Rosters: Freedom, responsibility, and co‐operation in young adult shared households

Abstract

Objective

The rationale for this study was to contribute to understanding the social dynamics of shared housing among young adults. Sharing is an informal socio‐economic contract, in which financially challenged individuals pragmatically divide household costs and duties. Whereas monetary contributions can be monitored, physical labour is more difficult to assess with housework cited as a major source of conflict.

Method

Discursive psychology was employed to analyse talk of experiences of New Zealand house sharers aged 20 to 35.

Results

While rosters have been mooted as the safest way to overcome problems of housework division, findings indicate that young adults are resistant to formal rules and rosters, considering them ineffective and compromising personal autonomy. Freedom is maintained by adopting organic rules, which provide structure. With responsibility and co‐operation, households are orderly on their own terms.

Conclusion

No particular formula guarantees success. Positive payoffs can be achieved for all by communication and mutually agreed strategies.

Key words:

• housework
• rosters
• shared housing
• young adults

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?

• Very little research has addressed how shared living arrangements among young adults operate in practice.

• Housework has been identified as the main source of contention in this lifestyle.

• Rosters have been mooted as the safest way of dividing housework.

WHAT THIS TOPIC ADDS?

• Rosters are ineffective.

• Rosters curtail freedom and autonomy.

• Ad hoc system, where everyone utilises their strengths and preferences are more likely to be successful.

INTRODUCTION

Sharing households, or flatting, with peers is an established way of life for many young adults in Australia (Natalier, 2004) and New Zealand (Wolfe & Barnett, 2001). Peer co‐residence is also popular in the UK (Carlsson & Eriksson, 2015), northern Europe (Schwanitz & Mulder, 2015) and the United States, (Mykyta, 2012). Flatting is an economically expedient pathway to independent housing and can afford a range of benefits, apart from a roof overhead (Hughes, 2003; Clapham, Mackie, Orford, Thomas, & Buckley, 2014). The social and emotional advantages possibly improve quality of life (Heath, Davies, Edwards, and Scicluna (2018). In addition to equal contribution to household expenses, reciprocity of domestic duties is usually expected. Whereas monetary payments can be calculated, labour contributions are harder to monitor and easier to elude. Housework is acknowledged as the major source of discord in shared housing (Baum, 1986; Mause, 2008).

Housing pathways for young adults are not straightforward. For financial reasons increasing numbers of young adults are remaining in the parental home or returning to live with parents, however, access to cushioning parental resources differs (Burn & Szoek, 2016; Thomaszewski et al., 2016). An indigent life for young individuals has different trajectories: for some poverty can be restricted to student years but not so for the unskilled worker or single parent, with limited possibilities for asset gathering and home ownership. The most vulnerable may end up homeless. Heath and Kenyon (2001) have suggested that shared housing is well suited to young people strongly committed to the labour market. Very often post‐graduates accustomed to shared living as students continue to do so once they graduate and the lifestyle has thus become exclusionary for the less well educated. McNamara and Connell (2007) have noted a similar trend in Australia where group households are represented at the high end of the income scales with a significantly lower representation at the low end, compared to Australian households overall. Research into shared housing, therefore, tends to represent mainstream rather than economically or socially marginalised young adults.

Despite flatting being a popular demographic option, the lifestyle is a significantly understudied area. Whereas there is comprehensive coverage of economic reasons for flatting by housing demographers (Day, 2016), little detailed research has focused on how this living arrangement operates in practice (Heath & Cleaver, 2003; Mykyta, 2012). The extant literature on house sharing is predominantly by sociologists (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1993; Heath & Cleaver, 2003; Natalier, 2004). Recently Heath et al. (2018) have observed that relatively little is currently known about the everyday experiences of house sharers. This study contributes to a gap in the psychological literature on the dynamics of shared living and how the demands of shared living are managed within this unique form of domestic intimacy. In addition it illuminates our understanding of the dynamics of small groups, who must resolve the daily tensions associated with the fundamental structure of sharing living space with others. Furthermore, it contributes to Discursive Psychology's original programme of research into the “normative order of everyday life” (Edwards, 2012, p. 434). In this regards Potter (1996, p. 135) notes “Arguably, one of the most astonishing omissions in psychology for most of the 20th century has been the study of what people do: their interactions in the home and workplace”. Furlong (2012) has argued that while academics are preoccupied with researching problematic young adults there has been scant attention paid to the everyday domestic lives of this demographic. This study adds to that research agenda and thereby contributes to the particularism that is unique to discursive psychology (Tilaga & Stokoe, 2016).

