Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

Time Use Studies: Older Americans

How do older Americans

spend their time?

Older Americans’ time use changes dramatically

with age, but it is the lower employment rates

at older ages—rather than age itself—that matter most

Understanding how older Americans 

spend their time and how their time 

use changes at key life events, such as 

retirement, is important because it affects their 

well-being. Other aspects of aging, such as the 

determinants of labor supply and retirement 

age, the adequacy of retirement savings, and 

the importance of housing wealth, have been 

researched extensively. But little attention has 

been devoted to how older Americans spend 

their time. 

At retirement, the opportunity cost of 

spending time in leisure and household production activities declines, because individuals 

no longer forgo wages to engage in these activities. Economic theory predicts that, because 

of their lower income and lower opportunity 

cost of time, retirees will spend more time doing household production activities—such as 

cooking, cleaning, and performing household 

maintenance—than they did while they were 

employed.1 The predicted effect of retirement 

on time spent in leisure activities is ambiguous, because the effects of a lower opportunity 

cost of time and lower income work in opposite directions: the lower opportunity cost 

of time in retirement tends to increase time 

spent in leisure activities, while the decline in 

income tends to decrease time spent in leisure 

activities.2 Thus, when comparing the time 

use of older Americans who are employed 

with those who are not employed, one expects 

to find that the nonemployed spend more 

Rachel Krantz-Kent

and

Jay Stewart

Rachel Krantz-Kent

is an economist,

and Jay Stewart

is a research economist,

in the Office of

Employment and

Unemployment Statistics,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

E-mail:

Krantz-Kent.Rachel@bls.gov

or

Stewart.Jay@bls.gov

time in household production activities and 

either more or less time in leisure activities 

than those who are employed. Along the same 

lines, one would expect part-time workers to 

be in some sense “between” full-time workers 

and nonworkers in how they use their time—

especially if people work part time to ease the 

transition from full-time work to retirement. 

Psychological and sociological research 

has shown the importance of being socially 

engaged throughout the aging process. For 

example, staying connected with others and 

maintaining socially supportive relationships 

have both been shown to enhance the mental 

and physical health of the elderly3 and to contribute to longevity.4

Until recently, there were few diary-based 

surveys of time use done in the United States, 

and all had small samples, resulting in limited 

information about older persons’ time use. 

Detailed analyses—for example, by full- or 

part-time employment status for detailed age 

groups—were not possible. Still, past time-use 

studies have provided some valuable findings 

about older Americans’ use of time.

In their book Time for Life, John Robinson 

and Geoffrey Godbey included some insights 

about older Americans’ time use. They found 

that older persons spent less time doing paid 

work, more time engaging in leisure activities, 

more time doing housework, and more time 

sleeping compared with younger individuals.5

They also found that employment status was 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007 

a more important factor than age in its impact on older 

persons’ use of time. Research by Liana Sayer, Suzanne 

Bianchi, and John Robinson shows that Americans aged 

65 and older spent more time in leisure activities in 1998 

than they had in 1975. There was also an increase in the 

amount of time older Americans spent both alone and at 

home6 over this same period.7

Anne Gauthier and Timothy Smeeding found that, for 

American women aged 55 to 64, nonemployed individuals’ overall time use was similar to that of individuals employed full time on the days they did not work. However, 

this result did not hold for American men.8 In another 

article, Gauthier and Smeeding made cross-national 

time-use comparisons and examined trends in time use 

between the 1960s and the 1990s. They found that older 

Americans were spending more time both in passive leisure activities (for example, watching television, reading, 

or listening to the radio) and in active ones (for example, 

playing sports or engaging in fitness activities) than in 

years past.9

This study combines 2003 and 2004 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS’s) new American Time Use 

Survey (ATUS) to examine how older individuals spent 

their time on an average day during that 2-year period. 

The ATUS’s large sample size permits detailed analyses by 

demographic characteristics, day of week, time of day, and 

presence of others. The first part of the article examines 

how older Americans’ time use varies by age, employment 

status, and sex. The rest of the article examines social engagement and connectedness by looking at how much 

time older Americans spent actively socializing and how 

much time they spent alone and with other people. 

Data

The ATUS sample is a stratified random sample, drawn 

from households that have completed their participation 

in the Current Population Survey (CPS). The ATUS data 

are nationally representative of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population aged 15 years and older and provide 

age detail for respondents up to age 80.10 The survey began in 2003 and is ongoing. The data used in this article 

cover the period from January 2003 through December 

2004.11 About 1,725 diaries were collected each month of 

2003 and about 1,165 diaries each month of 2004, for a 

total sample size of 34,693, almost four times the size of 

the 1992–94 University of Maryland time-use survey, the 

largest U.S. time-use survey conducted prior to the ATUS. 12

The ATUS provides a wealth of information about how 

Americans allocate their time to various activities.13 During a telephone interview, respondents sequentially report 

their activities for the 24-hour period that began at 4 a.m. 

the previous day and ended at 4 a.m. the day of the interview. Interviews are conducted every day except for a 

few major holidays; thus, the data cover two entire years, 

excluding the days before these holidays. For each activity reported, respondents provide the starting and ending 

times, where they were, and whom they were with. After 

the interview, each activity is assigned a three-tier activity code.14 ATUS interviewers do not systematically collect information about secondary activities (for example, 

listening to the radio while driving or watching TV while 

eating) in the time diary, except for childcare. 

The ATUS also includes information about household 

composition, demographics, and labor force status, such 

as whether the respondent was employed, unemployed, 

or not in the labor force (NILF).15 The ATUS data do not 

distinguish between different reasons for being NILF (as 

is done in the CPS); however, it is possible to identify respondents who report that they did not work because they 

were disabled or unable to work. 

The sample for the analysis that follows includes men 

and women aged 55 and older, except individuals who indicated that they were NILF because they were disabled. 

The resulting sample size was 10,091 observations. In 

generating estimates, the sample weights were adjusted to 

ensure that each day of the week was equally represented 

for each demographic group examined.16

The exclusion of the NILF-disabled was done to facilitate some of the age comparisons, but its overall effect is 

relatively small. The effect of this exclusion is the largest 

for 55- to 59-year-old men, because disabled individuals 

account for more than one-third of all those NILF for 

this age-sex group, and the disabled and the nondisabled 

use their time differently. For example, the NILF-disabled spent less time doing household work and more 

time sleeping and watching TV. This exclusion had a 

somewhat smaller effect on 55- to 59-year-old women, 

because there is little difference in time use between the 

disabled and the nondisabled in this age group. The effect 

is small for 60- to 64-year-olds and is negligible for the 

65- to 69-year-old and 70-and-older age groups. 

The ATUS data have four important limitations that 

are relevant to this analysis. First, because individuals living in residential-care facilities are out of scope for the 

ATUS, one would expect the ATUS sample to be healthier, 

on average, than the elderly population as a whole.17 Perhaps more importantly, the effect of this scope restriction is likely to be larger for older age groups. Second, 

the ATUS drops interviews from individuals who did not 
Time Use Studies: Older America

10  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

remember or who declined to provide activity information 

for more than 3 hours of the 24-hour diary day. This restriction excludes a disproportionate fraction of the oldest 

of the elderly from the ATUS sample, because they appear 

to have more difficulty, in general, recalling their previous 

day’s activities accurately. As with the previous restriction, 

one would expect the ATUS sample to be healthier than 

the elderly population as a whole, with the difference being larger for older age groups. Third, this article presents 

a cross-sectional analysis of older Americans, so it is impossible to determine whether differences by age are due 

to factors associated with aging or due to cohort effects.

Finally, because the ATUS data include only one diary per 

person, it is impossible to make direct observations about 

changes in time use due to changes in employment status. 

