^s^'k^
ELSEVIER
Available online at www.sciencedlrect.com
ScienceDirect
Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
POETICS
www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic
Cultural participation and time restrictions
Explaining the frequency of individual and
joint cultural visits
Gerbert Kraaykamp *, Wouter van Gils, Wout Ultee
Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Available online 23 May 2008
Abstract
Research on cultural participation has as yet paid little attention to restrictions of time. This study uses
time constraints related to the working hours of couples to explain the frequency of their individual as well
as joint high-brow cultural participation. With data on 5438 respondents from four large-scale surveys in the
Netherlands, it shows that individuals in couples where both partners hold a full-time job visit significantly
fewer high-brow cultural events than people in couples with other work arrangements. Especially men who
work part time seem to participate in culture more compared to men who work full time. Moreover, in
households where the husband works part time, the wife's cultural participation is higher too. For joint
attendance at high-brow cultural events we find no evidence that working hours hamper visits. This indicates
that full-time working couples probably prioritize their joint cultural participation; as cultural activities
attended together are unaffected by their longer working hours.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction and research questions
This study looks at whether participation in high culture is affected by aspects of time.
Research on participation in cultural activities has mostly focused on distinction as a
consequence of an individual's social characteristics (Sobel, 1981; Bourdieu, 1984). Whether
one attends cultural events is then said to be determined by both the amount and type of resources
that people possess (Bourdieu, 1984; Kraaykamp, 2002). Many findings speak in favour of the
social roots of cultural participation. Earlier studies indicate that cultural participation is affected
* Corresponding author at: Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: G.Kraaykamp@maw.ru.nl (G. Kraaykamp).
0304-422X/$ - see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2008.04.001
G. Kraaykamp et at. /Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 317
by parental schooling levels and aspects of familial socialization (Mohr and DiMaggio, 1995;
Van Eijck, 1997; Nagel and Ganzeboom, 2002), level and type of education (Van de Werfhorst
and Kraaykamp, 2001; DiMaggio and Mukhtar, 2004), occupational class (Katz-Gerro, 2002;
Chan and Goldthorpe, 2005), income (DiMaggio and Useem, 1978; O'Hagan, 1996), social
network features (Erickson, 1996; Warde and Tampubolon, 2002) and cultural preferences and
background characteristics of the spouse (Van Berkel and De Graaf, 1995; Upright, 2004;
Kraaykamp et al., 2006).
Time has been an under-illuminated aspect in explaining participation in high culture. Yet
visiting a museum or attending a classical concert requires a considerable amount of time. The
lack of interest in time constraints in studies investigating cultural participation is surprising,
because in recent decades the availability of free time has generally declined due to women's
growing labour participation and the subsequent rise of dual-earner families (Jacobs and Gerson,
2001). These developments have led to numerous studies on the effects of time constraints on
family life, life satisfaction and leisure participation (Becker and Moen, 1999; Barnett and
Gareis, 2000; Clarckberg and Merola, 2003; Garhammer, 2004; Milkie et al., 2004; Sayer, 2005).
In general these studies provide evidence that the time pressure people experience has a net effect
on the time they spend with their children and devote to household activities and leisure.
Research on participation in high-brow cultural activities has not yet emulated the increased
focus on time constraints. Studies that have done so show only modest effects of time constraints
on an individual's cultural participation (Ganzeboom, 1989; Knulst, 1989; Kraaykamp and Van
Eijck, 2005).
Our aim in this study is to investigate whether time constraints do in fact have a meaningful
impact on cultural participation. So far, most studies that explore the relationship between time
constraints and cultural attendance have used individual time budgets, thereby neglecting the
social embeddedness of individuals within the family (Ganzeboom, 1989; Knulst, 1989). We
think improvements can be made by looking at the households people inhabit. The household
context is important, since people do not operate in a social vacuum, nor are they solely
dependent on their own resources and restrictions. Most individuals live in a family setting where
partners share responsibilities for caring, financial well-being, cleaning and leisure participation.
By studying the relation between couple-level time constraints and cultural participation, we
follow the current research trend stressing the need for partner information to explain cultural
behaviour (Van Berkel and De Graaf, 1995; Upright, 2004; Kraaykamp et al., 2007).
To improve upon earlier studies, we aim to answer two research questions. Figure 1 displays
the way these questions build upon previous research on cultural participation. Prior studies have
investigated individual-level cultural participation and provided explanations using individual
predictors (panel A). The first objective of our contribution is to improve upon these by looking at
the household settings in which people live. Time restrictions seem especially harsh for full-time
working couples. These couples must do household chores after work and report being the busiest
of all households (Jacobs and Gerson, 2001). Consequently, we assume that it is essential to
include information on the time restrictions of both individuals in a couple if we want to explain
differentiation in cultural participation. To do so, we introduce couple characteristics to explain
individual cultural participation, as illustrated by arrow 1 (panel C). Our first research question
reads as follows: to what extent is individual cultural participation affected by couple-level time
constraints?
Additionally, we examine couple-level cultural participation, that is, whether spouses attend
cultural activities together. It is widely known that leisure activities often are enjoyed together
with a spouse (Berg et al., 2001; Kalmijn and Bernasco, 2001; Clarckberg and Merola, 2003). It
3- C
II02
0. P " >2
S. SCT
--ft <:
0
It&. CTui
Q
I
5. 3
I S-3 I
II r2
s ss
a. Oq CT
7- 0
iill
lltlo n> T3 s
3 f. e. 5
.C; o a. 3
11111
li'P§
§ s. S1
ilil
s- S ps
: I II I
lglil
. g j- § J;
2§ ft
" § §' ^w g
Is I i(D 0 V ".
3 2. -1 ^~
°- SS. §
III!:
i'J^s.s
iii^ s § i' S
Itltl
ll?£t
II3 r
GO
B- sT
ii0
II
I i
8t
ll
i!
II
I.1
21^
sa
p3
IIQ
g-13 EC
11
§- 2"
&.
&s
%1
El
§ ^.n> uf
F5'2'
s-1
^&
*s §
^. o.
S. 0?-
3 0
5'
l°i0 0
I?00 3
II(D 0
D Ul
ES ^~,
li^ s
< e
^1
iiCL
II5' ^
2. ^ S
IllS .3
era cro ^
^ ^
y £.