In shared housing there are no clear blueprints or institutionalised ideological guiding principles to shape behaviour. In conventional homes gendered division of household labour is waning, but the gender revolution is still incomplete with structured roles persisting (Bianchi, Liana, Sayer, Milkie, & Robinson, 2012). In a comprehensive study on gendered division of labour in shared households Natalier (2004) speculated that presumed equality in sharing could destabilise traditional domestic roles but found that they continue. Although women in shared households do less domestic work than those in heterosexual household relationships they justified their extra workload by linking it to caring and nurturing. Unable to draw on patriarchal default systems of not being responsible for housework, men excused their lack of effort through practicalities and preferences, such as working long hours and indifference to mess (Natalier, 2004). Interestingly, ideologically‐informed communal living formats often set out to deliberately restructure conventional inequalities between men and women and challenge gendered divisions of labour but frequently did not succeed, often for reasons consistent with those highlighted by Natalier (Abrams & McCulloch, 1976).

In a seminal study on shared housing, in which she tried to isolate factors contributing to successful co‐residence across the adult life spectrum, Baum (1986) concluded that rosters were the safest means of coping with household chores: resentment and guilt are based on someone failing to complete assigned duties rather than generalised accusations that some are doing less than others. Baum's findings indicated that some flats operated well on an ad hoc system without rosters but commitment is essential. In addition, Baum identified that some people were averse to rosters as they loathe regimentation. In Natalier's (2004) study of 11 mixed gender households only one successfully operated a roster. Williamson (2006) similarly noted that a roster may seem like egalitarianism to some but authoritarianism to others, supposedly undermining personal responsibility, autonomy and independence, highlighting a paradox in flatting where independence involves interdependence (Clark, Tuffin, Frewin, & Bowker, 2017a). More recently, Heath et al. (2018) noted that rosters seldom offer long‐term solutions. In employing discourse analysis, we detail how young people talk about the challenges of organising domestic responsibilities to keep the arrangement workable.

RESEARCH PARADIGM

The tenets of critical psychology underpin the current research method employing discourse analysis within a social constructionist epistemology. Critical social psychologists reconceptualise social life as language use, moving the study of psychological processes from the mental interior to linguistic practices and social interactions (Wetherell, 1996). Constructionists argue that knowledge, truth and reality are not stable entities but products of social interaction and discursive practices, never independent of culture and historical context. Thus, language constitutes the world rather than merely describing it (Schwandt, 1994). Although there are many approaches to discourse analysis, all involve close study of language use beyond literal meaning (Taylor, 2001). Language is never neutral but achieves functional actions, such as blaming, accusing, justifying and complimenting (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). “Discourse,” which refers to patterns of coherent statements that construct meaning, is examined in terms of the dynamic, rhetorical functions of accounting for and explaining points of view (Parker, 1992).

Method

Participants were aged between 20 and 35, fluent in English, currently sharing and had flatted for at least a year. Purposefully recruited by word of mouth, they were informed that the research aimed to examine how people talk about their flatting experiences. Data were obtained from semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews with seven flat groups and 14 one‐on‐one interviews. Participants were Pākehā (of European descent), apart from two Māori, and two identifying as Māori/ Pākehā. Twenty‐two were female and 15 were male, with the mean age of 24. Apart from 14 students, all were employed full‐time. Of the seven flat households two were all‐male, two were all‐female, and three were of mixed gender. Flat numbers ranged from two to five people. To increase heterogeneity, three flat group interviews were conducted in a large metropolitan city and four in a smaller township. Apart from city folk being more open to flatting with strangers and various diets no discernible differences were detected in responses from the different compositions and locations of households.