Time use of older Americans

Table 1 shows the time spent in selected activities for men 

and women by age and employment status. Because parttime bridge jobs—jobs held after a career full-time job 

ends and before full retirement from the labor force—are 

an important avenue for making the transition into retirement,18 separate estimates were generated for full-time 

and part-time workers (based on usual hours worked per 

week).Although there were too few observations to generate separate estimates of time use for the unemployed, 

they are included in the “Total” columns. 

Comparing the “Total” columns, one can see systematic 

differences by age for both sexes. Hours worked per day 

declined with age, while time spent sleeping and doing 

leisure and sports activities increased. For men, time spent 

doing household work also increased with age. However, 

as will be seen subsequently, most of the differences by age 

disappear after controlling for employment status.

Hours per day spent in market work declined with age 

for employed men and women, but most of this decline 

was due to a shift from full-time to part-time employment. Examining full-time and part-time employment 

separately shows that hours worked varied by about 1 

hour per day across age groups.

Time spent doing household work did not vary much 

with age for either sex, because of two offsetting effects.19

The first, which was due to the decline in employment 

rates with age, tended to increase time spent doing household work. The fraction of men and women who were 

NILF increased with age, and those who were NILF spent 

more time doing household work than those who were 

employed. The second effect was that time spent doing 

household work declined with age for individuals who 

were NILF. The decline for nonworking women could be 

due to a number of factors: increased help with household 

work by retiring husbands, decreased demand for household work because the percent of the elderly living with 

children or with a spouse declined with age, reduced demand for household work because of downsizing to smaller homes, or decreased ability to do household work.

Table 2 shows the time nonworking men and women 

spent doing household work, by the presence of a spouse 

or unmarried partner in the household. The time nonworking men spent doing household work declined with 

age, but did not vary much by the presence of a spouse 

or partner. However, for nonworking women aged 65 

and older, those who lived with a spouse or partner spent 

about 1 hour more per day doing household work than 

their counterparts who did not live with a spouse or partner, with time spent doing food preparation and cleanup 

explaining about half of this difference. Table 2 also shows 

that the time women spent doing household work declined with age, even after adjusting for the presence of a 

spouse or partner.

Older persons at all age levels who were NILF spent significantly more time in leisure and sports activities than employed individuals, and women spent less time in leisure and 

sports activities than men, regardless of employment status. 

(See table 1.) Older men who were NILF spent about 3.5 to 4 

hours more per day in leisure and sports activities than those 

who worked full time. Women aged 55 to 69 who were NILF

spent 2.5 more hours per day in leisure and sports activities 

than those employed full time; this difference increased by 

about 1 hour for women aged 70 and older. These differences 

by employment status account for most of the increase in 

leisure time with age in the “Total” columns, although there 

was a slight increase with age among those NILF.

Television watching accounted for about half of all leisure and sports time for men and women aged 55 and 

older, and this fraction did not vary much by age. As with 

leisure time in general, men spent more time watching 

TV than did women, regardless of employment status and 

age group. The amount of time older Americans spent socializing and communicating did not vary much by age, 

after controlling for employment status. As might be expected, those who worked fewer hours spent more time 

socializing and communicating. Time spent reading for 

personal interest increased with age. Americans aged 70 

and older spent twice as much time reading for personal 

interest as those aged 55 to 59. Although it is not possible 

to determine whether the difference in reading time is due 

to aging or to between-cohort differences in time spent 

reading, it is worth noting that a larger fraction of 55- to 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

 Table 1. Hours that men and women spent doing various activities on an average day in 2003 and 2004, by age and 

employment status

Activities of men

Aged 55–59 Aged 60–64

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time Total Employed Employed full time

Employed 

part time

Not in 

the labor 

force

Work1 5.0 6.1 6.4 3.1 0.0 3.8 6.1 6.7 3.8 0.0

Household work 

(including related 

travel)2 2.6

2.2

2.1 3.3 4.5 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.6 3.4

Care of household 

members (including 

related travel) .1

.1

.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1

Food preparation

 and cleanup .3 .2 .2 .4 .6 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3

Lawn and garden 

care .4 .3 .3 .3 .7 .5 .4 .3 .6 .8

Religious activities .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2

Volunteer activities .1 .1 .1 .3 .2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .3

Leisure and sports 4.9 4.3 4.2 5.8 7.6 5.6 4.4 4.1 5.7 7.6

Socializing and 

communicating .6 .5 .5 1.0 1.1 .7 .5 .5 .6 .9

Watching TV 2.8 2.5 2.4 3.0 3.9 3.1 2.4 2.3 3.0 4.3

Sports, exercise,

 or recreation .3 .3 .2 .4 .5 .4 .3 .2 .5 .6

Relaxing and thinking .3 .3 .3 .4 .5 .4 .4 .3 .4 .5

Reading .4 .4 .3 .6 .6 .5 .4 .5 .4 .7

Sleep 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.2 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.9

Grooming .6 .6 .6 .4 .5 .5 .6 .6 .5 .4

Eating 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4

Travel3 .9 1.0 1.0 .6 .5 .9 1.0 1.0 1.0 .8

Other activities .4 .4 .3 .8 .7 .8 .4 .4 .5 1.0

Activities of men

Aged 65–69 Aged 70 and older

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time Total Employed Employed full time

Employed 

part time

Not in 

the labor 

force

Work1 1.8 4.7 6.0 3.0 .0 .6 4.6 6.2 3.4 .0

Household work 

(including related 

travel)2 3.2

2.4

2.2 2.8 3.6 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 3.1

Care of household 

members (including 

related travel) .2

.2

.0 .4 .2 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1

Food preparation

 and cleanup .4 .2 .2 .2 .4 .4 .3 .2 .3 .4

Lawn and garden 

care .6 .5 .6 .5 .7 .5 .3 .5 .2 .5

Religious activities .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2

Volunteer activities .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .0 .1 .2

Leisure and sports 6.9 4.8 3.9 6.0 8.1 7.7 5.1 4.1 5.9 8.1

Socializing and 

communicating .7 .5 .5 .6 .9 .7 .4 .2 .5 .8

See footnotes at end of table.

Not in 

the labor

 force

Not in 

the labor

 force
Time Use Studies: Older America

12  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

 Table 1. Continued—Hours that men and women spent doing various activities on an average day in 2003 and 

2004, by age and employment status

Activities of men

Aged 65–69 Aged 70 and older

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time Total Employed Employed full time

Employed 

part time

Not in 

the labor 

force

 Watching TV 3.9 2.7 2.3 3.1 4.6 4.2 3.0 2.4 3.4 4.3

Sports, exercise,

 or recreation .3 .2 .2 .3 .4 .3 .2 .1 .2 .4

Relaxing and

 thinking .5 .4 .3 .6 .6 .7 .4 .4 .4 .8

Reading .7 .5 .4 .6 .8 1.1 .6 .4 .8 1.2

Sleep 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.6 9.0 8.4 8.4 8.5 9.1

Grooming .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .6 .6 .6 .5

Eating 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5

Travel3 .7 1.0 1.0 .9 .6 .6 .9 .7 1.0 .6

Other activities .6 .6 .4 .9 .7 .8 .7 .7 .8 .7

See footnotes at end of table.