0
g.
0) 00
g-
s
2 3SB
s~ I iQ S.' 5'
3 5; *<
(/3
BO S3 !S
§ s.i
Ill
i:s1
Is'Vs .-0
& ^
^.
>1p
^ '""
W 0.
^1
sl
^§
15:ii
;%:§ft&.
ff-" ^.P; S.-
8 s S^
s
2
2'. §t/3 &3
s
?
I
I
s p I
f§si
*< ^ ^ s-
111^
I i"
\0
13
-^
i. &
II
^ I&3 .--'
i?
Nl
IIo 0liW
n
2. £ a"
S t9
2. ^
s
s-1
^ 2.
3
s- p
If
M a.
t" -3
C era -T-I
0
3a
?? ?'
w ,-i o
f. s. §to 3" in
S, °°c5s-5-.!-"
n
m -
II
-3"S
" 0^
1^
>2. .§
s ^
ti
2. §" §
" c
Ill
§1^
g-s
tl
I?w w
'9
tfl g
1§(B
!1l°:.sa-<<
I
s
s^
E?
I
g
i?
s
i
5
n
i
§
I
I
t
I
>T3
£.
& 0:
=-1
! ^
§ I
It EC
1:§
5§&3 r^
3 V
, Q. CD
'i|
n> E"
It^ 2.
st
s§
1,%w, <J\
I ^
11
?s(/3
tfl0.
^ s'
" , .-.
s ^ S.
! I?
e-hs.s.
? § s"
3' ^ 3
i If
if 11." ?? R'
in
II
ni
its;^ s.v
<? s Inw
wo ^ I
.st
^11,
Ill
11&
?1^-
".
IIS. 5
a. Q.
e- ge.
&
5-§
fs >g
0 ^-t
II
5 ^
i'^l
1^1
s ^ ^3 CT ^
'--. >9 "
'Ti 6 <
w g 2.
0 .K ;-r.
5*^ 3
^!
fil
! ?1Crt &3 &3
§ ^ 5
11%
uj K'
ItB. S
3 .-
i^
II
II£r 2:
B '-<
p;.
d
it§ s
II
& TO
alg ^
8 S
? ?
ft s
w
§ 5IIi-t
Ct
CT "'
11
-I, Ft [»
ft 0
£ Q
11
ll
" 5
%1
gl
1:1
5'i
ll
£. 2
il
^ ^
(D
p?
if I
0
p-OT
s. "
ro n
X S
? 3
s n
b
0 S
s^
=; sE"
SVI 0.
II
!:§
fl
IIen
i^
itn> n
sl^1(TO CT
ii
l&i
£§
3 S
11
IIa o
00 3
Level of predictors
Couple Individual
0
s-
0 .«-
pl
?
la
<
Q.
?
03
ai
ia
0
I"!II §
It
G. Kraaykamp et al. /Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 319
Labour restrictions tend to be the most direct causes of feeling squeezed (Schor, 1991;
Gershuny, 2000; Garhammer, 2004). The number of hours that people work obviously restricts
the time available for children, leisure and personal care. In assessments of being hurried, couples
in which both spouses hold full-time jobs indeed report the greatest time pressure (Hochschild,
1997; Jacobs and Gerson, 2004). This lack of time for oneself is often associated with feeling
rushed (Garhammer, 2004). In addition, for full-time working couples difficulties may arise in
synchronizing and coordinating family responsibilities. Consequently, for full-time working
couples a time squeeze may interfere with possible cultural participation. We expect these
couples may largely skip cultural activities and thus report lower levels of cultural participation.
Our time-restriction hypothesis for cultural participation reads: cultural participation is lower for
full-time working couples compared to couples with other working arrangements.
We assume this expectation holds for individual-level participation as well as for joint cultural
participation. In our modelling, partner effects will be studied separately for both husbands and
wives, since the traditional division of labour may still entail that free time for women is
primarily devoted to household duties, while free time for men may be spent on other activities.
We control for the possible gendered effects of time restrictions by separately studying time
constraints for men and for women.
Next to the labour hours of a husband and wife, other family restrictions may limit the
availability of time. The number of young children living at home and in need of care and
education may be seen as a relevant time restriction for cultural participation (Ganzeboom, 1989;
Kraaykamp and Van Eijck, 2005). Especially in families with young children, cultural
participation has to be planned in advance, and a sitter might be needed to look after the children.
Consequently, cultural participation in these families requires more management, more money
and consumes more time than that in families without children. Our restriction-by-children
hypothesis reads: cultural participation of couples with (young) children is lower than that of
couples without (young) children. We believe this expectation will hold more for joint cultural
participation than for individual participation.
2.2. Cultural resources and cultural participation
Cultural participation is different from general leisure recreation, since some general and
cultural competence is needed to enjoy a visit to a museum, theatre or classical concert
(Ganzeboom, 1982; Knulst, 1989; Kraaykamp, 2002; Van de Werfhorst and Kraaykamp, 2001).
For instance, a visit to an art exhibition is more rewarding if one has knowledge about the artist,
the history of the paintings, the meaning of the expression, the time in which the works were
created and the skill it took to produce them. Educational level provides a good indication of a
person's cultural competence, since institutes of higher education select pupils with aboveaverage
abilities, and moreover they pay attention to cultural socialization in their classes. As a
result, higher educated individuals are particularly likely to be found among high-brow cultural
audiences (Knulst, 1989; Van de Werfhorst and Kraaykamp, 2001). Next to a person's own
educational level a partner's educational level may be of importance. A culturally competent
spouse is likely to introduce a person to high-brow culture, making cultural participation more
rewarding. Past research has convincingly demonstrated that spousal characteristics affect
cultural participation (Van Berkel and De Graaf, 1995; Upright, 2004; Kraaykamp et al., 2006).
Cultural competence is not only obtained via higher education, but may also be transferred
from parents to their children. Parents who are active participants in cultural activities transmit
their cultural knowledge to their children. As a result, children of higher educated parents in
320 G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
general have more cultural resources than children of lower educated parents. Previous research
for the Netherlands indeed reports a strong influence of the parental home on a respondent's
cultural participation (Nagel and Ganzeboom, 2002). Our general cultural resources hypothesis
therefore reads: the higher the educational attainment of couples and the higher the educational
level of their parents, the higher their participation rate in cultural activities.