Open‐ended questions, such as, “What do you think makes a flat function well?” were asked to stimulate discussion. Interviews were audio recorded with group interviews also videoed to discern each speaker during transcription. An annotated version of Jeffersonian notation (Wooffitt, 1992) was used for transcriptions. The study conformed to ethical requirements of informed consent and confidentiality with pseudonyms used to protect participants' identity. Approval was gained from Massey University Ethics Committee.

ANALYSIS

Analysis involved repeated reading of the data, looking for recurring patterns with little preconceived notion of what these would be. All participants had experimented with rosters and offered various justifications to substantiate attitudes. Allowing participants to explain their social actions as intelligible and meaningful affords insight into people's lived experiences. Extracts employed from participants' talk best exemplify common threads within the discourses, which follow.

Rosters are flawed

The predominant discourse is that chore rosters are flawed. In asserting that rosters are defective, alternative suggestions for what does work were invariably invoked. One argument was that people are more disposed to co‐operation if they can utilise their strengths and preferences.

 280 Mike: mmm (.) We tried a roster

 281 just for a little bit (.) hey

 282 and it didn't really work

 283 Susie: yeah (.) no (.) cause (.) like

 284 Mike likes cooking (.) so (.) yeah

 285 you'd mainly cook (.) and then

 286 other people would clean up

 287 really that's how it worked

Participants had invariably tried rosters (282): “Just for a little bit” (281) implies that it did not take long to discover their futility. “Didn't really work” (282) suggests there may be some merit in the idea but people are more likely to do chores they prefer doing (284): this was more effective than rosters. According to Mike and Susie, flatmates were happy to clean up (286), presumably do the dishes, while Mike is partial to cooking (284). “Really that's how it worked” (287) acknowledges the functionality of this arrangement. While this begs the question whether Mike would have been content to clean up after others' cooking, Lucy attests that communal goals can be achieved by making use of particular skills and predilections. She spoke of “a great flatting experience”

 259 Lucy: we:: didn't have uh:: (.) kind of a cleaning roster

 260 we kind of just (.) all (.) did stuff

 261 and kind of slipped into

 262 the areas that we liked doing?

 263 and it all kind of worked

Rosters are not necessary when flatmates collaborate and are at liberty to do what they enjoy (262). “Kind of” is repeated four times, signalling vagueness, and highlighting precisely the lack of regulation required to bring about this fortuitous situation.

When stringent rosters were introduced very often the precise intention was to encourage recalcitrant flatmates to share responsibilities. Nevertheless, some flatmates remained seemingly unaware of exploiting the time, energy and goodwill of others. When asked about a visible roster in her flat Lucy spoke of trying to motivate an unco‐operative flatmate.

 390 Lucy: I set it up when we had the

 391 the previous flatmate

 392 and who was the other male

 393 flatmate (.) cause I:: I was like I

 394 I (.) do not want to be the person

 395 running round cleaning this place?

 396 we're all equally in this together

 397 and (.) so I set it up (.) so

 398 it's all organised and there's no questions

 399 who's doing what (.) you know there's (.)

