Gender, sex and sex characteristics

The conceptual distinction between sex (biological characteristics) and gender (masculinity, femininity and neutrality as social constructs) is not widely observed [23]. Some studies treat gender as a binary variable, whilst others treat gender as a unified concept (sex, gender and sexuality) [23]. There has not been a widespread distinction between a person’s gender and individual sex characteristics in health research [24, 25]. The biological paradigm foundationalism of gender presumes a person’s sex characteristics are an unchanging ‘base’ on which gender is socially constructed [26]. This study adopts a social constructionist approach to gender in an effort to move away from the traditional biological paradigm [23]. Gender is positioned as the category of importance, before other aspects of the person, such as biological characteristics [27]. This is because gender is an active process which is the outcome of social forces, and plays a significant role in the division of unpaid labour between couples and relationship structures [23].

Household labour performance theory

Research on same-gender couples challenges theories relating to heterosexual couples’ division of labour and its reliance on gendered assumptions [28]. Current research suggests individuals in same-gender couples hold more egalitarian views and have more equitable performance of household labour than heterosexual couples, though this has not been addressed for cognitive labour [9, 29, 30]. Gendered housework theory shows same-gender couples are more likely to have similar housework preferences and both be employed outside of the home. There are also unique predictors present, such as work hours, time availability and income [28, 31, 32].

Although same-gender couples may not divide household labour equally, many defend their arrangements as fair [33, 34]. A large portion of research relating to same-gender couples and household labour revolves around lesbian families who are parenting. Findings from these studies show labour tends to be evenly divided between biological and non-biological mothers [29, 30, 35, 36]. There is a lack of understanding of cognitive labour for same-gender couples who don’t have children [9, 37]. Kelly and Huack [38] interviewed 30 queer couples in the US and explored the re/doing of gender through labour division and examined how couple’s negotiated domestic labour as a challenge to normative gender roles. While not addressing cognitive labour, they provide insight for broader labour practices. Couple’s accounts of unpaid labour were shaped by time availability and task preference but were also influenced more broadly by social contextual factors including employment and citizenship.

Existing studies addressing household labour are mostly survey-based, or use large national data sets, with few using qualitative interviews and even less using dyadic level data [39, 40]. Where surveys were employed, such as in studies completed by Kurdek [40] and Civettini [41], questions focused predominantly on the allocation of specific tasks and asked members of the couple to complete surveys individually. Goldberg [9] found a gap in the literature during their systematic review which highlighted the need for qualitative research in non-U.S contexts.

Goldberg [9] notes that current findings, when examined holistically show that labour division in same-gender couples may be more complex than the predominant ‘egalitarian framework’ that has saturated current literature. Future work should continue to theorise unique labour division among gender and sexual minorities [28].

This study addresses the limited body of qualitative data and delves into how same-gender couples navigate the dynamics associated with cognitive labour within an Australian population. It expands on conceptual understandings of unpaid labour and shows how couples challenging heteronormative assumptions can provide insights into the way we understand cognitive labour. Several explanations have been presented for how uneven unpaid labour distribution has come about [9, 37]. Below, broad research on the above theories, as well as gender theory, the egalitarian ethic and the heteronormative perspective are explored.

Resource and time availability

Accounting for unequal division in performance of unpaid labour based on assumed differences in power, time availability and resources are all established theories [11, 42]. An individual’s relative time availability was amongst the most common factors associated with greater performance of physical household work. The studies did not differentiate between cognitive and other labour forms. Additionally, when it came to the role of gender, authors imposed masculine or feminine values to certain tasks, regardless of participant’s opinions and this could be seen as a reinforcement of heteronormativity as it pertains to household labour division.

Civettini [41] found, unlike patterns seen in heteronormative couples, financial power and net differences in earnings did not account for an imbalance in household labour performance in same-gender couples. Instead, differences in amounts of household labour performance within couples were linked to hours spent in paid employment, supporting the time availability theory, which has also been seen in other studies, and termed the time availability perspective [43–45]. This may suggest that resource and time availability constraints play a central role in same-gender couples division of household labour, but how that relates to the gender relations within the couple and household, needs further investigation.