We may ask why we need to use (parental) educational level as a predictor when studying the
effects of time restrictions on cultural participation. There is a major reason for doing so. If we
were to disregard education in modelling cultural participation this would suppress the (negative)
effect of time restrictions, leading to a biased estimation. This suppression is caused by the fact
that in a bivariate analysis, both educational level and full-time working are positively associated
with cultural participation. This correlation of full-time working and cultural participation,
however, is mainly caused by the fact that the higher educated are over-represented among fulltime
workers. So, if education itself were absent from our modelling, the effects of time
restrictions would partly reflect educational differentiation. Hence, the negative consequences of
having time restrictions would be underestimated or simply be too small, because they would be
suppressed by the relatively high educational level of people in full-time working couples. The
same reasoning applies with respect to parental education.
2.3. Financial resources and cultural participation
Financial resources determine to some degree a couple's opportunities to participate in
cultural activities. Tickets are required to visit a museum or attend a classical concert, and
appropriate clothing may be needed, whereas leisure activities such as taking a stroll or riding a
bicycle in the countryside are virtually cost-free. Previous research has frequently found a
positive relation between financial resources and participation in cultural activities (Katz-Gerro
and Shavit, 1998; Kraaykamp and NieuwBeerta, 2000; O'Hagan, 1996). Recent research also
demonstrates that income is positively related to a wide variety of cultural activities (Chan and
Goldthorpe, 2005). A general empirical regularity observed in the Netherlands is that the more
money is needed to participate in cultural activities, the lower the number of visitors and the more
segregated the audience (Kraaykamp et al., 2006).
For the purpose of studying the effects of time restrictions on cultural participation for a
family, the household income is directly related to the number of hours worked by both spouses.
In other words, time pressure and financial resources are related; full-time working couples
generally have more financial resources (and are under more time pressure) since they participate
more in paid labour. As a result, part of the relation between full-time working couples and
cultural participation is interpreted through the abundant financial assets enjoyed by full-time
workers. As was the case for educational attainment, we must control for these financial
resources to gain an unbiased test of the time-restriction hypothesis. So, our financial resources
hypothesis reads: the higher the household income of a couple, the higher the participation rate in
cultural activities.
2.4. Additional explanatory aspects
Earlier findings indicate other aspects that are important in determining who is patronizing the
arts. As people grow older, they tend to participate more in cultural activities (Ganzeboom, 1989;
Kraaykamp et al., 2006). Over the course of their lifetime people accumulate knowledge about
cultural events, and as a result older people have a higher attendance rate than younger people.
G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 321
Second, urban residence is associated with a higher attendance level, mainly because the supply
of cultural activities tends to be larger in cities (Ganzeboom, 1989; Knulst, 1989). As there are
more cultural facilities in the immediate vicinity, urban residents have to expend less effort to
attend cultural events. So, we expect people living in more urban locations will have on average a
higher level of participation.
3. Data and measurement
3.1. Family Survey of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003
We use information on the cultural participation of individuals and couples from the Family
Surveys of the Dutch Population (De Graaf et al., 1998, 2000, 2003; Ultee and Ganzeboom,
1992). In 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003, couples were questioned using a face-to-face computerassisted
interview and a written questionnaire. Respondents in all four surveys were selected
from a random sample of the Dutch population between 18 and 70 years of age. In the 2003
survey, additional respondents (40% of the total sample) were sampled from a representative
household panel. In the interviews the complete educational and occupational careers and family
history of both spouses were collected using retrospective structured questioning. While the
interviewer questioned the primary respondent using a computer for prompting the spouse
answered the written questionnaire. At the end of the interview, roles were switched so that both
spouses completed the oral interview and answered the written questionnaire. The formulation of
the questions and the format of the surveys are highly comparable over time.
3.2. Measurement
For every year, the FSDP survey contains questions on cultural participation. Since the FSDP
is a population survey, subject categories for high-brow culture had to be rather broad to ensure
sufficient numbers of participants. In comparing questions over the years, answer categories
differed somewhat between waves and the formulation of the question sometimes varied slightly.
To overcome these dissimilarities we receded the answers to reflect the number of visits per year
for three cultural activities: (a) attendance at classical concerts, the opera or ballet; (b) visits to
historical museums or art exhibitions; (c) attendance at classic or popular theatre. In addition, an
overall cultural participation scale was created by summing the number of visits to the three types
of high-brow cultural events.
The scales for visiting classical concerts, museums and the theatre, and the overall cultural
participation scale were used to answer the first research question on the explanation of
individual cultural participation by couple-level time constraints. We chose to analyse cultural
activities separately to look for possible differences in time demands of the three activities.
Visiting classical concerts and the theatre are typically evening activities, whereas visiting a
museum is generally done in the daytime (and in weekends). Table 1 displays descriptive
information's on the question on cultural participation. For years where a question is asked, the
average number of visits per year is given.
' The coding scheme for the surveys is as follows: 1992 'never' = 0; 'at least once' = 1; 'several times a year' = 4; 1998 and
2000'never' = 0; '1,2 or 3 times a year' = 3; '4,5 or6 times a year' = 6; 'more than 6 times a year' =12; 2003 'never' = 0, '1,
2 or 3 times a year' = 3; '4,5 or 6 times a year' = 6; 'once a month, once a week, twice a week, more than twice a week = 12.
322 G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
Table 1
Description of cultural participation, in frequency of attendance per year
1992 1998 2000 2003
How often do you attend a classical concert or opera or ballet?
How often do you attend an opera or ballet?
How often do you attend a classical concert?
How often do you visit a historical museum or art exhibition?
How often do you visit a historical museum?
How often do you visit an art exhibition?
How often do you attend classic or popular theatre?
How often do you attend classic theatre (drama, dance)?
How often do you attend popular theatre (musical, cabaret, comedy)?
1.26 1.21 0.81
0.29
0.50
1.12
0.99
1.16
1.42
2.27
1.06
2.09
2.10
1.46
1.03
2.18
2.12
2.49
Source: Family Surveys of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003; N= 5438.