Activities of women

Aged 55–59 Aged 60–64

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time Total Employed Employed full time

Employed 

part time

Not in 

the labor 

force

Work1 3.7 5.0 5.7 2.8 .0 2.2 4.3 5.2 2.9 .0

Household work 

(including related 

travel)2 3.8 3.2 3.0 3.8 5.5 4.2 3.3 3.2 3.6 5.0

Care of household 

members (including 

related travel) .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2

Food preparation 

 and cleanup .9 .7 .7 .9 1.2 .9 .7 .7 .8 1.1

Lawn and garden 

care .2 .2 .1 .3 .5 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3

Religious activities .2 .2 .1 .3 .1 .2 .2 .3 .2 .2

Volunteer activities .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 .2

Leisure and sports 4.3 3.8 3.6 4.3 6.1 5.0 3.9 3.6 4.4 6.1

Socializing and 

communicating .8 .7 .6 1.0 1.0 .7 .6 .6 .6 .8

Watching TV 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.4 2.6 1.9 1.7 2.2 3.3

Sports, exercise, 

 or recreation .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2

Relaxing and 

 thinking .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .4 .4

Reading .6 .6 .6 .7 .6 .7 .6 .5 .6 .8

Sleep 8.1 8.0 7.8 8.5 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.5 8.6

Grooming .8 .9 .9 .8 .6 .8 .9 .9 .8 .7

Eating 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

Travel3 .9 1.0 1.0 .9 .6 .7 .8 .8 .7 .7

Other activities .8 .6 .7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 .7 1.4 1.3

Not in 

the labor

 force

Not in 

the labor 

force
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

59-year-olds grew up with television in the home, compared with those aged 70 and older. Employment status 

was also a factor, with nonworking individuals spending 

more time reading than the employed.

Individuals aged 70 and older slept about 1 hour more 

per day than 55- to 59-year-olds. About half of this difference was due to the greater sleep time of those NILF 

compared with the employed, combined with a decline in 

the fraction employed with age. The rest was due to an 

increase in sleep times with age, even after controlling for 

Activities of women

Aged 65–69 Aged 70 and older

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time Total Employed Employed full time

Employed 

part time

Not in 

the labor 

force

Work1 1.0 4.0 5.4 2.6 .0 .2 2.9 6.1 1.7 .0

Household work 

(including related 

travel)2 4.3 3.4 3.0 3.7 4.6 3.9 3.5 2.7 3.8 3.9

Care of household 

members (including 

related travel) .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1

Food preparation 

and cleanup 1.1 .7 .6 .8 1.2 .9 .7 .5 .8 1.0

Lawn and garden 

care .2 .3 .3 .2 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 .3

Religious activities .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2

Volunteer activities .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 .2

Leisure and sports 5.9 4.4 4.0 4.9 6.5 7.0 5.5 3.6 6.1 7.2

Socializing and 

communicating .8 .7 .5 .9 .8 .8 .8 .4 .9 .8

Watching TV 3.1 2.2 1.8 2.6 3.4 3.8 3.0 2.2 3.2 3.9

Sports, exercise,

 or recreation .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1

Relaxing and thinking .4 .3 .3 .3 .4 .7 .3 .3 .2 .7

Reading .9 .7 .8 .7 1.0 1.1 .9 .4 1.0 1.1

Sleep 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 8.2 7.9 8.3 9.0

Grooming .8 .9 .9 .9 .7 .7 .9 1.0 .8 .7

Eating 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.3

Travel3 .6 .8 1.0 .6 .6 .5 .6 .6 .6 .4

Other activities 1.1 .7 .3 1.2 1.2 1.0 .7 .7 1.0 1.1

1 Work times includes breaks from work that were 15 minutes or 

less and travel episodes that were preceded and followed by like episodes of “Work, main job” (050101) or “Work, other job(s)” (050102).

2 Household work includes the following activities: Household 

activities (02) except Household and personal mail and messages 

(except e-mail) (020903) and Household and personal e-mail and 

messages (020904); Caring for and helping household members (03); 

Consumer purchases (07); Professional and personal care services 

(08); Household services (09); Using government services (1001); 

Waiting associated with government services/civic obligations (1003); 

Security procedures related to government services/civic obligations 

(1004); Government services, not elsewhere classified (1099); Travel 

related to household activities (1702); Travel related to caring for and 

helping household members (1703); Travel related to consumer purchases (1707); Travel related to using professional and personal care 

services (1708); Travel related to using household services (1709); 

Travel related to using police/fire services (171001); Travel related to 

using social services (171002); Travel related to obtaining licenses 

and fines/fees (171003); and Travel related to government services/

civic obligations, not elsewhere classified (171099).

3 Travel includes all travel episodes except those already accounted for in work and in household work.

NOTE: Columns with the heading “Total” are averages for individuals who were employed, not in the labor force, and unemployed. Columns with the heading “Employed” are averages for individuals who 

were employed full time and employed part time. Averages for the 

unemployed are not shown separately, because there were too few 

observations in the sample.

 Table 1. Continued—Hours that men and women spent doing various activities on an average day in 2003 and 

2004, by age and employment status

Not in 

the labor 

force
Time Use Studies: Older America

14  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

 Hours that nonworking older Americans spent doing household work on an average day in 2003 and 2004, by 

 sex, presence of a spouse or unmarried partner, and age

Activities

Spouse or unmarried partner

present in household

No spouse or unmarried partner

present in household

Aged 

55–59

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 and 

older

Aged 

55–59

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 and 

older

Household work (including

related travel)1 4.8 3.5 3.6 3.2 4.3 3.4 3.

Care of household members

(including related travel) .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .0 .

Food preparation and cleanup .6 .3 .4 .4 .6 .6 .5 .5

Lawn and garden care .7 .8 .7 .6 1.4 .6 .5 .

Women not in the labor force

Spouse or unmarried partner

present in household

No spouse or unmarried partner

present in household

Aged 

55–59

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 and 

older

Aged 

55–59

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 and 

older

Household work (including

related travel)1 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.5 6.1 4.9 4.

Care of household members

(including related travel) .2 .2 .2 .2 .5 .2 .1

Food preparation and cleanup 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.1 .9 .8 

Lawn and garden care .5 .3 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2

employment status. Time spent eating and drinking did 

not vary much by either age or employment status.

These results indicate that employment status plays a 

large role in explaining changes in time use by age. Another 

way to compare workers and nonworkers is to account for 

the time that nonworkers gained by not working. Table 3 

shows the percentage of this time that nonworkers spent 

doing household work, engaging in leisure and sports, 

sleeping, and doing other activities.20 For both men and 

women, the largest share of this “freed-up” time was spent 

in leisure (between 52 percent and 70 percent for men and 

between 44 percent and 59 percent for women), and less 

than half was spent doing household work (19 percent 

to 38 percent for men and 20 percent to 44 percent for 

women). Consistent with the findings presented here, the 

percentage of freed-up time spent doing household work 

declined with age, while the percentage spent in leisure 

activities increased.

Another factor that likely plays an important role in 

how older Americans spend their time is their health. The 

exclusion of people who reported not working because 

of a disability partially controls for this, but the group of 

nondisabled nonworkers is not as homogeneous as one 

might think. Health tends to decline with age, but as previously noted, very few people aged 65 and older report 

that they are NILF because of a disability. One explanation 

may be that those who stopped working at age 55 because 

of a disability may not report their disability as a reason 

for not working at age 65, because they would have been 

retired at that age even without the disability. Therefore, 

even though the NILF-disabled have been excluded from 

this analysis, differences by age will include the effects of 

age-related declines in health. Working in the opposite 

direction are the factors noted earlier which lead one 

to believe that the ATUS sample of older Americans is 

healthier than the population as a whole, with the dif-

1 Household work includes the following activities: Household 

activities (02) except Household and personal mail and messages 

(except e-mail) (020903) and Household and personal e-mail and 

messages (020904); Caring for and helping household members (03); 

Consumer purchases (07); Professional and personal care services 

(08); Household services (09); Using government services (1001); 

Waiting associated with government services/civic obligations (1003); 

Security procedures related to government services/civic obligations 

(1004); Government services, not elsewhere classified (1099); Travel 

related to household activities (1702); Travel related to caring for and 

helping household members (1703); Travel related to consumer purchases (1707); Travel related to using professional and personal care 

services (1708); Travel related to using household services (1709); 

Travel related to using police/fire services (171001); Travel related to 

using social services (171002); Travel related to obtaining licenses 

and fines/fees (171003); and Travel related to government services/

civic obligations, not elsewhere classified (171099).