Task preference and skill

In a systematic review examining household labour among lesbian couples, Brewster [30] found existing theoretical frameworks remained relevant but recommended viewing labour performance in same-gender couples outside of the established heteronormative lens. Compared to heterosexual relationships, gender did not play as significant of a role in task division. Rather it was based on strengths, skill, and personal preference of the individual. Furthermore, the majority of participants did not report being dissatisfied in their relationship, valuing a just divide rather than an even one [29, 30].

Kurdek [40] employed surveys with American same-gender couples to examine the relative frequency of performance of housework tasks. They did not examine cognitive labour within any of the chosen tasks. When interest and skill relating to a task were examined, only interest accounted for the difference in amount of housework performed. Additionally, each person’s satisfaction with labour division affected overall relationship satisfaction and this is supported in other literature [30].

Gender and egalitarian ethic

Gender and its influence on unpaid housework can be best explained through gender ideology and display [46–48]. Gender display theory sees the performance or absence of performance of unpaid labour as a medium to demonstrate gender and seek approval through the performance of gender roles [46]. At the core of gender display is the idea that gender categories exist as a result of behaviour (e.g. someone is masculine because they perform car maintenance) as opposed to role theory or gender ideology, where gender exists independently to the behaviour, and people customise their behaviours to suit these categories (someone does car maintenance because they are a masculine) [41–46]. Individuals are aware that by performing normative gender roles they can be provided with power, symbolic capital and agency [46, 49].

Empirical findings suggest same-gender couples are more attentive to issues of equality in their relationship when compared to heterosexual couples [50, 51]. While such an egalitarian ethic could be supposed to ‘de-gender’ housework, it has been argued inappropriate to construct any couple as being empty of gendered practices [52].

Expanding research to include same-gender couples allows for a broader understanding of how gender is ‘done’ and ‘redone’ through its performance, thereby seeking new paths and possible ways to reduce labour inequity [9, 37].

Same-gender couples and cognitive labour as a specific domain of household labour

Daminger [15] completed semi-structured interviews with 35 heterosexual couples in an American population examining cognitive labour performance. This is the only study of its kind to focus on cognitive labour performance. It identified the dimensions of cognitive labour as anticipating needs, identifying options for filling them, making decisions, and monitoring progress. A literature synthesis was recently undertaken in response to increased interest regarding the impact labour forms such as cognitive labour may have on individual wellness. Women specifically have called for increased examination regarding the performance of cognitive labour and the mental load [15, 19]. Daminger provided a working definition of what comprises cognitive labour, but also demonstrated its gendered nature. Women in this study were found to do more of the cognitive labour work overall, especially planning and monitoring aspects. However, decision making, arguably the most power driven aspect of cognitive labour, was found to be more equal between men and women in heterosexual relationships [15]. The egalitarian nature of same-gender relationships suggests performance of cognitive labour may be more equitable than the findings from Daminger [19].

There remains an absence of research centered on how same-gender couples manage cognitive labour, how it is influenced and why [12]. Building on gender display theory and evidence from cognitive labour related studies with heterosexual and same-gender couples, this paper proposes that distinct couple dynamics, housework patterns, and emotion work affect cognitive labour performance.

Recruitment

Inclusion criteria for the study targeted participants who were in a same-gender, dyadic relationship, had been living with their partner for at least six months, did not live with any children and were over eighteen [23, 24]. This included same-gender cisgender, transgender and non-binary gender couples. There were no exclusion criteria relating to ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or sex characteristics. Given established limitations to sample size and this being the first study to address this particular area of household labour with same-gender couples, exclusion criteria were kept minimal to facilitate higher recruitment. Those with children currently living with them were excluded given previous recommendations that parenting labour and care work should be studied separately from other forms of household labour as they draw on different theoretical arguments [2, 11].