In our second research question the issue is whether joint cultural participation (of
partners) is affected by couple-level time constraints. The FSDP 2003 asked a specific
question on joint cultural participation. This question refers separately to the three types of
cultural visits and reads: 'On how many occasions did you and your partner go to concerts,
museums and/or the theatre together?' Possible answers were 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%
of all occasions. To obtain a measure for joint cultural participation we multiplied the
frequency of an individual's cultural attendance by the proportion of this 'joint' attendance
(0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 or 1.00).
To score all individuals and couples on the basis of their working hours in paid labour we selected
all male-female couples and tagged spouses as not employed, part-time employed or full-time
employed. Following the definition of Statistics Netherlands (CBS, 2005), working less than
12 hours per week is considered not employed, part-time is defined as working 12-34 hours and
full-time working is 35 hours and more. So, for an individual's employment status it was clear
whether respondents worked part-time, full-time or did not work at all. Subsequently, couples'
working arrangements were categorized as one of four types: (a) full-time working couples, (b)
combination households where both spouses worked and at least one worked part-time, (c) singleearner
households with a full-time working man and a non-working woman and (d) non-employed
couples.
Family restrictions referring to the presence of young children in the home are measured as (a)
no children present, (b) the youngest child younger than 1 2 years of age and (c) the youngest child
older than 12 years of age. Cultural resources are represented by the educational attainment of
both individuals and their parents expressed in total years of schooling.2 Monthly household
income is measured in euros and is log transformed to deal with its skewed distribution. Age is
measured as a continuous variable in years and is restricted to a maximum of 65 years and a
minimum of 21 years. Urban residence is constructed using the address density of a couple's
neighbourhood. It is coded as (a) very rural, (b) moderately rural, (c) moderately urbanized (d)
moderately to strongly urbanized and (e) strongly urbanized. After a selection on missing values,
2 The number of years in school is measured according to the various levels and streams of the Dutch educational
system. Elementary school: lo/vglo = 6; secondary school: lbo/v(m)bo/mavo = 10, havo/kmbo = 11, vwo/hbs=12,
mbo = 13; higher education: hbo = 15, wo = 17, post-wo = 20.
G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 323
Table 2
Description of measurements
Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.
Dependent variables
Total cultural participation 0.00 60.00
Attendance at classical concerts, opera or ballet 0.00 60.00
Visits to historical or art museums 0.00 12.00
Attendance at classic or popular theatre 0.00 24.00
Total joint cultural participation" 0.00 24.00
Independent variables
Age 21.00 65.00
Educational level (years) 6.00 20.00
Educational level of mother (years) 6.00 20.00
Educational level of father (years) 6.00 20.00
Full-time employed 0.00 1.00
Part-time employed 0.00 1.00
Not employed 0.00 1.00
Household income (log) 0.00 11.44
Degree of urbanization 1.00 5.00
No children 0.00 1.00
Youngest child aged 0-12 0.00 1.00
Youngest child aged > 12 0.00 1.00
Full-time working couples 0.00 1.00
Combination household 0.00 1.00
Single-eamer household 0.00 1.00
Non-employed couples 0.00 1.00
6.17
6.11
0.95
2.74
2.43
41.85
11.97
8.56
9.43
0.50
0.21
0.29
7.51
2.86
0.31
0.44
0.25
0.16
0.37
0.37
0.11
6.74
6.63
2.05
3.30
3.11
10.52
3.15
2.72
3.40
0.50
0.41
0.45
1.27
1.30
0.46
0.50
0.43
0.36
0.48
0.48
0.31
Source: Family Surveys of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003;W= 5438.
° Joint participation is available for the FSDP 2003 only (N = 809).
5438 respondents from 2719 couples remained for our analyses. Table 2 presents the descriptive
statistics for all variables.
4. Results: explaining individual cultural participation
To answer the first research question on the effect of couple-level time constraints on
individual cultural participation we analysed overall cultural consumption (Table 3) and that for
the three types of cultural activities (Table 4). Separate analyses were done for husbands and
wives. In model 1 we estimate a baseline model with all relevant independent characteristics.
Model 2 adds the time constraints at the household level defined as a couple's working
arrangement. In models 3 and 4 we estimate the effects of the respondents' employment status
and their partner's employment status separately.
4.1. Overall cultural participation
Looking at model 1 in Table 3, we observe that older people tend to participate more in cultural
activities. Apparently through the years people gain knowledge and a social circle that make
cultural participation more likely. As expected, higher educated people are more likely to visit
cultural events than those with a lower education. Further, men as well as women tend to profit from
their spouse's education; a higher educated spouse leads to a greater odds of cultural participation.
Socialization by higher educated parents also promotes attendance at museums, theatres and
324 G. Kraaykamp et al. /Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
classical concerts. Surprisingly, for men a high-educated mother leads to more participation,
whereas for women a high-educated father is most supportive. Further, a high annual income
increases the rate of cultural participation. This result supports our expectation regarding the
financial resources needed for participation in cultural activities. The more urbanized the
neighbourhood where couples live, the higher the likelihood of them attending cultural events.
A first substantive test of the effects of time constraints is performed by looking at having
young children in model 1. Surprisingly, having children younger than 12 years old seems to
affect male cultural participation more than female cultural participation. Note, however, that the
negative effect for women is on the border of significance. As children grow older they increase
the likelihood of cultural participation; husbands and wives with children older than 12 years visit
cultural activities 0.92 and 1.16 times more per year than husbands and wives without children.
So, it seems that having older children promotes parents in their cultural behaviour, while having
young children restricts parents' cultural attendance.