 400 I've had some experiences where “Ah I didn't (.)

 401 I thought someone else did it so I didn't ah (.)

 402 but ah” and (.) > you know< fly under the radar

 403 don't lift a finger for three months

 454 it was an interesting (.) uh it was an experiment

 455 that didn't work but um

Hypothetically, flatting is an egalitarian arrangement (396). Understandably, Lucy is averse to being solely responsible for housework, which is implied by “the person running round cleaning this place” (394–395). Prior experience has taught Lucy that some individuals attempt to avoid housework without attracting notice (402). Idioms, such as “fly under the radar” are rhetorically effective and meant to be interpreted figuratively (Drew & Holt, 1989). The suggestion that an absolute lack of contribution (403) can remain undetected for months (403) is as unlikely as the excuses for inactivity (401). Exaggeration is employed rhetorically to make a point rather than for accuracy (Edwards & Potter, 1992). Rationally, a roster should leave no room for uncertainty about duties (398–399). Ultimately, Lucy concluded that the experiment with a roster was unsuccessful (454–455). The inference is that those who ignore chores are as likely to ignore rosters or deliberately misunderstand their responsibilities.

A strong thread in the discourse of rosters being ineffectual was resistance to replicating the demands of the parental home.

 188 Sean: a part of flatting I guess is about freedom

 ~

 200 and:: the last thing you want to do

 201 when you come into a flat (.)

 202 when you are twenty years old (.) > twenty one years old<

 203 is being told (.) you know

 204 this is when you have to do your jobs

One justification for flatting was escaping the demands and confines of the parental home. The attraction of freedom (188) and anticipation of a life unfettered by structures and rules (204) has strong appeal. Consequently moving into a flat where there are too many dictates, obligations and claims on time is unacceptable. “The last thing you want to do” (200) is an extreme case formulation, a rhetorical resource designed to persuasively legitimise claims in a dramatic way (Pomerantz, 1986). “Have to” (204) emphasises the onerous, obligatory nature of expectations.

In addition, participants were wary of surveillance by other flatmates:

 371 Sean: and this was turning into a state

 372 where we were spying on other people

 373 and it was terrible

Sean uses “we” (371) indicating that he was as complicit as others in tracking others' misdemeanours. Simultaneously, he acknowledged that it was unacceptable (373).

Flat 2 do not subscribe to the imposition of rosters:

 475 Annie: as I said before (.) I think

 476 freedom is very important

 477 we've moved out of home

 478 we don't live with our parents

 479 and stuff so (.) It's good to feel like

 480 you've got some control

 ~

 494 Annie: we've already got our jobs and shit

 495 we don't need other (.) stuff to

 496 you know we want to come home

 497 and actually be able to relax and not feel

 498 and not have all these duties

Annie echoes Sean's sentiments about the importance of freedom (476) and invokes the sense of control and self‐determination flatting affords (480). The implication is that living with parents is rule bound with restricted autonomy, whereas flatting offers liberty. “All these duties” is an extreme case formulation (Pomerantz, 1986), implying a multitude of tasks to be tackled with the tyranny of rosters, seriously curtailing relaxation. The use of “shit” in conjunction with employment (494) suggests the stress and personal restrictions associated with work. Home is a place for destressing (497), not a place to be burdened with more rules and labour.

Closely aligned with the appeal of freedom is the contention that life does not subscribe to routine and schedules.

 483 Sam: whereas >you know< for me

 484 life doesn't fit to a schedule

 485 it might be that on my scheduled night

 486 a Wednesday I would rather be out

 487 doing something else

 488 and I would not want to be at home

 489 cooking (.) dinner (.) for flatmates

Participants often qualified justifications for opinions as personal preferences (483), allowing for the possibility that others might not share their views. This averts suggestions of dogmatism, while still making a point. In this case, Sam is adamant that he does not want to be tied to an inflexible roster as there might be more attractive alternatives (486–489).

Tamsin contrasted the difference between flatting with peers and living with a mother who expected housework to be executed every Sunday:

 510 Tamsin: if I was (.) hungover

 511 or (.) out doing (.) whatever I wanted

 512 she'd get really angry (.) at me?