Participants were recruited via posts on Facebook, Instagram and Reddit subgroups as well as university research advertisement services. Online, purposive sampling has been used in previous studies with LGBTQ+ populations and is heavily favoured given the strong online presence LGBTQ+ communities have fostered [39, 54–56]. The study was advertised as an ‘Exploration of the day to day lives of same-gender couples’ to avoid specific references to housework or labour load to avoid self-selection bias around this issue. A similar strategy was used by Daminger [15] and Pfeffer [39] to promote wider sampling.

LGBTQ+ people are known as hard-to-reach populations and can be difficult to recruit for study participation due to fear of stigmatisation and discrimination [57]. They can also be rendered invisible in ambiguous sampling frames. Participants were encouraged to pass on details of the study to anyone in their social circles as a means of snowball sampling to increase sample size. Basing recruitment solely online had the potential to exclude or limit reach to certain participants (e.g. people who do not use technology, those without access to an internet connection), however this was the most appropriate and viable means of recruitment given the nature of the study, especially given physical distancing requirements relating to the COVID-19 pandemic [58].

Involving relevant community partners has been found to greatly enhance recruitment success in studies with LGBTQ+ communities [57]. National community groups relating to LGBTQ+ communities and health who were deemed to have potential interest in the study were contacted with details of the study and an invitation to advertise and assist with recruitment.

Methodological approach

Given the minimal established theory on cognitive labour and same-gender couples, a qualitative, inductive methodology using principles of constructivist grounded theory was justified [15, 59]. A constructivist approach assumes a relativist epistemology and acknowledges the multiple standpoints and realities of the researcher and the research participants [60]. A qualitative methodology allowed the exploration of participant stories without limiting or pre-defining their responses, and this was further embodied in the use of an iterative coding process in the data analysis phase [59, 61].

Individual level data are presented as the basic unit of analysis in most qualitative research, presenting with limitations in the exploration of phenomena that involves two sides, stories or people [62]. Individualistic data allows people to share information that might otherwise be held back, whereas dyadic level data encourages accountability and generation of new ideas and insights, such as a person’s partner’s perspective on the divide of household tasks [63]. This is the first study to use a combination of dyadic (joint interviews) and individual interviews to explore cognitive labour performance in same-gender couples. In their study exploring the difference between dyadic and individual interviews in the context of cancer, Morris [64] stressed the importance of offering couples choice between individual or joint interviews, but reiterated the wealth of knowledge a joint interview can give. The use of both forms of interview enabled deep content collection relating to the research objectives whilst fostering increased trustworthiness with participants [62, 65].

Both forms of interview focused on allowing participants to tell their own story of their experiences relating to cognitive labour. Dyadic interviews allowed for concepts and ideas to be discussed, questioned and reflected on in real time between the couples and the interviewer. This deepened responses whilst allowing for the capturing of emerging concepts and ideas, such as partner A being able to refute, support or question a comment made by partner B [62, 63]. Dyadic interviews allowed for a shared narrative to be developed whilst also highlighting relational characteristics, such as how partners may dominate or become subdued dependent on relational power differences [62].

The option for couples to choose either individual or dyadic interviews also promotes inclusion and prevents incidences where joint interviews may have posed a risk to participants or were not logistically possible. The aim was to develop a deep understanding of how participants constructed their understanding relating to the performance of cognitive labour within their relationship. A definition of cognitive labour was provided using real life examples such as meal preparation; where chopping of vegetables and washing up would be physical components, planning the meal, timing the meal, taking responsibility for cooking the meal and assessing which groceries needed to be bought ahead of time were given as examples of cognitive labour within the meal preparation task. During the interviews, participants were encouraged to expand on points they mentioned, allowing for ‘thick descriptions’ of experiences of cognitive labour to be elicited [66]. The interviewer promoted clarification of components of cognitive labour and perceived reasoning for how it was divided during the interview. Interview questions were framed around the elements of cognitive labour, and not focused on the individual people taking part in the interview in an effort to reduce risk of conflict. The interviewer adopted the role of being an outsider. Where contradictions occurred, couples were encouraged to revisit elements of their story as a means of ensuring interview understanding.