Model 2 introduces household-level time constraints related to couples' working
arrangement. Since we expect full-time working couples to be under the greatest time pressure,
they are the reference category here. The results show that men from a combination household
(where at least one spouse works part time) report significantly higher levels of cultural
participation than men in couples where both spouses work full time. For women this effect is
absent. So, for men the time-restriction hypothesis is supported; men in a full-time working
household apparently have less time available to spend on cultural participation. For women,
belonging to a full-time working couple is not significantly different from belonging to a
Table 3
OLS regression of individual cultural participation on time restrictions, unstandardized coefficients for men and women
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Men
Age .14** .01 .15** .01 .15**
Educational level-respondent (years) .55** .04 .53** .04 .54"
Educational level-partner (years) .39** .04 .37" .04 .37**
Educational level-mother (years) .10** .05 .10** .05 .10**
Educational level-father (years) .07 .04 .07 .04 .07
Household income (log) .38** .09 .33** .09 .35**
No children (ref)
Youngest child aged 0-12 -.61** .25 -.76** .27 -.66**
Youngest child aged > 12 .92** .31 .80** .31 .83**
Degree of urbanization (1-5) .69** .08 .69" .08 .69**
Full-time working couple (ref)
Combination household .83** .34
Single-earner household .18 .35
Non-employed couples -.62 .49
Respondent full-time employed (ref)
Respondent part-time employed 1.34**
Respondent not employed -.89**
Partner full-time employed (ref)
Partner part-time employed
Partner not employed
Constant -17.99** 1.03 -17.91** 1.06 -17.84**
N 2719 2719 2719
R1 adjusted .261 .264 .264
.01
.04
.04
.05
.04
.09
1.03
.15**
.53**
.37**
.lO**
.07
.33**
.26 -.68*
.31 .82**
.08 .68**
.44 1.26**
.40 -.70
.50
-.05
.17.66**
2719
.265
.01
.04
.04
.05
.04
.09
.27
.31
.08
.44
.41
.33
.35
1.06
G. Kraaykamp el al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 325
Table 3 (Continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Women
Age .18** .01 .20** .01
Educational level-respondent (years) .55** .05 .52** .05
Educational level-partner (years) .42** .04 .41** .04
Educational level-mother (years) .10 .05 .10 .05
Educational level-father (years) .14** .04 .13** .04
Household income (log) .39** .09 .31** .09
No children (ref)
Youngest child aged 0-12 -.52 .27 -.51 .29
Youngest child aged > 12 1.16** .33 1.10** .33
Degree of urbanization (1-5) .75" .09 .74** .09
Full-time working couple (ref)
Combination household .60 .36
Single-eamer household -.49 .38
Non-employed couples -1.15** .52
Respondent full-time employed (ref)
Respondent part-time employed
Respondent not employed
Partner full-time employed (ref)
Partner part-time employed
Partner not employed
Constant -19.75" 1.09 -19.18** 1.11
N 2719 2719
R2 adjusted .267 .273
.19**
.52**
.42**
.10
.13**
.33**
-.39
1.18**
.73**
.01
.05
.04
.05
.04
.09
.20**
.51**
.41**
.10
.13"
.31**
.29 -.43
.33 1.12*!
.09 .73**
.01
.05
.04
.05
.04
.09
.29
.33
.09
.34
-.80*
-19.03**
2719
.272
.35
.36
.28
-.71
1.30*'
-.56
.35
.37
.47
.43
1.11 -18.92** 1.11
2719
.274
Significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; Source: Family Surveys of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003.
combination household when it comes to individual cultural participation. Note, however, that
women from a non-employed couple differ significantly from women who belong to a full-time
or combination couple.
Models 3 and 4 provide information on the separate effects for men and women of being in a
couple with a certain working arrangement. From model 3 it is clear that part-time work increases
cultural participation only for men (1.34 times per year), while for women we found no difference
between working part time or full time. We must therefore conclude that a reduction of working
hours makes no difference for women when it comes to cultural participation. Note that these
relations were established while controlling for the effects of having young children, which tends to
be a reason for women to reduce their working hours (and also restricts cultural participation).
When we add a spouse's employment status, in model 4, on top of respondents own
employment status, some remarkable effects show up. For men the wife's employment status
makes no difference in their cultural participation. For women, however, having a husband who
works part time causes a 1,3-point increase in their cultural attendance. This means that the
effects of a couple's working status as presented in model 2 can be fully attributed to whether or
not men are employed part time.
4.2. Participation in various cultural events
Table 4 focuses on the three different types of cultural events: attendance at classical concerts,
the opera or ballet; visiting art exhibitions and historical museums; and attending classic or
Table 4
OLS regression of individual attendance at classical concerts, museums and the theatre on time restrictions, unstandardized coefficients for men and women
Classical concerts, opera or ballet Historical museums or art exhibitions Classic or popular theatre
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
se b
Men
Age .05** .00 .05** .00
Educational level-respondent (years) .12** .01 .12** .01
Educational level-partner (years) .08** .01 .08** .01
Educational level-mother (years) .03 .02 .03 .02
Educational level-father (years) .05** .01 .05** .01
Household income (log) .06* .03 .06* .03
No children (ref)
Youngest child aged 0-12 -.25" .09 -.23** .08
Youngest child aged > 12 .01 .10 .02 .10
Degree of urbanization (1-5) .13** .03 .13** .03
Full-time working couple (ref)
Combination household .12 .11
Single-eamer household .06 .12
Non-employed couples -.19 .16
Respondent full-time employed (ref)
Respondent part-time employed .09 .15
Respondent not employed -.26 .13
Partner full-time employed (ref)
Partner part-time employed
Partner not employed
Constant -5.06** .35 -5.04** .34
N 2719 2719
R2 adjusted .163 .163
.05** .00 .06** .01 .06**
.08
-.25
.10
.05
.01 .06** .01 .05**
.08** .01 .17**
.03 .02 .05*
.05** .01 .01
.06* .03 .13**
-.25** .09 -.12
.01 .10 .59**
.13** .03 .35**
.39*
.38*
.24
,15
.14
.11
.11
.02 .16**
.03 .05*
.02 .01
.05 .13**
.14 -.00
.16 .63**
.04 .34**
.18
.19
.26
.68**
-.05
.02 .16**
.03 .05*
,02 .01
.05 .13**
.14 -.07
.16 .60**
.04 .34**
.23 .67**
.21 -.09
.19
.25
.02 .12**
.03 .02
.02 .01
.05 .13**
.14 -.39**
.16 .20
.04 .21**
.23
.22
.18
.18
.01 .05**
.12** .01 .26** .02 .26** .02 .26** .02 .16** .02 .16**
.01 .05**
.02 .16**
.02 .13** .02 .12**
.02 .02 .02 .02
.02 .01 .02 .01
.04 .16** .04 .13**
.14 -.43**
.15 .18
.04 .21**
.13 -.37*'
.15 .21
.04 .21**
.32 .17
-.27 .18
-.67** .24
.56** .22 .50*
-.58** .20 -.36
.21
-.35*
n
?!
