g. Layard et al., 2012); indeed,
controlling for them reduces the size of the well-be-
ing penalty (Model 2 versus Model 1 in Figure 2 and
Supplementary Table S3).
While results are robust to controlling for individ-
uals’ gender-role attitudes (Model 3), controlling for
partners’ relative incomes shrinks the female-bread-
winner well-being penalty further for women (Model
4, Supplementary Figure S1 and Supplementary Tables
5 6 7 8 9
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW, W unem
p
MBW, W inact
FBW, M unemp
FBW, M inact
Men
5 6 7 8 9
Predicted Life Satisfaction
MBW, W unem
p
MBW, W inact
FBW, M unemp
FBW, M inact
Women
Figure 4 Predicted life satisfaction scores for ‘pure’ breadwinner couples by whether the non-breadwinning partner is inactive or
unemployed, separate models for men and women, pooled sample for nine countries (N = 5,711 men, N = 5,995 women)
Notes: ‘MBW, W unemp’ = man is employed, woman is unemployed. ‘MBW, W inact’ = man is employed, woman is inactive. ‘FBW, M unemp’
= woman is employed, man is unemployed. ‘FBW, M inact’ = woman is employed, man is inactive. Basic socioeconomic and sociodemographic
controls are included (Model 2). Supplementary Table S8 reports the coefficient estimates; Supplementary Table S9 shows the statistical
significance of differences across coefficient estimates.
Source: European Social Survey, Rounds 2 (2004) to 9 (2018).
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

14 KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
S6a, b, and S7), to the extent women’s well-being is vir-
tually identical when either partner is the sole breadwin-
ner (FBW > MBW: 0.048, Model 4 in Supplementary
Table S7). Conversely, the well-being penalty associ-
ated with the pure female-breadwinner arrangement
remains sizeable for men even after all controls. We sug-
gest this remaining penalty reects the social and psy-
chological difculties experienced by jobless men with
breadwinner wives. As existing literature has shown,
joblessness carries a heavy psychological penalty for
men. Employment remains part of hegemonic mascu-
linity and male identity (Connell, 1995) while providing
non-pecuniary benets (Jahoda, 1982). These men may
face social sanctions and stigma for their gender-role
non-conformity, such as judgement or ridicule, so that
even men who personally hold gender-egalitarian views
can suffer stress from violating societal gender norms
(Gonalons-Pons and Gangl, 2021).
The country-level analyses indicate that the well-be-
ing penalty experienced by jobless men with breadwin-
ner partners is fairly universal. Although the penalty
is largest in countries with stronger male-breadwinner
norms—especially Germany—it is present in the less
traditional contexts of Finland and France, too. Even
here, jobless men with breadwinner partners are not
immune from the social stigma and psychological dif-
culties associated with their gender non-conformity.
While the female-breadwinner well-being penalty is
smaller still for men in Portugal, Poland, and Slovenia,
we suggest this is less to do with equality. Arguably,
it is reective of these countries’ low-wage economies,
which make two full-time wages essential for families’
survival (Sánchez-Mira and O’Reilly, 2019). Under
these circumstances, it is plausible that being in a sin-
gle-breadwinner couple carries such economic risk that
men’s concerns about gender (non)conformity take a
backseat. The smaller female-breadwinner well-being
penalty for men in these countries may also reect high
rates of female unemployment among male-breadwin-
ner couples (Table 1), which, as we show, is associated
with men’s lower well-being.
Prior studies based on specic country cases have
reached different conclusions regarding whether wom-
en’s life satisfaction is lower (e.g. Hajdu and Hajdu, 2018;
Salland, 2018) or the same under the female-breadwin-
ner arrangement versus the male-breadwinner model
(e.g. Rogers and DeBoer, 2001; Gash and Plagnol, 2021).
Our cross-national comparisons indicate that while
women generally report lower well-being when they
are the only breadwinner, this penalty is small across
most countries except for Germany and Poland. In fact,
Poland is the only country in which the female-bread-
winner well-being penalty for women exceeds that for
men. Descriptive statistics (not shown) reveal that in
Poland, breadwinner women with an inactive partner
report among the lowest average life satisfaction scores
across the pooled sample of countries and couple-types
(5.94), whereas their inactive male partners report
among the highest scores (7.12). Such gender dispari-
ties in life satisfaction within this same couple-type may
help to explain the larger female-breadwinner well-be-
ing penalty for Polish women than for Polish men. A
country-specic investigation could illuminate whether
these disparities are an artefact of the small ESS sample.
Poland aside, the female-breadwinner penalty is
smaller for women than men. What is more, jobless
men report higher well-being when their female part-
ner also has no job, whereas jobless women report
lower well-being when the male partner is out of paid
work rather than employed (Model 4, Supplementary
Figure S1 and Supplementary Tables S6a, b, and S7).
Therefore, net of average household income, women
apparently benet from their partner’s labour mar-
ket successes even when they themselves are jobless.