Similar to strategies used by Daminger [15], when respondents reported, for example, using a meal box subscription service in the context of talking about their daily routine, follow up questions were asked, such as; whose idea was it initially to use the service? How did it move from an idea to a part of your daily routine? This probing allowed for exploration of deeper cognitive labour processes underneath daily tasks.

An important aspect of the interviews, especially those which were dyadic was to ensure individual respondents were given opportunities to expand on what their partner had said. It was important this was achieved whilst also ensuring respondents did not feel pressured to respond or elaborate if they did not wish to.

The researcher conducting the interviews is a cis-gender, heterosexual person. It is crucial to acknowledge the epistemological and ethical implications of a heterosexual person researching LGBTQ+ people and the relationship between identity and knowledge production [67]. Self reflexivity was a key element of the research process and is central to sincere research [68, 69]. Throughout the research project the researcher conducting the interviews read a broad range of queer literature. They also kept a detailed journal throughout the recruitment, data collection and analysis process. Thoughts and reflections were then discussed during regular meetings with the other three members of the research team, one being in a same-gender relationship.

The knowledge a researcher produces is contingent on the researcher/researched relationship and how each person is positioned within overarching social structures [67, 69]. The interviewer was open about their sexuality during all interviews, thereby disclosing their outsider status to participants. The outsider status of the researcher was addressed as a means of encouraging participant’s to not leave out information that may have otherwise been deemed as irrelevant or trivial to an insider.

A large consideration within the study design was the risks that may occur during dyadic interviews, given joint interviews could lead to conflict [64]. Available evidence indicates LGBTQ+ people are as likely as non LGBTQ+ women to experience domestic violence [70–72]. There are several barriers to people in same-gender couples seeking help with instances of domestic violence, including; discrimination, insensitivity and lack of awareness from service providers and stigma [73]. Safeguarding measures were implemented as used in previous studies and as recommended by WHO [64]. This included provision of support service information for relationship counselling, individual counselling and domestic violence support as listed on the Information sheet. Participants were provided with direct contact details for not only the interviewer but also all three of the supervisors, one of whom is an experienced Lifeline Crisis Supporter, and these details were provided to both members of the dyad if participating in a joint interview.

Study procedures

Interviews were scheduled online using Zoom Video Communications, a software used widely in previous studies which also met ethical expectations [74]. The use of video-enabled online interviews allowed the study to have a geographically dispersed sample otherwise not possible [74]. It also afforded a high degree of accessibility and flexibility to best accommodate participants and their personal schedules, especially in circumstances where the ability to attend in person would have been restricted due to factors such as COVID-19 social restrictions. Verbal consent to record audio and visual data was gained and data were then stored on a password protected computer that only the interviewer had access to. Participants were reminded that they could choose to withdraw from the study via email at any time until data reporting.

Audio and visual recording allowed for analysis of observations made during the interviews relating to pauses and body language as well as laughter, shoulder shrugging or nodding or shaking of the head. Consent was gained to contact couples again for further information if required.

Bedrock: Context of the person and outer influences

“And I think when you have to go through that hard road of getting clarity on your identity, in a world, that tells you, you shouldn’t be those things that you should fit neatly into all these other little spaces that you get an inner strength in a way that you can’t get, unless you have to walk through fire in that regard.”

(Casey)

In traditional housework studies, there is a large focus on how ‘genderisation’ of housework impacts performance, ultimately determining who does what, and why they feel they should do certain tasks. Participant’s stories pointed to other influential concepts; a resistance to the norms they saw in their parent’s performance of unpaid labour, the absence of a dichotomous relationship dynamic impacting their formulation of ideas and roles in a relationship, and the underlying importance of fairness and justice.

These influences lead to the formulation of differences between each person in how cognitive labour was performed and valued. All participants reported growing up with parents who were in a heterosexual relationship or with a single parent. Several participants shared how their childhood home had influenced their own needs relating to cognitive and household labour performance in their current relationships, whether that be in molding their personal preferences for when tasks should be completed, or choosing to take on a higher cognitive load:

“It’s something that I was doing beforehand for my mum. Because she’s a single mum that works a lot. So I was already doing her food shopping and that kind of thing… I think that I take on a little bit more of that role in general throughout the whole relationship, which is again, something that I’ve been doing a lot of my life with single parents and I have younger siblings.”