.01
.02
.02 ^
.02 I
.02 -^
.04 S
.14
.15
.04
I
.22 ^
.20 ^
.17
.17
-5.05** .35 -7.89** .56 -7.60** .55 -7.75** .56 -4.95** .53 -5.21** .52 -4.86** .53
2719 2719 2719 2719 2719 2719 2719
.162 .200 .201 .201 .133 .128 .134
Women
Age
Educational level-respondent (years)
Educational level-partner (years)
Educational level-mother (years)
Educational level-father (years)
Household income (log)
No children (ref)
Youngest child aged 0-12
Youngest child aged > 12
Degree of urbanization (1-5)
Full-time working couple (ref)
Combination household
Single-eamer household
Non-employed couples
Respondent full-time employed (ref)
Respondent part-time employed
Respondent not employed
Partner full-time employed (ref)
Partner part-time employed
Partner not employed
Constant
N
Rt adjusted
.06**
.11**
.11**
.03
.04**
.07*
-.15
.08
.14**
.02
-.15
-.25
.00
.02
.01
.02
.01
.03
.10
.11
.03
.12
.12
.17
.06**
.11**
.11**
.03
.04**
.07*
-.13
.09
.14**
.00
.02
.01
.02
.01
.03
.09
.11
.03
.06**
.11**
.11**
.03
.04**
.07*
-.14
.08
.14**
-.02 .12
-.20 .12 -.18
.08
-.09
-5.35** .36 -5.33** .36
2719 2719
.171 .171
-.03
.12
.15
,14
.00
.02
.01
.02
.01
.03
.10
.11
.03
.08**
.26**
.16**
.02
.08**
.11*
-.27
.48**
.31**
.12
.01 .08**
.02 .26**
.02 .16**
.03 .02
.02 .08**
.05 .12*
.15 -.23
.17 .51**
.04 .31**
.36*
.17
-.09
.31
.08
.01 .08**
.02 .25**
.02 .16**
.03 .02
.02 .08**
.05 .11*
.15 -.25
.17 .48**
.04 .31**
.18
.19
.27
.18 .28
.19 .11
.56*
-.21
.01 .06**
.02 .16**
.02 .14**
.03 .05
.02 .01
.05 .13**
.15 -.09
.17 .54**
.04 .28**
.18
.19
.24
.22
.01 .06**
.02 .15**
.02 .14**
.03 .05
.02 .01
.05 .14**
-5.33** .36 -8.23** .57 -8.19** .57 -8.13** .57 -5.60**
2719 2719 2719 2719 2719
.171 .205 .205 .206 .139
.01 .06**
.02 .15**
.02 .14**
.03 .05
.02 .01
.05 .13**
.15 -.03 .15 -.05
.17 .59** .17 .55**
.05 .28** .05 .28**
.22 .18
-.51** .19
-.82** .27
.05 .18 .02
-.68** .19 -.64"
.66**
-.26
.57 -5.52*
2719
.138
.57 -5.45**
2719
.140
.01
.02
.02
.03
.02
.05
.15
.17
.05
.18
d
t.19 S
&
.24 ?.22 S
.57 I
Significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; Source: Family Surveys of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003.
£,^
Oj
328 G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
popular theatre. The baseline model is not presented. For all three cultural events that model
shows close resemblance to model 1 in Table 3.
Table 4 displays some differences across the various activities for men and women. It seems
there are no significant effects of time constraints when it comes to attending classical concerts,
opera or ballet. For museum visits, however, relatively strong effects are observed. Men in fulltime
working couples spend significantly less time attending museums than men in combination
or single-eamer households. Again, from model 3 it is clear that working part time is especially
important for men; this increases their own cultural participation (by 0.67 times a year) as well as
the participation of their wife (by 0.56 times a year). Our analysis of attendance at classic and
popular theatre displays slightly different results; no relevant significant effects of time
constraints at the couple level are observed. For women, living in a single-earner household or
being in a non-employed couple does significantly lower the odds of being a cultural participant.
This probably has less to do with time constraints than with other qualities (social circle,
attitudes, and competence) associated with unemployment. Model 3, for theatre attendance,
again shows that it is profitable for men to work part time; compared to full-time working men
they visit the theatre 0.50 times more per year. Women with a part-time working husband are also
more often found among theatre audiences (0.66 times more per year).
In sum, analysing the three cultural activities separately shows that for visiting museums and
theatre attendance, time constraints are a relevant factor. Especially constraints related to the
husband's employment status affect both the husband's and the wife's cultural participation.
5. Results: explaining joint cultural participation
Our second research question deals with the extent to which joint cultural participation (of
partners) is affected by couple-level time constraints. The 2003 FSDP survey asked a specific
question on how frequently spouses attend cultural activities together. Table 5 examines couples'
joint cultural participation. The analyses show women's and men's ages to be highly correlated.
We therefore chose to include the women's age only. Parental education is available for four
parents. For parsimony, we included only the maximum parental educational level per spouse.
The baseline model 1 in Table 5 shows that the effects of the control variables are as expected.
Older couples and highly educated couples do participate relatively often in cultural events.
Surprisingly, household income is not of importance for joint cultural participation. Evaluating
the time constraints, having children works negatively for joint cultural participation of spouses.
Both young and older children reduce joint cultural attendance. Our previous models showed that
having children older than 12 years leads to more individual cultural participation. This effect can
probably be understood as one of the parents accompanying an adolescent child to a cultural
performance or museum. Nonetheless, it reduces the cultural participation of both spouses
together. Model 2 includes couple-level working status. Although all effects are in the expected
direction and resemble earlier results on individual cultural participation, they fail to reach
significance. This means that we must conclude that joint visits are hardly affected by a couple's
working hours. The subsequent models, 3 and 4, which introduce the working hours of men and
women separately, show similarly insignificant results.
We can think of two reasons why we did not find the expected effects of time restrictions
associated with a couple's working status. First, joint cultural participation might be considered
such a valuable and rewarding activity that partners in a couple prioritize such attendance.