Conversely, a female partner’s breadwinner status
apparently represents a ‘threat’ to jobless men’s well-be-
ing and intensies the psychological costs of jobless-
ness for men. Watching their partner ‘go out to work’
every day while they stay home may heighten jobless
men’s feelings of guilt, inadequacy, boredom, and lone-
liness (Knabe et al., 2016) while increasing feelings of
‘deviating’ from social and gender norms (Clark, 2003;
Luhmann et al., 2014).
Analyses disaggregating single-breadwinner cou-
ples by the jobless partner’s labour force status high-
light another important gender difference: women
report similarly low well-being when either partner
is unemployed, whereas men prefer that she is unem-
ployed instead of him. These patterns t with previous
research showing that the ‘crossover’ effects of one’s
unemployment-related distress to one’s partner are
stronger for men than for women (e.g. Inanc, 2018;
Baranowska-Rataj and Strandh, 2021). Gender norms
mean heterosexual couples may perceive a male part-
ner’s unemployment as more urgent and serious than
hers and experience greater disappointment and dis-
approval from others (Gonalons-Pons and Gangl,
2021). Furthermore, in conforming with gendered
expectations of ‘selessness’ (e.g. Eagly, 1987), women
may go further than men in minimizing the crossover
of their unemployment-related distress to their part-
ner while also being more perceptive of—and nega-
tively impacted by—an unemployed partner’s low life
satisfaction.
Altogether, results suggest that men’s employment
status, and not just (relative) income, is important
for studies on female breadwinning. Results also sug-
gest that men’s adaptation to changing gender roles
lags women’s adaptation. Men continue to attach
great importance to being the breadwinner rather
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

15THE FEMALE-BREADWINNER WELL-BEING ‘PENALTY’
than the one who stays at home. Further progress
toward changing gendered norms around breadwin-
ning and the domestic sphere is critical, especially
since more and more families are likely to experience
female breadwinning amid increased labour market
insecurity.
Notes
1. Similar to Gash and Plagnol (2021), who identify a ‘psy-
chological penalty’ among secondary-earner men, ‘penalty’
denotes how individuals may be ‘penalized’ in terms of
experiencing lower well-being when she is the breadwin-
ner instead of him. It does not imply that female bread-
winning is the cause of this penalty; instead, the various
institutional, economic, and social disadvantages faced by
female-breadwinner couples are at the root.
2. Small sample sizes made subnational analyses
impracticable.
3. Differences between Model 1 coefcient estimates are sta-
tistically signicant.
Supplementary Data
Supplementary data are available at ESR online.
Acknowledgements
The authors are extremely grateful to three anon-
ymous referees and the journal editors for their
valuable comments and suggestions. The authors
additionally thank participants of the Family Policy
Research Group at the University of Oxford and the
GenPop group at the University of Bologna for their
helpful feedback.
Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and
Social Research Council (grant number ES/S016058/1).
References
Baranowska-Rataj, A. and Strandh, M. (2021). When things
go wrong with you, it hurts me too. Journal of European
Social Policy, 31, 143–160.
Becker, G. S. (1985). Human capital, effort, and the sexual divi-
sion of labour. Journal of Labour Economics, 3, S33–S58.
Blom, N. and Hewitt, B. (2020). Becoming a female‐breadwin-
ner household in Australia. Journal of Marriage and Family,
82, 1340–1357.
Booth, A. L. and Van Ours, J. C. (2013). Part-time jobs: what
women want? Journal of Population Economics, 26, 263–283.
Burkley, M., Wong, Y. J. and Bell, A. C. (2015). The masculinity
contingency scale(MCS). Psychology of Men and Masculin-
ity, 17, 113–125.
Clark, A. E. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm. Journal of
Labour Economics, 21, 323–351.
Connell R.W. (1995). Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell.
Demantas, I. and Myers, K. (2015). ‘Step up and be a man in a
different manner’: unemployed men reframing masculinity.
The Sociological Quarterly, 56, 640–664.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Spillo-
ver and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among
dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 67,
266–289.
Drobnič, S., Beham, B. and Präg, P. (2010). Good job, good life?
Social Indicators Research, 99, 205–225.
Eagly A.H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behaviour. Hills-
dale: Erlbaum.
Flèche, S., Lepinteur, A. and Powdthavee, N. (2020). Gender
norms, fairness and relative working hours within house-
holds. Labour Economics, 65, 101866.
Gash, V. and Plagnol, A. C. (2021). The partner pay gap. Work,
Employment and Society, 35, 566–583.
Glass, J. L., Raley, R. K. and Pepin, J. R. (2021). Children’s
nancial dependence on mothers. Socius, 7, 1–11.
doi:10.1177/23780231211055246.
Gonalons-Pons, P. and Gangl, M. (2021). Marriage and mascu-
linity: male-breadwinner culture, unemployment, and sepa-
ration risk in 29 countries. American Sociological Review,
86, 465–502.
Gupta, S. (2007). Autonomy, dependence, or display? Journal of
Marriage and Family Relations, 69, 399–417.
Hajdu, G. and Hajdu, T. (2018). Intra-couple income distri-
bution and subjective well-being. European Sociological
Review, 34, 138–156.