 Table 2. 

Men not in the labor force
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

 How did nonworkers spend the hours they gained by not working? A comparison of time use of individuals 

employed full time and those who were not in the labor force on an average day in 2003 and 2004, by age

and sex

Aged

55–59

Aged

60–64

Aged

65–69

Aged 70 and 

older

Men

Average hours per day that full-time workers worked 6.4 6.7 6.0 6.2

Differences in the times nonworkers and full-time workers spent doing

 selected activities, as a percentage of the time the workers worked:

Household work 37.5 23.9 23.3 19.4

Leisure and sports activities 53.1 52.2 70.0 64.5

Sleeping 10.9 14.9 5.0 11.3

Other activities –1.5 9.0 1.7 4.8

Women

Average hours per day that full-time workers worked 5.7 5.2 5.4 6.1

Differences in the times nonworkers and full-time workers spent doing 

 selected activities, as a percentage of the time the workers worked:

Household work 43.9 34.6 29.6 19.7

Leisure and sports activities 43.9 48.1 46.3 59.0

Sleeping 14.0 11.5 18.5 18.0

Other activities –1.8 5.8 5.6 3.3

ference in health likely being larger for older age groups. 

Although it is impossible to know which effect is larger, it 

is striking how little time use varies by age, after controlling for employment status.

Part-time work and bridge jobs

The preceding analysis suggests that the transition from 

full-time work to retirement brings about significant 

changes in how individuals spend their time. Bridge jobs 

are one way to ease the transition from full-time employment to full retirement. If part-time bridge jobs are in fact 

transitional jobs, then one would expect part-time workers’ time use to fall somewhere “between” that of full-time 

workers and those who are NILF.

Bridge jobs are often part time; however, they also 

can be temporary contract jobs that require long hours 

for short periods, followed by spells of no work. It is not 

possible to identify the latter with the ATUS data, so we 

focus on part-time bridge jobs. The implicit assumption 

is that all part-time jobs are bridge jobs. This assumption 

is likely to be approximately true for men, but because 

women tend to work part time for different reasons and 

are more likely than men to work part time at all ages, 

such an assumption is not valid for women.

Table 4 shows the differences in time spent in four 

major activities between the full-time employed, the parttime employed, and those NILF, for men and women in 

the four age categories. The first column in each age group 

shows the difference between part-time and full-time 

workers, while the second column shows the difference 

between nonworkers and part-time workers. If bridge jobs 

are transitional, then one would expect the differences in 

the two columns to be similar. The third column for each 

age group shows the difference in these differences. The 

small differences in differences in the third column for 

men suggest that the changes in time use are about the 

same when workers make the transition from full-time to 

part-time employment, compared with workers making 

the transition from part-time employment to NILF. The 

differences in differences are generally larger for women, 

with the largest differences showing up for women aged 

70 and older.21

The pattern of differences in differences is consistent 

with the hypothesis that men take part-time jobs to make 

a gradual transition into full retirement, whereas the pattern for women is not consistent with this hypothesis. Part 

of the reason for the finding for women is that, as already 

noted, they often are more likely to work part time at all 

ages. It is reasonable to assume that most of the men who 

were working part time worked full time at some point, 

but that assumption is not realistic for women. Perhaps a 

similar pattern would emerge for women if it were possible to identify which part-time workers had once worked 

full time.

 Table 3. 

Activities
Time Use Studies: Older America

16  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

 Comparison of hours spent in major activities by full-time workers, part-time workers, and those who were 

 not in the labor force (NILF)

Men aged 55–59 Men aged 60–64

Part-time and 

full-time

 workers

Individuals

 not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Difference in 

differences

Part-time and 

full-time 

workers

Individuals 

not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Difference in 

differences

Work –3.3 –3.1 0.2 –2.9 –3.8 –0.9

Household work (including related travel) 1.2 1.2 .0 .8 .8 .0

Leisure and sports 1.6 1.8 .2 1.6 1.9 .3

Sleep .3 .4 .1 .1 .9 .8

Men aged 65–69 Men aged 70 and olde

Part-time and 

full-time 

workers

Individuals 

not in the

 labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Part-time and 

full-time 

workers

Individuals 

not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Work –3.0 –3.0 .0 –2.8 –3.4 –.6

Household work (including related travel) .6 .8 .2 .2 1.0 .8

Leisure and sports 2.1 2.1 .0 1.8 2.2 .4

Sleep .0 .3 .3 .1 .6 .5

Women aged 55–59 Women aged 60–6

Part-time and 

full-time 

workers

Individuals 

not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Part-time and 

full-time 

workers

Individuals 

not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Work –2.9 –2.8 .1 –2.3 –2.9 –.6

Household work (including related travel) .8 1.7 .9 .4 1.4 1.0

Leisure and sports .7 1.8 1.1 .8 1.7 .9

Sleep .7 .1 –.6 .5 .1 –.4

Women aged 65–69 Women aged 70 and olde

Part-time 

full-time and 

workers

Individuals 

 not in the 

labor force 

and part-time 

workers

Part-time 

full-time and 

workers

Individuals 

not in the 

labor force 

and part- time 

workers

Work –2.8 –2.6 .2 –4.4 –1.7 2.7

Household work (including related travel) .7 .9 .2 1.1 .1 –1.0

Leisure and sports .9 1.6 .7 2.5 1.1 –1.4

Sleep .8 .2 –.6 .4 .7 .

Differences in overall time use

Activity-by-activity comparisons are useful for comparing 

time spent in specific activities. But it also is useful to have 

a measure of how overall time use differs by age and employment status. The measure used here, known as a dissimilarity index, summarizes the differences in time use 

between two groups. The advantage of the dissimilarity 

 Table 4. 

Difference between— Difference between—

Difference between— Difference between—

Difference between— Difference between—

Difference between— Difference between—

Difference in 

differences

Difference in

differences

Difference in 

differences

Difference in 

differences

Difference in 

differences

Difference in 

differences

Activities

Activities

Activities

Activities
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

 Dissimilarity index comparisons, by age, sex, and employment stat

Men All Workers on an average day

Full time Part time

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

60–64

Aged

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

 55–59 0.070 0.155 0.216 0.013 0.038 0.050 0.081 0.059 0.072

Aged

 60–64 ... .098 .157 ... .039 .061 ... .048 .084

Aged

 65–69 ... ... .068 ... ... .023 ... ... .063

Not in the labor force (NILF) Workers on a nonwork day

Full time Part time

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

60–64

 Aged 

65–69

 Aged 70 

 and older

Aged

60–64

Aged

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

 55–59 .052 .051 .088 .084 .175 .063 .152 .179 .153

Aged

 60–64 ... .038 .050 ... .179 .111 ... .096 .200

Aged

 65–69 ... ... .042 ... ... .190 ... ...