(Molly)

Sarah suggested that differences between how her and her brother perform cognitive labour was at least partially shaped by their socialization growing up:

“My brother just kind of likes to wait for things to happen for him before he will try and do it for himself. I find it interesting that we both grew up exactly the same and yet, I am a little more mindful about your (Claire) feelings and doing my part in the relationship. But he, is a bit more relaxed about it and I suppose it might come down to that whole societal thing where men grow up to be more entitled due to multiple factors.”

(Sarah)

Couples identified that in the absence of gendered heteronormative dichotomous relationship expectations, they were better able to balance the cognitive load without projected constraints they had seen in relationships between men and women. Lisa stated “We’re living in a society where it’s a female’s natural role and need to nurture and take care of, whereas the male’s natural nature, to protect and provide and all that kind of stuff. But, we’re both women. *laughs* So yeah, so we kind of share the load because we don’t really adhere to one or the other, but I think we both have aspects, just naturally within our own personalities.” This consequently led to couple’s having to refute people’s attempts to force this dichotomy on their relationship: “We still get people that, every now and again, it doesn’t happen so often nowadays, but we’re always asked who’s the man in the relationship? People just love to have that- the box.”

An existing knowledge of gendered inequalities in household performance was reflected in couple’s relationships and the need to adopt a strengths-based approach to labour division:

“I think when we, because we’re aware of the data about, you know, women do way more and stuff. And when we moved in together, the first time I think we did kind of have a conversation about it and really just kind of came to this strengths-based approach.”

(Kim)

Queerness was also seen as an alternative to the dichotomous relationship of household labour performance and gender norms and allowed them to be more reflective of gender inequalities:

“I definitely think there is some relationship between queerness between, transness and sort of having the, self-awareness and the flexibility to be like, there’s no one sort of assigned role that I have to get into.”

Couples did not report an equal division of cognitive labour. Rather, it was a perception of fairness, and that the division should be fair and equitable, not even. Participants shared how valuing fairness and justice in the wider world and seeing unequal division in their childhood homes influenced their current relationship:

“And then she (participant’s mother) would remake the beds. And it’s like, all of this stuff, obviously I only picked up on it in my early teens. But thinking about that from a gendered point of view, it was definitely like, early stages of me being like “well hang on, this is not fair” and being a teenager I was like “this is f***ed.”

(Melissa)

“But I remember them (Jessie) saying, look, things don’t have to be perfectly equal all the time. That’s not always what’s best or what’s fair. It’s about what we can do.”

(Kim)

Soil: The interaction of each person’s context and cognitive labour performance styles

“I don’t think that we’ve necessarily discussed it in depth, but I think that we have different ideas of what that (cognitive labour) is. I’ve always been much more fly by the seat of my pants type. Whereas I married a planner, through and through. I’m more disorganised and chaotic, whereas he is more organised and structured.”

(Simon)

Previous experiences within a person’s bedrock foregrounded the negotiation and performance of cognitive labor in their relationship, facilitating the creation of unique patterns in labour performance. Additionally, the combination of each person’s foundations contributed to how people formulate their cognitive labour routine for their particular dynamic. Contextual factors may weave in and out of the interpersonal relationship (including factors such as paid employment). This study found the way same-gender couple’s actively navigated and integrated their own differences led to four different elements of cognitive labour performance within each couple. Some participants described performing more cognitive labour than their partner as a means of keeping control, other participants spoke about preferring or being inherently better than their partner at certain cognitive labour tasks. The idea of people having a different cognitive load or mess threshold also became apparent:

“I think Kim likes to tick things off, but in terms of remembering, it just seems to be a little easier for me to remember, to do things by a certain day, or remember to write down, to do it by a certain day.”