 513 and I just (.) that's the fact

 514 like you know (.) we don't have that here

 515 it's not like ahh you have to

 516 do the bathrooms this week

 517 if the bathrooms don't get done

 518 well (.) they just don't get done

 519 they not ever:: completely (.) disgusting

 520 it's just that sometimes (.) you know

 521 we (.) you have to factor in life

Considerable discursive work is accomplished in foregrounding the draconian unreasonableness of a mother prioritising housework over coping with hangovers (510) and social life (511). “Really angry” (512) signifies the degree of emotionality involved and accompanied by “the fact” (513) pre‐empts any suggestion of exaggeration. The mother's inflexibility is an illustrative case of chores and the regularity with which they could be completed (515–516) contrasted with a more flexible approach, which tolerates some slippage. This is supported by the reassurance that unacceptable standards (519) are avoided. “Completely disgusting” (519) is an extreme case formulation, employed as a disclaimer to forestall any suggestion that conditions deteriorate to the insalubrious. Disclaimers are designed to pre‐empt any potential judgments (van Dijk & Kintch, 1983). “You have to factor in life” takes into account the vagaries of life and justification for relaxed attitudes to chores, thereby building a counterpoint to parental inflexibility (521).

An ad hoc approach emerged as a common way of coping with the demands of housework, without exerting pressure on housemates.

 133 VC: and do you have rosters

 134 Chloe: um I tried that?

 135 but it's better just to um (.) say

 136 uh “We'll do the inside work”

 137 like two of us and the other two

 138 will do the outside work

 139 and then when it needs doing

 140 whoever didn't do it last (.) does it °yeah°

 141 but that way you don't

 142 no one feels pressured to (.) oh this is

 143 I have to get it done now (.) yeah

 144 and that sort of works out a bit better

Chloe's reply suggests that she may have experienced some difficulty getting flatmates to co‐operate. “I tried that” (134) implies attempts to find a solution to a problem. Since rosters failed, a more workable alternative is a spoken agreement. The excerpt implies that some form of yard work (138) may be required. The word “flat” may conjure up apartment living, which is the original meaning of the word, but the term often includes houses with gardens (in New Zealand), which need to be maintained to some extent. “No one feels pressured” (142) reinforces the antipathy to stress inducing structures and deadlines (143). “Sort of works out a bit better” implies that there are still issues with fulfilling responsibilities and completing chores.

Mental rosters and collective action appear to alleviate rigid requirements.

 198 Noah: we tried to make a roster

 199 at the start of the year

 200 and it would sort of say so‐and‐so

 201 cleans the bathroom this day

 202 the kitchen (.) um

 203 does the vacuuming this day

 204 but it (.) we (.) it didn't really work with

 205 we:: (.) um find it easier to just all ::

 206 >I don't know<

 207 keep like a mental roster

 208 and we:: all just go through

 209 and all clean up at the same time

 ~

 236 Owen: I don't even think it (the roster) lasted one week ((laughter))

 237 Noah: yeah because like someone

 238 couldn't be home or something

 239 or if someone didn't get round to it

 240 like it's just kind of easy

 241 if we just all do the same thing and

 ~

 262 Jason: you can't really (.) duck out then

 263 then if you do (.) then like

 264 it's a big deal (.) but like

 265 Noah: Yeah

 266 Miles: ((Nods)) It's quite obvious

 267 that you're not helping

Once again experience indicates that rosters do not work in practice (204, 236) given the exigencies of life (237–238). Mental or spoken rosters were believed to be superior to the dictates of written rosters (207) with a communal tackling of chores preferable (205, 209). Line 241, “the same thing”, needs clarification but we read this as supporting “cleaning up at the same time”. Or if someone didn't get round to it” could be a genuine reason for not doing a task but could also hint at indolence. Life is easier (240) if chores are done collectively and there is more likelihood of noticing the constant absence of a particular person (267).