.114

Women All Workers on an average day

Full time Part time

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

60–64

 Aged 

65–69

 Aged 70 

 and older

Aged 

60–64

Aged

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

 55–59 .074 .134 .192 .029 .047 .058 .045 .046 .102

Aged

 60–64 ... .074 .134 ... .035 .058 ... .067 .092

Aged

 65–69 ... ... .072 ... ... .044 ... ... .073

Not in the labor force (NILF) Workers on a nonwork day

Full time Part time

Aged 

60–64

Aged 

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

60–64

Aged 

65–69

 Aged 70 

 and older

Aged

60–64

Aged

65–69

Aged 70 

and older

Aged

 55–59 .030 .043 .101 .085 .101 .228 .064 .061 .092

Aged

 60–64 ... .035 .082 ... .110 .170 ... .088 .086

Aged

 65–69 ... ... .055 ... ... .146 ... ... .093

where ai is the time spent in activity i by group a, bi is the 

time spent in activity i by group b, and k is the number 

of activities. This index ranges between 0 and 1, with 0 

indicating that the two groups spend the same amount of 

time in each activity and 1 indicating that the two groups 

have no activities in common. The index is best described 

as a weighted average of the absolute percent difference 

in time spent in all activities.23 Alternatively, it is equal to 

the fraction of time that would have to be reallocated by 

one group to make the two groups identical in time spent 

in each activity. Note that in the ATUS the number of acindex is that it summarizes differences in overall time use 

with a single number that can be thought of as a measure 

of the “distance” between the two groups. 

The dissimilarity index (DI) is given by the formula22 

 Table 5. 

DI
Time Use Studies: Older America

18  Monthly Labor Review • May 200

tivities (k) can vary because activities are assigned six-digit 

codes representing three levels of analysis. The first two 

digits of the code correspond to a first tier of detail, the 

first four digits correspond to a second tier of detail, and 

all six digits correspond to a third tier of detail.24

Tables 5, 6, and 7 show pairwise comparisons by age, 

employment status, and sex. These index values were computed twice, with both first- and second-tier activity codes, 

but only the estimates computed with the second-tier 

codes are presented here.25 Because second-tier codes are 

more detailed than first-tier codes, the DI will be larger for 

any given difference. For example, differences in the type 

of household work done (for instance, yard work versus 

indoor cleaning) will show up when second-tier codes are 

used, but not when first-tier codes are. With second-tier 

codes, index values of 0.07 or smaller indicate virtually no 

difference between groups. Values of 0.07 to 0.12 indicate 

a small difference, values of 0.12 to 0.17 indicate a moderate difference, and values greater than 0.17 indicate a large 

difference. Finally, because the index values are sensitive 

to the number of observations, a bootstrap procedure was 

used to correct the indexes for small sample bias.26

Table 5 shows dissimilarity index comparisons by age 

for both men and women. If time use varies by age, then 

one would expect index values to be smaller for age groups 

that are “close” to each other. In the panels labeled “All” for 

both men and women, this is indeed the case: the index 

values for adjacent age groups indicate only small differences, with the values increasing as the distance between 

age groups increases. For both men and women, the index 

values range from about 0.07 for adjacent age groups to 

about 0.20 for the comparison between 55- to 59-yearolds and those aged 70 and older.

Given the earlier findings that much of the variation 

in time use by age was due mainly to differences in the 

fraction employed at different ages, one would expect the 

same to be true when looking at overall time use. Turning to the panels for full-time workers on an average day, 

one sees no differences in time use by age for either men 

or women. The indexes for men and women who were 

NILF indicate either a small difference or no difference by 

age, and comparisons with individuals aged 70 and older 

indicate a small difference. Thus, the index comparisons 

reinforce the patterns shown in table 1 that overall time 

use does not vary much by age after controlling for employment status.

When the sample is restricted to full-time workers on 

nonwork days, the data show larger differences by age. For 

men, it is clear that 65- to 69-year–olds’ time use differed 

from that of the other three age groups, which were fairly 

similar to each other. Compared with the other age groups, 

65- to 69-year-old men spent more time doing yard work 

and caring for nonhousehold adults, and less time sleeping and engaging in leisure activities. For women, index 

comparisons of those aged 70 and older with other age 

groups are striking. Women in this age group spent less 

 Dissimilarity index comparisons of working and nonworking men and women, by age

Men

Comparison of those NILF

with workers on workers’— 

Comparison of full-time

with part-time workers on—

Average day Nonwork day Average day Nonwork day Full time Part time Full time Part time

Aged 55–59 0.298 0.140 0.105 0.123 0.159 0.174

Aged 60–64 .306 .173 .087 .155 .135 .169

Aged 65–69 .281 .159 .200 .062 .127 .187

Aged 70 and older .275 .177 .129 .095 .134 .130

Women

Comparison of those NILF

with workers on workers’— 

Comparison of full-time

with part-time workers on—

Average day Nonwork day Average day Nonwork day Full time Part time Full time Part time

Aged 55–59 .268 .157 .119 .096 .131 .092

Aged 60–64 .231 .142 .068 .052 .090 .061

Aged 65–69 .243 .120 .116 .090 .146 .141

Aged 70 and older .286 .113 .160 .083 .194 .177

 Table 6. 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007 

time preparing meals and more time engaging in incomegenerating activities (that is, other than their jobs27). These 

differences—especially in the comparisons to women 

aged 70 and older—should be viewed with some caution, 

because the bootstrap correction may not have removed 

the bias completely.

Finally, there was much more variation in time use 

by age among full-time workers on nonwork days than 

among those who were NILF. This finding suggests that 

there could be large differences between how full-time 

workers spent their nonwork days and how nonworkers 

spent an average day. 

To investigate this possibility, table 6 compares nonworkers’ time use on an average day with workers’ time use 

on both an average day and an average nonwork day, by 

age. Not surprisingly, for both men and women, there are 

large differences in how full-time workers and nonworkers spent their time on an average day, with the dissimilarity indexes in the 0.23-to-0.31 range. The differences 

between nonworkers and part-time workers are smaller, 

although they are still in the moderate-to-large range. 

Comparing nonwork days of full-time and part-time 

workers with average days of nonworkers reveals small-tomoderate differences, except for 65- to 69-year-old men. 

Thus, we conclude that the average day of a nonworker is 

fairly similar to the average nonwork day of a worker.

Table 7 compares men with women. The differences 

in time use by men and women on an average day, by 

employment status, are in the small-to-moderate range. 

The comparison of working men with working women 

on nonwork days reveals the largest differences. Women 

spent relatively more time doing housework and preparing meals, while men spent relatively more time doing 

yard work. As might be expected, the differences between 

working men and women on their nonwork days are much 

smaller when more aggregated activity codes are used.28

Sleep times of older Americans

One facet of older individuals’ time use that has received

 Dissimilarity index comparisons of men 

 and women, by age and employment status

 

Full time

 Age NILF

 Average Nonwork Average Nonwork

 day day day day

55–59 0.127 0.094 0.183 0.138 0.237

60–64 .141 .119 .162 .156 .246

65–69 .125 .116 .255 .131 .187

70 and older .087 .097 .183 .143 .124

little attention is the timing of activities. Such information could be helpful in gaining a better understanding of 

when during the day older Americans are more active or 

less active and in determining when, for example, might 

be the best time to organize outreach, exercise classes, or 

other activities for seniors. In this section, variations in 

sleep time by age and employment status are examined. 

The timing of sleep differs predictably by age and 

employment status. The percentage of older Americans who slept between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m. increased 

with age, although much of the difference was due to 

higher employment rates among the 55- to 59-yearolds. (See chart 1.) The biggest difference between 

Americans aged 70 and older and those aged 55 to 59 

in their likelihood to be asleep during any given hour 

occurred on weekdays between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. On 

an average weekday, 47 percent of 55- to 59-year-olds 

were asleep during this time interval, compared with 

71 percent of individuals aged 70 and older. Americans aged 70 and older also were more likely to nap 

during the afternoon hours of 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. on 

weekdays, again with labor force status accounting for 

much of the difference. Older Americans who were 

NILF were more likely to sleep between 5 a.m. and 9 

a.m. and between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. than those who 

were employed. (See chart 2.)