(Jessie)

Performing more cognitive labour to keep control and reduce anxiety was a mechanism shared by several women across the interviews. Lisa explained that she focused on long term planning and organising because of her anxiety. Similarly, Casey and Taylor explained how because finances caused Taylor stress, Casey performed the majority of financial management:

“I’ve been on the bones of my bum for many years as well in extreme poverty. But, I’m not afraid of having nothing. Again. I know that I’ll always be alright. It doesn’t stress me out the same way it does Taylor. So, because it stresses her out so much. I actually manage our money.”

(Casey)

Lachlan described the distribution of labour with his partner, Nick, to ‘trading on comparative advantages.’ When asked about how cognitive labour is performed in their relationship, Kim recalled how they divided tasks by strengths with the partner Jessie, and what each person didn’t hate, with other couples voicing similar reasoning:

“It makes it more bearable if you get to do the things that you like or slightly prefer to do than you know, just being stuck with the task that you just like, argh, here we go again.”

(Laura)

Participants displayed varying tolerances for the intensity of cognitive labour they could perform, which

influenced how they chose to perform and divide cognitive labour tasks.

“We definitely think very differently. She probably isn’t making as much of a mental list. She likes to tell me all the time that she doesn’t have thoughts, which is really funny. I find it really funny. I’m like, I just overthink everything. And she’s just like, “I don’t have thoughts”, like, what do you mean?”

(Molly)

This also involved a comparison to their partner’s style and threshold:

“I think with like the mental, one of the differences is, I’m not sure I would necessarily get to an overload state or an overflow or whatever. Whereas I think you get to that overflow and then you’re like, all right, well, I’m doing all these things, you can do it.”

(Simon)

Couples linked their performance patterns to originating from a foundation of trust, attuned equity, communication and maintained independence within their relationship. For some couples, factors within the bedrock and soil components of the model had not been previously discussed. The interview was the first time they had openly discussed influences on cognitive labour division as a broader concept.

Tree one: Habitually fostered patterns of trust

“We both have made a really important point to say before this escalates, before we get pissed off and into an argument, can we communicate with the other, Hey, I feel like I’m taking on a bit more at the moment.”

(Lisa)

Couples shared the fundamental ways they fostered trust in their relationship. An underlying assumption that each person trusted the other and held no expectations relating to the other’s performance meant cognitive labour could be tailored to suit individual need. Jonathan [79] describes this fairness and paying equal attention to needs as ‘attuned equality.’ Open and clear communication was attributed as largely responsible for how couple’s divided cognitive labour successfully. Couples linked their thoughts around cognitive labour to an initial expectation of why they chose to live together:

“I think it’s something that’s really important in our household, is just that open, clear communication before things get blown up and out of proportion because neither one of us want to be fighting. We’re not, I’m not here to fight her.”

(Kelly)

A mutual understanding of the importance of individual wellbeing over expectations held around performing cognitive labour was also established. Because of a high level of trust each person’s performance of cognitive labour, couples ensured a focus on individual wellbeing, rather than equal division. This was talked about by couple’s in relation to expectations:

“It’s the expectation that, you know, I’m going to have a full day off or Lisa’s going to have a full day off. And, and that’s fine. At the end of the day, we have to make sure that we both have enough energy to be ourselves. I’d rather that she did that than killed herself, trying to get the house clean or something.’

(Lisa)

Cognitive labour was established not as a static ‘chore’ performed by one person, but as a set of tasks which could be re-allocated dependent on the needs of the individual and over the life course. This included not just mental or physical health and fluctuating paid work demands, but also study requirements:

“When I was towards the end (of an honors thesis). I was like, I can’t do anything else. I have no time and no energy for anything else. 24/7, I’m thinking about this or I’m actively working on it. And, all I can do is just, have a shower and eat and, I need help. So I was like, Kim, I’m really sorry, I can’t take on this responsibility right now. And can you help me?”

(Jessie)

A change in division of cognitive labour also presented a temporal element. Couples discussed how expectations and needs relating to cognitive labour performance were likely to change over the life course:

“I think that as, as we grow together and things change that we’re going to be good at redefining what needs to be done and in whatever order and our communication is so good and so open that the picture that we have looks ideal for right now and when things start to change or, you know, whatever life might throw at us.”