Aiden, from the same flat, notes another limitation of rosters:

 250 Aiden: and I guess when one person's you know

 251 doesn't do their job of the week

 252 everyone else kind of (.) slacks off

Failure to adhere to rosters by one flatmate justifies reduction in effort by others. “Everyone else” (252) is an extreme case formulation designed to signify the repercussions of one person's (250) abdication of responsibility, which can subvert the domestic process. Inherent in these examples is the subtle surveillance or policing of flatmates to ascertain if they are doing their duties. If others do not measure up then there is sufficient cause to abstain or only partially complete duties. To explain this phenomenon, one participant invoked Kelling and Wilson's (1982) Broken Window Thesis, which states that if violation of norms are not obstructed the disorder will spread.

These examples demonstrate that while theoretically rosters can be useful, practically they are neither feasible nor desirable. The dominant discourse is that rosters are flawed. Reasons cited were that people are more likely to commit to chores they enjoy or prefer doing, which runs contrary to the notion of simple rotation of tasks, where over time everyone does all the different domestic chores. The imposition of rosters was a reaction to parental structures: having left these confines, participants were keen to be free of them. Furthermore, rosters not adhered to by one housemate grants others permission to follow suit. Nevertheless, some individuals are adept at ignoring or evading communal responsibilities. Dealing with the avoidant can be challenging. Rosters implemented precisely to curtail such behaviour invariably had no positive effect. A less prominent discourse closely aligned with the notion that life does not operate to schedule, was that if rosters are employed, flexibility is essential.

Flexible rosters

Freeloaders are identifiable and are often the rationale for introducing rosters. However, versatility and communication are essential if a roster system is employed.

 371 Greg: we have pretty loose rosters though

 372 Mathew: =yeah yeah

 373 Justin: =it's always sort of

 374 Mathew: generally it's (.) we have (.) sort of

 375 rosters in place there's like expectations

 376 of the flat (.) like

 377 if it's a Tuesday then I'll be cooking

 378 and then we have like various

 379 like a chore wheel essentially

 380 but it's always (.) I have found yeah

 381 Justin: it's flexible

Flat 7 have “loose” (371) or “sort of rosters in place” (375) suggesting malleable rosters. Rosters are framed as expectations, rather than demands (375). The chore wheel (379) is fluid with flexibility (381) acknowledging that life does not run to schedule. Exceptions need to be made with some swapping of duties to accommodate the unexpected.

The effectiveness of rosters is limited without dialogue:

 52 Sam: once you're (.) living in shared spaces like that

 53 you have to (.) communicate

 54 otherwise (.) things can go horribly (.) um

 55 and (.) but then there's only so much like

 56 that a roster on the fridge can actually achieve

The ability to communicate effectively was frequently cited as essential for functional shared households (52–53). And part of the need for talk might be that it provides a basis for addressing the awkwardness of one member of the flat never doing chores or contributing to the collective efforts. Lack of communication increases the potential for misunderstanding, tension and conflict (54). “Horribly” invokes unpleasantness, particularly unsettling in homes, which should represent sanctuaries for relaxation and destressing from life's vicissitudes (Mallett, 2004). Rosters do not guarantee chores will be performed to an acceptable standard (56), while communication can clarify common expectations regarding satisfactory criteria. While rosters are limited in what they can achieve, compliance can be boosted if rosters and associated duties are an acceptable topic of discussion. Such talk is implied by Justin's plea for flexibility. A high level of communication and co‐operation is essential for functional day‐to‐day operations.

DISCUSSION

The dominant discourse is that rosters do not work and are anathema to young adults seeking freedom and independence, endorsing previous findings that rosters can constrain autonomy (Williamson, 2006). In addition to curtailing freedom, rosters are regarded as stress inducing and do not “factor in life”, for example, being pressured into doing chores when deadlines loom. Participants felt that life itself does not conform to schedules. Being tied down to duties when more seductive opportunities arise is restrictive. In practice, rosters are fragile, susceptible to subversion by more pressing or attractive issues. Similarly, Natalier (2004) found that more attractive activities were used as excuses for shirking housework. A second, discourse to emerge was that if rosters are employed then flexibility is imperative. A high degree of communication is essential for imparting expectations of acceptable standards of cleanliness and tidiness as there is only so much a roster can achieve.