There were surprisingly small differences, both by age 

and employment status, in the fraction of older Americans who were sleeping at each hour on weekday evenings. 

Thus, employment status and age were factors in when 

older Americans awoke in the morning and took naps in 

the afternoon on weekdays, but not in when they went 

to sleep in the evening. One explanation for this pattern 

could be that nonworkers coordinate their leisure activities with those who are still in the workforce. The extra 

sleep in the morning and afternoon does not interfere 

with opportunities to socialize with individuals who work 

during the day.

On weekend days, there was very little variation in 

sleep patterns—except for naps—by either age or employment status. (See charts 3 and 4.) This finding is not 

too surprising, because employment status was the main 

determinant of sleep patterns during the week and most 

workers do not work on weekends.

Social contact

As noted in the introduction, social contact plays a role 

in older individuals’ well-being. The ATUS allows for 

the computation of two measures of social contact: the 

 Table 7. 

Part time
Time Use Studies: Older America

20  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

Chart 1. Weekday sleep patterns of older Americans, by age

NOTE: Data are averages for the 2-year period from 2003 to 2004 and refer to time use on weekdays of individuals 

aged 55 and older. 

4–5 

 A.M.

Percent

 sleeping

6–7 

 A.M.

8–9 

 A.M.

10–11 

 A.M.

2–3 

 A.M.

12–1 

 P.M.

2–3 

 P.M.

4–5 

 P.M.

6–7 

 P.M.

8–9 

 P.M.

10–11 

 P.M.

12–1 

 A.M.

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

Aged 55–59

Aged 60–64

Aged 65–69

Aged 70 and older

Chart 2. Weekday sleep patterns of older Americans, by labor force status

NOTE: Data are averages for the 2-year period from 2003 to 2004 and refer to time use on weekdays of individuals 

aged 55 and older.

4–5 

 A.M.

6–7 

 A.M.

8–9 

 A.M.

10–11 

 A.M.

2–3 

 A.M.

12–1 

 P.M.

2–3 

 P.M.

4–5 

 P.M.

6–7 

 P.M.

8–9 

 P.M.

10–11 

 P.M.

12–1 

 A.M.

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

Employed

Not in the labor force

Percent

 sleeping

Percent

 sleeping

Percent

 sleeping
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

Chart 3. Weekend sleep patterns of older Americans, by age

NOTE: Data are averages for the 2-year period from 2003 to 2004 and refer to time use on weekend days of individuals 

aged 55 and older.

4–5 

 A.M.

6–7 

 A.M.

8–9 

 A.M.

10–11 

 A.M.

2–3 

 A.M.

12–1 

 P.M.

2–3 

 P.M.

4–5 

 P.M.

6–7 

 P.M.

8–9 

 P.M.

10–11 

 P.M.

12–1 

 A.M.

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

Chart 4. Weekend sleep patterns of older Americans, by labor force status

NOTE: Data are averages for the 2-year period from 2003 to 2004 and refer to time use on weekend days of individuals 

aged 55 and older.

4–5 

 A.M.

6–7 

 A.M.

8–9 

 A.M.

10–11 

 A.M.

2–3 

 A.M.

12–1 

 P.M.

2–3 

 P.M.

4–5 

 P.M.

6–7 

 P.M.

8–9 

 P.M.

10–11 

 P.M.

12–1 

 A.M.

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

100

 90

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

Percent

 sleeping

Percent

 sleeping

Percent

 sleeping

Percent

 sleeping

Aged 55–59

Aged 60–64

Aged 65–69

Aged 70 and older

Employed

Not in the labor force
Time Use Studies: Older America

22  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

amount of time individuals spent actively socializing and 

communicating with others;29 and the amount of time individuals spent in the presence of others.30

Although older Americans’ overall leisure time increased with age as individuals retired from the workforce, 

time spent socializing remained fairly constant at twothirds to three-quarters of an hour per day. (See table 1.) 

Thus, as a fraction of total leisure, time spent socializing 

declined with age. This was due to the decline with age in 

the fraction employed (which increased the total amount 

of leisure time available) and a decline in the amount of 

time spent socializing within each employment status 

group.

The second measure of social contact is estimated from 

information about who else was in the room with, or accompanied, a respondent on the diary day. Such information is collected for all activities except working, sleeping, 

grooming, personal activities, and activities that could not 

be coded.31 For this reason, time spent with others also 

was calculated as a proportion of “available time,” which 

is defined here as the time for which the “who” data were 

collected.

There are large differences between men and women 

in the amount of time spent alone and with others by age. 

(See table 8.) For both men and women, time spent alone 

increased as hours worked decreased, which resulted in 

time spent alone increasing with age because older individuals are less likely to be working and thus have more 

available time. After controlling for employment status, 

the amount of time spent alone increased for women, 

but not for men. The second measure, the share of available time, tells a similar story: the fraction of available 

time spent alone increased with age for women, but not 

for men. Men aged 55 and older spent about one-half of 

their available time alone, whereas women’s time alone increased from 46.2 percent for those aged 55 to 59, to 58.6 

percent for those aged 70 and older.

Much of the difference between men and women in 

the pattern of time spent alone by age was due to differences in time spent with a spouse or partner. For men, the 

time spent with a spouse or partner did not vary systematically with age. But for women, the time spent—both the 

amount of time and the fraction of available time—with 

a spouse or partner decreased with age, reflecting that 

women are more likely to outlive their spouses than are 

men. For both men and women, there was a small decline 

in the amount of time and the fraction of available time 

they spent with other family members. Finally, time spent 

with friends did not account for any of the differences 

between men and women in time spent alone: both men 

and women spent relatively little time with friends (about 

5 percent of available time), and neither the amount nor 

the fraction varied much with age.

Time spent with children under 18 declined with age, 

reflecting that Americans aged 55 to 59 are more likely to 

live in households with children under 18 than are those 

aged 70 and older. The percent of available time that men 

spent with children fell monotonically from 7.2 percent 

for those aged 55 to 59 to 2.8 percent for men aged 70 

and older. Overall, older women spent a larger share of 

their available time with children than did older men. 

Women’s time with children shrank from 10.4 percent of 

their available time for those aged 55 to 59 to 3.9 percent 

for women aged 70 and older.

Living arrangement is an important factor in older individuals’ level of social contact. Individuals aged 70 and 

older who did not live with a spouse or an unmarried partner spent 75 percent (totaling 10.3 hours) of their available time alone on an average day in 2003 and 2004. This 

figure is about twice as much time spent alone—both as a 

percent of available time and in hours—as older individuals who lived with a spouse or an unmarried partner. (See 

chart 5.) Older men and women who did not live with 

a spouse or an unmarried partner spent a larger share of 

their available time with other family members and friends 

than those who did. After controlling for the presence of 

a spouse or an unmarried partner in the household, there 

was little variation by sex in the time that older men and 

women spent with others.

EXAMINING THE ATUS DATA revealed large differences 

in time use by age among older individuals. Comparing 

the times older Americans spent in specific activities, 

their overall time use, and their timing of sleep, this study 

found that most differences in time use were due to differences in the fraction of each age group that was employed 

and that there was relatively little difference by age after 

controlling for employment status. Some of the remaining 

differences could be accounted for by observable characteristics. For example, the decline in household work by 

older women appeared to be due in part to the increased 

fraction of women who are single at older ages.