(Kelly)

In contrast, traditional, dichotomous gender roles relating to housework division are often viewed as static and limit this flexibility [45]. Amongst couples, there was a shared expectation that each person would do what they could on any given day, fostering and reinforcing an underlying trust:

“It’s the ebb and flow of the need of the household, the ebb and the flow of the person’s health, their emotional wellbeing, the seasons, like all those things are going to affect how much each person works.”

(James)

“In terms of what’s fair, it’s not necessarily splitting everything 50/50. But, I think we both feel the other person will do what they can.”

(Jessie)

Tree two: Agency in redefining family or household

“I’m just always thinking up here ‘how could this house be gayer?’”

(James)

Participants spoke about the power they held in redefining their household. This included how cognitive labour was performed and the strength that came from a freedom from broader socio-cultural expectations around who should be responsible for cognitive labour. Couples spoke of a freedom in being able to ‘make their own rules’ for how cognitive labour was performed outside of heteronormative constructs:

“That was one of the first things that I was like, “this is an awesome part of being queer and creating your house.” And so for me, I’ve just thought, it doesn’t have to be, there’s a person who always does these things and a person who does these things and those lists better be the same length.”

(James)

For Simon and James, this did not necessarily mean an even performance of cognitive labour. They both agreed James performed the majority of tasks (e.g., responsible for finances, keeping track and scheduling irregular house tasks such as winter preparedness, food planning, delegating of tasks within the home). They also agreed this worked within their relationship and remained dynamic based on what each person wanted:

“I think part of my philosophy of household division of labor sharing the emotional and cognitive load, goes back to my perspective on like what a queer household is. And like a 50/50 division of labor, I don’t know, we can, we can create whatever we want the house to be.”

(Simon)

Couples acknowledged the interplay of their division of cognitive labour was centred on respect for one another and not on an existing ideology around gender or labour division:

“And so we don’t take any of that for granted. We don’t follow any gender stereotypes, any. We just do what we want to do. And we look after each other and we make sure we both feel respected. And it’s very, very simple…We’re both here because we want to be, we don’t have to be. We’re here because we love each other and we want to be, you know, we want to live life and be happy, you know?”

(Casey)

The traditional breadwinner-homemaker ideology was challenged by the participants. Couples highlighted how the experience of friends and acquaintances in straight relationships, where uneven cognitive load had created conflict, reinforced what they valued in their own relationship:

“Predominantly our friend’s are straight and it’s typically, you know, women talk about the gender division of labor in their relationships without talking about it in that way that’s what they’re talking about, how they go to work. And then when they get home from work at six o’clock, six thirty and they’ve still got to look after the kids and make dinner and all that sort of stuff. I guess it reminds me the impact that has on me is that that’s just not the life I want.”

(Casey)

As couples shared their stories it became apparent that paid work was also not static, and the demands of employment did not permanently dictate who was responsible for cognitive labour. Couples intentionally negotiated how cognitive labour was completed in their relationship whilst also modifying its performance depending on their circumstances. Renegotiation of cognitive labour occurred dependent on factors including seasonal paid work changes, study load and wellbeing. This was a core element of how couples embodied the idea of a ‘queer household’ to allow agency and space to challenge the gendered dichotomy of cognitive and broader unpaid labour.

Tree three: Challenges to cognitive harmony

“I mean, you’re probably talking to other people who do have a lot of imbalance, so it’s not like, this queer-utopia?”

(Kim)

Every couple shared ways in which they achieved a homeostasis of cognitive load, or cognitive harmony, and how this was both inhibited and cultivated at various times. Couples explored feeling guilt and responsibility to perform cognitive labour, their performance going unnoticed for prolonged periods of time, cognitive labour avoidance, being unaware of each other’s expectations relating to cognitive labour performance and avoiding talking about cognitive labour. These challenges formed tensions in the relationship, leading to stress and interpersonal conflict:

“I think that, in the moment I’m very vocal about my expectations. Whereas, and sometimes I can come across brash or blunt, whereas I think that you wait until things are kind of bothering you to voice those expectations.”