Perhaps this is an activity they are least likely to give up. We were able to show that work status
matters for individual attendance, so time restrictions do seemingly hinder individual cultural
G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 329
Table 5
OLS regression of joint cultural participation of couples on time restrictions, unstandardized coefficients
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Couples
Age (of woman) .05" .01
Educational level-man (years) .11** .02
Educational level-woman (years) .13** .03
Educational level-parents man (max) .04 .02
Educational level-parents woman (max) .02 .03
Household income (log) .06 .04
No children (ref)
Youngest child aged 0-12
Youngest child aged > 12
Degree of urbanization (1-5)
Full-time working couple (ref)
Combination household
Single-eamer household
Non-employed couples
Man full-time employed (ref)
Man not employed
Man part-time employed
Woman full-time employed (ref)
Woman not employed
Woman part-time employed
Constant -4.76** .58 -4.63**
N 809 809
R2 adjusted .189 .191
.05**
.11**
.12**
.04
.01
.05
-.45** .15 -.48*
-.61** .23 -.66*
.23** .05 .23**
.25
-.07
-.05
.01
.02
.03
.02
.03
.04
.05**
.11**
.13**
.04
.02
.06
.16 -.46*'
.23 -.64*'
.05 .23**
.19
.20
.29
.13
.08
.58 -4.75**
809
.188
.01
.02
.03
.02
.03
.04
.24
.25
.05**
.11**
.12**
.04
.02
.05
.15 -.47**
.23 -.66**
.05 .23**
.01
.02
-.12
.18
.01
.02
.03
.02
.03
.04
.16
.23
.05
.26
.25
.20
.19
.58 -4.62** .59
809
.189
Significance: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; Source: Family Surveys of the Dutch Population 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2003.
participation, but not joint cultural participation. Second, a lack of statistical power might cause
the effects of work status to remain insignificant. Since, the question on joint cultural
participation was asked only in the 2003 FSDP, our analyses on joint cultural participation have
fewer respondents and subsequently couples.
6. Conclusion and discussion
In this study, we analysed the extent to which time restrictions associated with working
arrangements in households affect individual and joint cultural participation. We employed data
for 5438 Dutch individuals from 2719 couples on their work and participation at cultural events.
Previous studies focused mainly on individual cultural behaviour and used as explanatory aspects
mostly individual characteristics. This study advances research on participation in cultural events
in two directions. First, it demonstrates that time restrictions are not as individual as one might
expect. Husbands and wives live in a family, and time pressure is therefore highly associated with
the living arrangements in these families. We studied two of the most relevant family aspects:
having young children and working full time as a couple. Second, we studied joint attendance at
cultural events, since leisure activities are known to be social events. Many previous studies on
cultural participation neglected the social nature of attending cultural events. This study
330 G. Kraaykamp et al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
explicitly acknowledged the fact that cultural participation is often a joint activity. Consequently
characteristics of significant others were introduced in modelling cultural participation.
From our research on individual cultural participation and couple-level time constraints we
conclude that an inclusion of a couple's work status can indeed explain frequency of individual
cultural attendance. Whereas other studies have often failed to report significant effects of
working hours on cultural participation, we show here that it is the combination of the working
hours of both spouses that matters. People in full-time working couples suffer the greatest time
constraints and, as a result, participate less in cultural activities compared to people from
combination households. We find surprisingly little support for our expectation that people in
full-time working couples differ from those in single-earner families or non-employed couples.
This non-linearity probably caused the insignificant results of time constraints in previous
studies. The reasons why unemployed individuals refrain from cultural participation are almost
certainly not related to time restrictions. Explanations may be found in the lack of a social circle
of cultural aficionados, a relatively low level of cultural competence, the apathy often associated
with unemployment and the rather traditional attitudes amongst the unemployed.
With our second research question we asked whether joint cultural participation is affected by
couple-level time constraints. We had to reject this expectation. We found no significant
difference in cultural participation between full-time working couples and combination
households. An explanation may be that couples protect activities undertaken together against
their time-pressure problems. One might conclude that the last thing full-time working couples
economize on is their coupled leisure. This, however, must be a question for future research on
the motives for joint cultural leisure.
Most striking in our findings on cultural participation is the importance of the husband s
employment status; men who work part time attend cultural activities more often than men who
work full time. For women, this effect is absent. Women who work full time do not differ from
their part-time working counterparts in cultural participation. This leads us to conclude that time
restrictions related to work are sex-specific when it comes to cultural participation. Moreover, a
part-time working husband seems beneficial for a wife's cultural participation, but the same is not
true the other way around. This leads us to conclude that to promote cultural participation in a
family it is important to simulate men to work fewer hours.
References
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge and Kegan, London.
Barnett, R.C., Gareis, K.C., 2000. Reduced-hours employment: the relationship between difficulty of trade-offs and
quality of life. Work and Occupations 27 (2), 168-187.
Becker, P.E., Moen, P., 1999. Scaling back: dual-eamer couples' work-family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 61 (4), 995-1007.
Berg, E.C., Trost, M., Schneider, I.E., Allison, M.T., 2001. Dyadic exploration of the relationship of leisure satisfaction,
leisure time, and gender to relationship satisfaction. Leisure Sciences 23, 35-46.
CBS, 2005. Arbeidsdeelname van paren. http://stalline.cbs.n]. Retrieved 10 January.
Chan, T.W., Goldthorpe, J.H., 2005. The social stratification of theatre, dance and cinema attendance. Cultural Trends 14,
193-212.
Clarckberg, M., Merola, S.S., 2003. Competing clocks: work and leisure. In: Moen, P. (Ed.), It's About Time: Couples and
Careers. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 35-48.
DiMaggio, P., Useem, M., 1978. Social class and arts consumption. Origins and consequences of class-differences in
exposure to arts in America. Theory and Society 5, 141-161.
DiMaggio, Paul., Mukhtar, T., 2004. Arts participation as cultural capital in the United States, 1982-2002: signs of
decline? Poetics 32, 169-194.
G. Kraaykamp el al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332 331
Erickson, B.H., 1996. Culture, class, and connections. American Journal of Sociology 102, 217-251.
Ganzeboom, H.B.G., 1982. Explaining differential participation in high-cultural activities. In: Wemer Raub (Eds.),
Theoretical Models and Empirical Analyses. ETS Publications, Utrecht, pp. 186-205.
Ganzeboom, H.B.G., 1989. Cultuurdeelname in Nederland (Cultural Participation in the Netherlands). Van Gorcum, Assen.