The current research challenges Baum's (1986) assertion that rosters are a safe solution to managing household chores, determining individual contribution and circumventing deviance. One of the revelations of the study is that participants demonstrated a resistance to written and formal rotational rosters. This is highly consistent with research (Chou, Halevy, Galinsky, & Murnighan, 2017) on motivation and autonomy, which suggests that specific contracts (such as rosters) may reduce short‐term problems, but typically at the long‐term cost of reduced autonomy and collaborative relationships. While rosters can work, their effectiveness comes at a cost. Psychologically individuals' motivation to perform the desired behaviours is reduced due to perceived threats to individual freedom. To reassert autonomy the desired behaviour is resisted or sabotaged. General contracts with broad roles and rules affording an increased sense of control are more likely to succeed (Chou et al., 2017). In order to prevent a slide into domestic chaos, participants observe a more flexible, organic set of rules based on preferences, strengths and chipping in when someone else is clearly working toward tidying or cleaning communal areas.

A useful source of understanding how these unwritten rules operate is analogous to Marsh, Rosser, and Harré's (1978) study of soccer fan hooliganism in which they proposed that the ritual encounters between opposing soccer fans are self‐regulating systems. The apparently chaotic and violent, anomic actions are essentially rule bound, highly structured and ordered. Participants in this study preferred to operate their households in the same informal way. Both groups require a detailed knowledge of appropriate intragroup behaviour, such as reciprocity and respecting the privacy of co‐residents in shared households (Clark et al., 2017a). These dictate normative conduct, rendering the collective process possible.

Literature on the effectiveness of rosters is scarce. In a case study on workstation duty rostering in a hospital department, findings were similar to this research: many systems put into place do not last due to disruption by unexpected events. Furthermore, fairness and preferences for certain duties with a flexible honour system played an important role for practical implementation and reductions of violations (Fügener, Brunner, & Podtschaskeb, 2015). In this study, when people took on tasks they enjoyed there was no evidence of precise offsetting of difficulty or time consumption of one chore against another. Although freedom is not the same thing as absence of accountability, freedom from the inflexibility of rosters was achieved with co‐operation, and responsibility.

There are inherent moral dimensions to reciprocity of labour and sacrifice of time and energy. Social loafing can be defined as a tendency to reduce effort because the nature of tasks makes it difficult for others to evaluate individual performance (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Free riding occurs when individuals benefit from a group without contributing a fair share because others will absorb their slack (Ostrom, Walker, & Gardner, 1994). When group members carry a free rider or social loafer they are deemed to be playing a sucker role. To avoid others taking advantage individuals may reduce or withhold contribution to the collective (Orbell & Dawes, 1981). This was evident where flatmates used others' slacking‐off to justify non‐compliance. If left unchecked, this can result in a downward spiral with negative prognosis for the group. Early preventions of minor violations will avert further breaches (Miles & Klein, 2002).

The Broken Window Thesis suggests that self‐interest is a key driver in human behaviour, which is only constrained by laws and rules (Keuschnigg & Wolbring, 2015). Such behavioural constraints can take the form of unwritten principles which are binding. Karau and Williams (1997) suggested the likelihood of social loafing increases if people feel the task is unimportant. A common excuse reported by participants critical of slackers is that the culprits considered an assigned task non‐essential (as in clean enough) or claimed that someone else had attended to the chore. Consequently, responsibility can be circumvented, which reinforces the importance of common expectations about tidiness and cleanliness (Clark et al., 2017a; Heath & Cleaver, 2003). Fairness needs to be encouraged to prevent social loafing (Fügener et al., 2015). If all co‐operate equally and fairly then all benefit.

Relationships within households could also impact on fairness. For example, one interpretation of single people's aversion to living with couples is that couples may consider themselves a single entity when it comes to chores, resulting in exploitation of a single person's labour (Clark, Tuffin, Frewin, & Bowker, 2017b).