(Simon)

The presence of a delegator and a delegatee was a common occurrence. The delegator performed a higher amount of cognitive labour tasks, given delegating is a central aspect of ‘household management.’ Whereas the delegatee was in the position of being given instruction or direction for performance:

“Taylor: It’s fine. I mean if Casey asked me to do something I’m happy to do it.

Casey: Yeah. It annoys me sometimes.

Taylor: Yep.

Casey: Yeah, it, it really irritates me sometimes, but it’s really not a big thing to get irritated about. You know, like it’s just one of those things and yeah. We joke about it, I’ll, you know, prompt Taylor, or mention it and say, Hey, could you do that while I do this? And she’ll do it.”

This further supported the need for a deep fostering of trust and communication to manage dynamic cognitive labour needs. In contrast, Nick was identified as the main performer of cognitive labour within his relationship with Lachlan. Although he reported being happy to be the one delegating, and likewise, his partner Lachlan agreed he was happy to be delegated to.

Dyadic interviews offered a space for shared reflection and correction [80]. At their core, dyadic interviews allowed couples to hold each other accountable whilst framing their narrative to an outsider. Couples course corrected instantaneously, highlighting how cognitive labour is invisible during day to day performance, especially to those not performing it, as first seen by Daminger [15]:

(Couple were asked how they view cognitive labour split in relationship)

“Simon: 70/30? 80/20?

James: Who’s who?

Simon: I’m 80, you’re 20.

*both laugh*

James: You think so?

Simon: No, I’m teasing. It’s like 80 *points to James* 20 *points to self* or 70, 30.

James: That’s more in balance than I think it is.

Across all interviews it was clear when cognitive labour tasks were disliked by a person they were more unlikely to be conscious of the task being performed or of the task’s necessity. Phrases such as “that’s not even on my radar,” or “I don’t have to think about that because I know they will do it” were common:

“I’ve only cleaned the bathroom once or twice since we’ve lived here, because I know that that goes on your list without me asking for it. You take initiative for that. So that just, there’s some things like that, that don’t ever go on my list because I know you notice them before I think of like prepping for it.”

(James)

Tree four: Facilitators to achieving cognitive harmony

“Honestly, we’re actually—and it’s something we’ve commented on before, we are pretty good at recognising or taking on board when the other is struggling and picking up the slack.”

(Melissa)

Couples established rules and systems that focused on their strengths and needs, incorporated strategies to reduce cognitive labour load, jointly managed cognitive labor whilst still centering individual performance and accepted differences in each other’s expectations as a means of facilitating cognitive harmony. Where a couple identified that cognitive labour was less than manageable, instead of one person increasing their labour, the couples worked together to integrate a range of strategies to reduce cognitive labour overall.

The use of google calendar, electronic shopping lists, online food ordering, autopayments or direct debiting for bills, scheduling robotic vacuums and use of meal planning and dinner subscription boxes were among strategies identified by the couples. A centering of individual responsibility also grew from each partner having an inherent trust that their partner would perform cognitive labour, if they said they would:

“Yeah. And it works. I’m not like, do it right now. But like, with the joke, how people are always like, you know, ‘if your partner doesn’t do it, you’re like, oh, I’ll do it myself.’ No. I know that she’s going to do it. She just needs to, you know, she’ll do it when she finds the mental strength to get to it.”

(Laura)

Couples also referenced making cognitive labour practices intentionally flexible for when paid work or study commitments changed and therefore their labour load at home also needed to change. One couple linked individual performance with their shared goal of maximising time spent together, given seasonal work commitments required living apart for weeks at a time:

“Especially, you know, the fact that I do travel, we’re very conscious of making the most of those times when I’m home… But if I have the night off and I’ve got no plans or anything, I’ll do a big, big clean. Just to get it done and out the way, but nothing else on my case. Yeah, that way we can spend more time together during the week.”

(Kelly)