The ATUS does not include a health measure, so there 

is no way to determine how much changes in health could 

have affected time use. The natural decline in health as 

people age suggests that older ATUS respondents are less 

healthy. However, working in the opposite direction is the 

fact that a higher fraction of the older population is excluded from the ATUS, because they are in assisted-living 

facilities or because they cannot recall enough of the diary 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

 

Average hours per day and percent of available time1 that men and women spent with others in 2003 

and 2004, by age and employment status

Hours spent by

men

Aged 55–59 Aged 60–64

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Alone 5.1 4.4 4.2 6.5 8.1 5.4 4.5 4.2 5.6 7.0

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 3.8 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.4 4.3 5.4

With family 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.5 5.4 5.0 4.1 3.9 4.9 6.2

With family except spouse 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.9

With children .8 .7 .7 .6 .9 .7 .6 .6 .7 .9

With friends .4 .3 .3 .9 1.0 .6 .5 .4 .6 .9

Available time 10.4 9.4 9.1 12.2 14.8 11.4 9.5 8.9 11.6 14.6

Percent of available

 time1 spent

Alone 48.8 46.8 46.0 53.0 54.4 47.2 47.4 47.1 48.2 47.8

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 36.9 39.5 40.2 32.6 28.6 37.9 38.1 38.3 37.3 36.8

With family 42.3 44.2 45.0 36.5 36.4 43.4 43.8 44.3 42.7 42.2

With family except spouse 14.0 14.4 14.9 10.2 12.7 12.1 11.3 11.6 11.2 12.9

With children 7.2 7.6 8.0 4.8 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.0 6.0

With friends 4.0 3.3 2.8 7.3 6.5 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.9

Hours spent by

men

Aged 65–69 Aged 70 and older

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Alone 6.3 4.6 4.2 5.3 7.3 6.8 5.1 4.5 5.4 7.1

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 5.6 4.7 4.0 5.6 6.1 5.4 4.2 3.2 4.9 5.6

With family 6.0 5.0 4.2 6.2 6.6 5.9 4.5 3.6 5.3 6.2

With family except spouse 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.1 .8 .7 .8 1.2

With children .6 .6 .4 .8 .7 .4 .3 .2 .3 .4

With friends .6 .4 .4 .5 .6 .7 .4 .5 .3 .8

Available time 13.2 10.4 9.2 12.1 14.8 13.8 10.4 8.8 11.4 14.3

Percent of available

time1 spent

Alone 47.8 44.4 46.1 43.4 49.1 49.7 49.5 51.6 47.5 49.7

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 42.5 45.3 43.5 46.2 41.4 38.9 40.4 36.7 43.2 38.8

With family 45.5 48.4 45.6 51.2 44.4 43.0 43.6 41.2 46.0 43.0

With family except spouse 10.7 13.2 12.0 14.3 9.8 8.3 7.3 8.4 6.9 8.5

With children 4.8 5.4 4.1 6.6 4.5 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.9

With friends 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 5.2 3.9 5.6 2.7 5.4

See footnotes at end of table.

day to complete the interview. There is no way to know the 

magnitude of each effect, but it is notable that time use 

exhibited relatively little variation by age after accounting 

for employment status. 

Comparing nonworkers with full-time workers, this 

study found that about one-third of the time that was freed 

up by not working was spent doing household work. The 

rest of their freed-up time was spent in leisure activities 

Table 8. 
Time Use Studies: Older America

24  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

1 “Available time” refers to the time spent in activities for which the 

“who” question was asked. The “who” question was asked for all activities except sleeping, grooming, working, personal activities, and activities that could not be coded.

Continued—Average hours per day and percent of available time1 that men and women spent with others in

 2003 and 2004, by age and employment status

Hours spent by

women

Aged 55–59 Aged 60–64

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Alone 5.3 4.7 4.5 5.4 6.7 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.4 6.5

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 3.5 3.0 2.8 3.6 4.9 4.0 2.8 2.2 3.7 5.1

With family 5.1 4.4 4.0 5.5 7.1 5.6 4.3 3.6 5.3 6.9

With family except spouse 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.6 3.2 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.6

With children 1.2 1.0 .9 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5

With friends .5 .5 .5 .6 .5 .7 .6 .4 .9 .8

Available time 11.4 10.2 9.6 11.9 14.7 12.6 10.6 10.0 11.7 14.6

Percent of available

 time1 spent

Alone 46.2 46.5 46.8 45.6 45.4 46.9 50.0 53.7 45.9 44.6

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 30.8 29.7 29.6 30.2 33.6 31.4 26.7 22.4 31.4 35.0

With family 44.6 43.4 42.2 46.1 48.0 44.4 40.5 36.4 45.2 47.4

With family except spouse 21.0 20.6 19.9 22.0 21.9 18.1 18.5 18.6 18.4 18.0

With children 10.4 9.9 9.5 10.6 11.9 10.0 10.0 10.7 9.5 10.2

With friends 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.1 3.3 5.6 6.0 4.4 8.0 5.4

Hours spent by

women

Aged 65–69 Aged 70 and older

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Total Employed Employed 

full time

Employed 

part time

Not in the 

labor 

force

Alone 6.8 5.7 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 7.4 5.0 8.2 8.3

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 4.2 2.7 2.4 3.0 4.7 3.1 2.0 1.0 2.4 3.2

With family 5.6 4.0 3.5 4.4 6.2 4.6 3.3 2.3 3.8 4.7

With family except spouse 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.8

With children .9 .7 .6 .8 1.0 .6 .7 .8 .7 .5

With friends .8 .7 .8 .7 .9 .7 .6 .5 .6 .7

Available time 13.5 10.9 10.1 11.8 14.5 14.0 12.0 8.9 13.1 14.1

Percent of available

time1 spent

Alone 50.4 52.3 52.0 53.0 49.6 58.6 62.1 56.5 62.7 58.5

With spouse or unmarried 

partner 31.0 24.9 23.7 25.7 32.9 22.3 16.3 11.4 17.9 22.8

With family 41.5 36.4 34.4 37.4 43.0 33.2 27.5 25.2 29.2 33.5

With family except spouse 14.5 15.5 15.8 14.5 14.0 13.0 14.0 16.0 14.5 12.9

With children 7.0 6.7 6.3 7.2 6.8 3.9 5.8 9.4 5.4 3.8

With friends 6.1 6.3 7.5 5.6 6.3 5.2 4.7 6.1 4.2 5.2

NOTE: The total amount of time accounted for by the six who-with 

categories (including Alone) does not sum to available time, because 

the categories are not mutually exclusive. The percentages do not sum 

to 100 for the same reason.

and sleep. In general, for men and women aged 55 and 

older, the average day of nonworkers was similar to the 

average nonwork day of employed individuals.

This study included comparisons of full-time workers 

with part-time workers and of part-time workers with 

nonworkers to look for evidence that older Americans take 

Table 8. 
Monthly Labor Review • May 2007  

part-time bridge jobs to ease the transition into retirement. The evidence was consistent with part-time jobs 

being bridge jobs for men, but not for women, a result that 

was not too surprising, because women are more likely to 

work part time at all ages, which means that a smaller 

fraction of part-time women workers are in bridge jobs.

The two measures of social connectedness tell somewhat different stories. Time spent socializing changed 

little with age for both men and women. Time spent in 

the presence of others—primarily time with a spouse or 

an unmarried partner—declined for women, but not for 

men. This difference probably reflects the fact that women are more likely to outlive their spouses than are men 

and that those aged 70 and older who did not live with 

a spouse or partner spent considerably more time alone 

than those who did.

Chart 5. Percent of available time that individuals aged 70 years and older spent with others, by 

 presence of spouse

NOTE: “Who” data were not collected for sleeping, grooming, working, or personal activities, and in cases where the respondent 

refused to answer the question or did not know. “Available time” refers to the time during which the “who” data were collected. 

Categories on the horizontal axis are not mutually exclusive. Data are averages for the 2-year period from 2003 to 2004.