Garhammer, M., 2004. Time pressure and quality of life. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Time
Competition, Utrecht University, the Netherlands, 24-25 June.
Gershuny, J., 2000. Changing Times: Work and Leisure in Postindustrial Society. University Press, Oxford.
Hochschild. A.. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. Metropolitan Books,
Henry Holt and Company Publishers, New York.
Jacobs. J.A.. Gerson, K., 2001. Overworked individuals or overworked families: explaining trends in work, leisure, and
family time. Work and Occupations 28 (1), 40-63.
Jacobs, J.A., Gerson, K., 2004. The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Kalmijn, M., Bemasco, W., 2001. Joint and separated lifestyles in couple relationships. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 63, 639-654.
Katz-Gerro, T., Shavit, Y, 1998. The stratification of leisure and taste: Classes and lifestyles in Israel. European
Sociological Review 14 (4), 369-386.
Katz-Gerro, T, 2002. High brow cultural consumption and class distinction in Italy, Israel, West Germany, Sweden and
the United States. Social Forces 81, 207-229.
Knulst. W.R, 1989. Van Vaudeville to Video (From Vaudeville to Video). Social and Cultural Planning Office, Rijswijk.
Kraaykamp, G., 2002. Cumulative advantages and inequality in lifestyle: a Dutch description of distinction in taste. The
Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences 38, 121-143.
Kraaykamp, G., NieuwBeerta, P., 2000. Parental background and life style differentiation in Eastern Europe: social, political
and cultural intergenerational transmission in five former socialist societies. Social Science Research 29, 92-122.
Kraaykamp, G., Van Eijck, K., 2005. Personality, media preferences and cultural participation. Personality and Individual
Differences 38, 1675-1688.
Kraaykamp, G., Van Eijck, K., Ultee, W.C., 2006. Class, status and cultural participation: The Netherlands. Paper
presented at the ESA Conference Changing Cultures: European Perspectives, Ghent, 15-17 November.
Kraaykamp, G., van Eijck, K., Ultee, W.C., van Rees, K., 2007. Status and media use in the Netherlands: do partners affect
media tastes? Poetics 35, 132-151.
Milkie, M.A., Mattingly, M.J., Nomaguchi, K.M., Bianchi, S.M., Robinson, J.P., 2004. The time squeeze: parental statuses
and feelings about time with children. Journal of Marriage and Family 66 (3), 739-761.
Moen, P., 2003. It's About Time: Couples and Careers. Comell University Press, Ithaca.
Mohr, J., DiMaggio, P., 1995. The intergenerational transmission of cultural capital. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility 14, 167-199.
Nagel, I., Ganzeboom, H.B.G., 2002. Participation in legitimate culture: family and school effects from adolescence to
adulthood. The Netherlands' Journal of Social Sciences 38, 102-120.
Nock, S.L., Kingston, P.W., 1989. The division of leisure and work. Social Science Quarterly 70 (1), 24-39.
O'Hagan, J., 1996. Access to and participation in the arts: the case of those with low incomes/educational attainment.
Journal of Cultural Economics 20, 269-282.
Robinson, J.P., Godbey, G., 1997. Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use their Time. State University Press,
Pennsylvania.
Sayer, L.C., 2005. Gender, time and inequality: trends in women's and men's paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social
Forces 84 (1), 285-303.
Schor, J.B., 1991. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. Harper Collins, New York.
Sobel, M.E., 1981. Lifestyle and Social Structure: Concepts, Definitions, Analyses. Academic Press, New York.
Upright, C.B., 2004. Social capital and cultural participation: spousal influences on attendance at arts events. Poetics 32,
129-143.
Van Berkel, M.. De Graaf, N.D., 1995. Husband's and wife's culture participation and their levels of education: a case of
male dominance? Acta Sociologica 38, 131-149.
Van de Werfhorst, H., Kraaykamp, G., 2001. Four field-related educational resources and their impact on labor,
consumption and sociopolitical orientation. Sociology of Education 74, 296-317.
Van Eijck, K., 1997. The impact of family background and educational attainment on cultural consumption: a sibling
analysis. Poetics 25, 195-224.
Warde, A., Tampubolon, G., 2002. Social capital, networks and leisure consumption. The Sociological Review 50, 155-180.
332
Data sources
G. Kraaykamp el al./Poetics 36 (2008) 316-332
De Graaf, N., De Graaf, P., Kraaykamp, G., Ultee, W.C., 1998. Family Survey Dutch Population 1998 [dataset].
Nijmegen: Department of Sociology, Nijmegen University.
Data sources
De Graaf, N., De Graaf, P., Kraaykamp, G., Ultee, W.C., 2000. Family Survey Dutch Population 2000 [dataset].
Nijmegen: Department of Sociology, Nijmegen University.
De Graaf, N, De Graaf, P., Kraaykamp, G. and Ultee, W.C., 2003. Family Survey Dutch Population 2003 [dataset].
Nijmegen: Department of Sociology, Nijmegen University.
Ultee, W.C. and Ganzeboom, H.B.G., 1992. Netherlands Family Survey 1992/93 [dataset]. Nijmegen: Department of
Sociology, Nijmegen University.
Gerbert Kraaykamp is professor in empirical sociology at the Department of Sociology of the Radboud University of
Nijmegen. His main fields of interest and current works are in the areas of social stratification and life-style differentiation.
More specifically, his research focuses on the causes and consequences of educational inequality. He has published on
these subjects in Dutch and international journals. Contact: by e-mail G.Kraaykamp@maw.ru.nl, or by website http://
case. uci. ru. n l/~gerbertk/.
Wouter van Gils, PhD, worked as junior researcher at the Department of Sociology of the Radboud University of
Nijmegen. He wrote his thesis on full-time working couples in the Netherlands. Currently, he is employed as business
analist.
Wout Ultee defended his PhD in 1977 at the University of Utrecht and is since 1987 professor of sociology at the Radboud
University Nijmegen, and from 2002 to 2006 chaired RC28, the Research Committee on Social Stratification and Mobility
of the International Sociological Association. He co-authored a textbook sociology, developed a methodology of problem
articulation and published on a range of topics including religion and suicide, educational heterogamy, long-term
unemployment, and leaving church.