Inspired by Hardin's (1968) notion of the tragedy of the common, Mause (2008) demonstrated that individual rational behaviour in shared households does not function for the collective good. Shared households may not degenerate into tragedy but considerable management is required. If every flatmate believes that others are free‐riding and refuses to do chores then the resulting dirt and disorder is bound to result in inhospitable and insalubrious surroundings. Alternatively, the ideal flatmate, who cleans up after others, without reciprocation, may be altruistic and honest but also naïve. In the long run, opportunism will be paid for when the flat destructs or a non‐compliant individual is asked to leave (Mause, 2008).

Social facilitation studies have shown that people are more productive when others are present (Zajonc, 1965). This is evident in talk of flatmates joining in when one individual starts cleaning. In this way coercion is anonymous and control generalised, while unproductive claims and counterclaims are minimised. The practical solution is to make every member a watchdog and use co‐operation to do the rest (Douglas, 1991). While surveillance of others was clearly evident in this study there was an aversion to overt policing.

Clearly, living with those failing to do chores presents challenges. The need to curtail opportunistic and counterproductive behaviours frequently results in highly specific contracts being drawn up (Chou et al., 2017). It was evident that systems of dealing with housework were continually being reformed, becoming more restrictive with continued breaches but loosening if people could be trusted to co‐operate without coercion. Such patterns of change usually survive only long enough to attend to the current needs of members (Douglas, 1991). The transitory nature of flats means group dynamics are continually changing; when a housemate is replaced it takes time to reform as a workable unit and for homeostasis to be reached. Success is possible if all members are flexible, happy with the system adopted and problems are discussed and resolved before tensions become unmanageable. This requires good will, tact and communication skills.

Both Baum (1986) and Natalier (2004) posited that the lack of a cultural blueprint for who does what in housework, as in traditional households, means that evading tension on ideological pretexts is not possible. Responsibility for housework cannot be sidestepped on customary grounds in egalitarian establishments. While the “organic” rules which emerged could subtly continue to reproduce gendered division of labour, the current research found no pattern of exploitation of women. Lucy spoke of resisting the role of running around doing all the cleaning and there was also talk about some men being extremely diligent about housework. While it has been mooted that males' idea of cleaning is different to that of females, in choosing flatmates gender preference was regarded as irrelevant suggesting that selection was not predicated on assumptions of unequal responsibilities (Clark & Tuffin, 2015). Heath et al. (2018) believe that group living sheds light on traditional households, which are no less problematic than shared households: taken for granted, unexamined roles in familial households need to be interrogated.

This research contributes to our understanding of how non‐familial young adult households operate with little in the way of prototypes to guide expectations. The literature on rosters tends to concentrate on electronic generation of rosters with little discussion as to whether these systems are effective. In addition, the research goes some way to address the void in the social psychological literature of the practicalities of sharing and dealing with the necessity and tensions of collective responsibility for domestic chores. The work is also located within a broader discursive psychological research agenda which seeks to address the particularisms associated with studying matters which sit at the heart of everyday human social life. More research could be conducted into the way household chores are managed and responsibilities allocated and shared. While the current study suggests that rosters are not inviolate, its more organic alternative informs us how young people organise the practicalities of collective living.

CONCLUSION

Reciprocity in household work is the norm in shared households, with egalitarian expectations of labour division. Unlike traditional familial households, where cultural expectations have to a large extent dictated who does what, there are often no set rules in shared flats. While Baum (1986) claimed rosters were the safest way of overcoming problems, this study suggests young people are resistant to written rules and regard formal rosters as impinging on autonomy. Freedom is maintained by adopting informal rules, which do provide structure. With responsibility and co‐operation households are orderly on their own terms. No particular formula for housekeeping guarantees success. Communication was recognised as the best way to circumvent housekeeping problems and positive payoffs can be achieved by mutually agreed strategies. The prognosis is poor if a common understanding cannot be achieved.