Hays S. (1996). The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Inanc, H. (2018). Unemployment, temporary work, and subjec-
tive well-being. American Sociological Review, 83, 536–566.
Jacobs J.A., Gerson K. (2004). The Time Divide. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Jahoda M. (1982). Employment and Unemployment. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Javornik, J. (2014). Measuring state de-familialism. Journal of
European Social Policy, 24, 240–257.
Kauhanen, M. and Nätti, J. (2015). Involuntary temporary and
part-time work, job quality and well-being at work. Social
Indicators Research, 120, 783–799.
Klesment, M. and Van Bavel, J. (2017). The reversal of the gen-
der gap in education, motherhood, and women as main
earners in Europe. European Sociological Review, 33,
465–481.
Knabe, A. and Rätzel, S. (2011). Quantifying the psychological
costs of unemployment. Applied Economics, 43, 2751–2763.
Knabe, A., Schöb, R. and Weimann, J. (2016). Partnership, gen-
der, and the well-being cost of unemployment. Social Indi-
cators Research, 129, 1255–1275.
Korpi, W., Ferrarini, T. and Englund, S. (2013). Women’s oppor-
tunities under different family policy constellations. Social
Politics, 20, 1–40.
Kowalewska, H. and Vitali, A. (2021). Breadwinning or on the
breadline? Female breadwinners’ economic characteristics
across 20 welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy,
31, 125–142.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023

16 KOWALEWSKA AND VITALI
Latshaw, B. A. and Hale, S. I. (2016). Stay-at-home fathers’
time-use in female breadwinner families. Journal of Family
Studies, 22, 97–120.
Layard R., Clark A., Senik C. (2012). The causes of happi-
ness and misery. In: Helliwell J., Layard R., Sachs J. (Eds.),
World Happiness Report. New York: Columbia Earth Insti-
tute, pp. 58–89.
Legerski, E. M. and Cornwall, M. (2010). Working‐class job
loss, gender, and the negotiation of household labour. Gen-
der and Society, 24, 447–474.
Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism. European Societies,
5, 353–375.
Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare
regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2, 159–173.
Luhmann, M. et al. (2014). Honey, I got red! A longitudinal
dyadic analysis of the effect of unemployment on life sat-
isfaction in couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 107, 163–180.
Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). The female breadwinner. Sex Roles,
62, 2–19.
Pinkus, R. T. et al. (2012). Responses to comparisons in roman-
tic relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 182–201.
Presser, H. B. (1994). Employment schedules among dual-earner
spouses and the division of household labour by gender.
American Sociological Review, 59, 348–364.
Ranson G. (2010). Against the Grain. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Rao A.H. (2020). Crunch Time. Oakland: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Rogers, S. J. (2004). Dollars, dependency, and divorce. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 66, 59–74.
Rogers, S. J. and DeBoer, D. D. (2001). Changes in wives’
income. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 458–472.
Russell, H. (1999). Friends in low places. Work, Employment
and Society, 13, 205–224.
Salland, J. (2018). Income comparison, gender roles and life sat-
isfaction. Applied Economics Letters, 25, 1436–1439.
Sánchez-Mira, N. and O’Reilly, J. (2019). Household employ-
ment and the crisis in Europe. Work, Employment and
Society, 33, 422–443.
Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergener-
ational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12,
675–696.
Song, Z. et al. (2011). Unravelling the daily stress crosso-
ver between unemployed individuals and their employed
spouses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 151–168.
Stam, K. et al. (2016). Employment status and subjective
well-being. Work, Employment and Society, 30, 309–333.
Stiglitz J.E., Sen A. and Fitoussi J.-P. (2009). Report by the Com-
mission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress. Paris: CMPEPS.
Tavora, I. (2012). The Southern European social model. Journal
of European Social Policy, 22, 63–76.
Tisch, D. (2021). My gain or your loss? Changes in within-cou-
ple relative wealth and partners’ life satisfaction. European
Sociological Review, 37, 271–286.
Townsend N. (2002). Package Deal. Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
versity Press.
Waters, L. E. and Moore, K. A. (2002). Predicting self-esteem
during unemployment. Journal of Employment Counsel-
ling, 39, 171–189.
Weckroth, M. and Kemppainen, T. (2021). (Un)Happiness, where
are you? Regional Studies, Regional Science, 8, 207–227.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender
and Society, 1, 125–151.
Williams, J. C., Blair-Loy, M. and Berdahl, J. L. (2013). Cultural
schemas, social class, and the exibility stigma. Journal of
Social Issues, 69, 209–234.
Winkelmann, L. and Winkelmann, R. (1998). Why are the
unemployed so unhappy? Economica, 65, 1–15.
Winlow S. (2001). Badfellas. Oxford: Berg.
Zimmerman, T. S. (2000). Marital equality and satisfaction
in stay-at-home mother and stay-at-home father families.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 23, 337–354.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/esr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/esr/jcad034/7190495 by University of Bath user on 08 June 2023