Percent

Alone With spouse 

or unmarried 

partner

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

 0

10

 20

 30

 40

 50

 60

 70

 80

Percent

No spouse or unmarried partner present in household

Spouse or unmarried partner present in household

With family 

except spouse

With friends

Notes

1 An employed individual, who has a higher income and opportunity cost of time, is more likely to hire others to prepare meals, clean 

house, and do other household chores. Thus, one would expect employed individuals to spend less time engaged in household production 

activities than retired individuals spend.

2 Leisure activities are considered to be a “normal” good, meaning 

that the consumption of leisure increases as income increases. 

3 Maria Mireault and Anton de Man, “Suicidal Ideation among 

Older Adults: Personal Variables, Stress, and Social Support,” Social 

Behavior and Personality, 1996, vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 385–92.

4

 Lynne C. Giles, Gary F. V. Glonek, Mary A. Luszcz, and Gary R. 

Andrews, “Effect of Social Networks on 10-year Survival in Very Old 

Australians: The Australian Longitudinal Study of Aging,” Journal of 

Epidemiology Community Health, 2005, vol. 59, pp. 574–79.

 5 John P. Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey, Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Spend Their Time (University Park, PA: The 

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997).

6

 “At home” and “alone” are not the same as “home alone,” although 

they may overlap. 7 Liana C. Sayer, Suzanne M. Bianchi, and John P. Robinson, “Time 

Use Patterns of Older Americans,” Report to NIA, University of Maryland, June 30, 2001. 8

 Anne H. Gauthier and Timothy M. Smeeding, “Patterns of Time 

Use of People Age 55 to 64 Years Old: Some Cross-National Comparisons,” Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University, Aging 
Time Use Studies: Older America

26  Monthly Labor Review • May 2007

Studies Paper No. 20, March 2000; on the Internet at www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/agpapser/age20abs.htm (visited Mar. 29, 2007). 9

 Anne H. Gauthier and Timothy Smeeding, “Historical Trends 

in the Patterns of Time Use of Older Adults,” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Aging Working Paper, June 

2001; on the Internet at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/5/2430978.pdf

(visited Mar. 29, 2007).

10 ATUS estimates can be generated for higher age brackets than 

was possible in many past U.S. time-use studies. In 2003 and 2004, age 

data were top coded at age 80 in the ATUS. This means that individuals 

aged 80 and older who participated in the survey carry an age value of 

“80” in the data. 11 While this paper was undergoing final review, the 2005 ATUS data 

were released. Data for the years 2003–05 can be downloaded from 

the American Time Use Survey home page, www.bls.gov\tus (visited 

Mar. 29, 2007).

12 The survey referred to is the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), a 2-year probability-based telephone survey (n 

= 9,386) of exposure-related human activities in the United States, 

sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 

survey’s primary purpose was to provide comprehensive and current 

exposure information for use in probabilistic population exposure 

models. For more information, visit www.nature.com/jea/journal/v11/

n3/abs/7500165a.html and www.timeuse.org/information/studies/

data/usa-1992-1994.php.

13 For more details about the American Time Use Survey, visit the 

ATUS home page, www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm (visited Mar. 29, 2007); 

see also Daniel S. Hamermesh, Harley Frazis, and Jay Stewart, “Data 

Watch: The American Time Use Survey,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, winter 2005, pp. 221–32; and Diane Herz and Michael Horrigan, 

“Planning, Designing, and Executing the BLS American Time-Use 

Survey,” Monthly Labor Review, October 2004, on the Internet at www.

bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/10/contents.htm (visited Mar. 29, 2007). 14 For information about the design of the ATUS activity coding 

lexicon, see Kristina Shelley, “Developing the American Time Use 

Survey Activity Classification System,” Monthly Labor Review, June 

2005; on the Internet at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/06/contents.

htm (visited Mar. 29, 2007). 

15 In the ATUS, labor force data are collected with a slightly modified 

version of the questions used to collect labor force information in the 

monthly Current Population Survey. The ATUS distinguishes between 

“at work” and “with job but absent from work” for the employed and 

between “looking” and “on layoff ” for the unemployed. It does not distinguish between different reasons for not being in the labor force. 16 The ATUS weighting procedures ensure that each day of the week 

is equally represented at the aggregate level, but this representation 

may not hold for more detailed demographic groups. 17 In 2002, the civilian noninstitutional population included 95 percent of the U.S. population aged 65 and older. (See Federal Interagency 

Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Well-Being (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Nov. 2004).)

18 Christopher C. Ruhm, “Bridge Jobs and Partial Retirement,” 

Journal of Labor Economics, October 1990, pp. 482–501.

19 Household work is defined as time spent doing household activities, purchasing goods and services, and caring for household members, plus related travel time.

20 This percentage is equal to the difference between nonworkers 

and full-time workers in time spent in the activity, divided by the difference in time spent working (which is equal to the time spent working by full-time workers). Negative values indicate that nonworkers 

spent less time on the activity than full-time workers did. 21 For women, eight of the differences in differences are statistically 

significant at the 10-percent level or better, with half of those being 

significant at the 5-percent level or better. For men, only two of the 

differences in differences are statistically significant at the 10-percent 

level or better.

22 See Jay Stewart, “Assessing Alternative Dissimilarity Indexes for 

Comparing Activity Profiles,” The electronic Journal of Time Use Research, August 2006; on the Internet at www.eijtur.org/ (visited Mar. 

29, 2007). 

23 We used this index because it has an intuitive interpretation and 

is the least sensitive to the level of aggregation. (See Stewart, “Assessing Alternative Dissimilarity Indexes,” for a discussion of other dissimilarity indexes used in the time-use literature.) The dissimilarity 

index is equivalent to the Duncan segregation index when 

24 See the 2004 ATUS Activity Lexicon for a list of codes and 

corresponding activities, on the Internet at www.bls.gov/tus/

lexiconoex2004.pdf (visited Mar. 29, 2007). 25 To compute the dissimilarity index values in tables 5, 6, and 7, it 

was necessary to further restrict the sample by excluding respondents 

who reported spending more than two hours in activities that could 

not be coded. This restriction was necessary because time spent in activities that could not be coded represented a much greater fraction of 

time for full-time workers on nonwork days. Other comparisons were 

not affected by this restriction. For additional information about the 

index calculations, please contact the authors. 26 The bootstrap procedure is generally used to generate standard 

errors in situations where computation is difficult or would require 

overly restrictive assumptions. But the procedure also provides a way 

to estimate the bias in the original estimate and, hence, to generate a 

bias-corrected estimate. The bias-corrected estimate, however, can have 

a larger mean squared error than the original estimate, so it is not necessarily an improvement. The effect of small samples on the value of 

the DI, apart from any real differences between the groups, was investigated, and it was clear that smaller samples resulted in larger values 

of the DI. Given the magnitude of this effect, it seems clear that the 

benefit of reducing the bias outweighs the higher mean squared error. 

(For additional information about the index calculations, contact the 

authors.) 27 A job is an income-generating activity; here, we refer to other 

income-generating activities (for example, selling arts and crafts, babysitting, lawn mowing, and so forth). 28 These estimates are available from the authors on request.

29 The time that individuals spent talking on the phone was not 

included, because it amounted to very little time, on average. This exclusion does not affect the results. 30 Individuals are considered to be “with” the respondent if they are 

in the same room as, or are accompanied by, the respondent. 31 These activities correspond to activity codes 0101xx, 0102xx, 

0104xx, 0501xx, 500105, and 500106. (See the 2004 ATUS Activity 

Lexicon for a list of codes and corresponding activities, on the Internet 

at www.bls.gov/tus/lexiconnoex2004.pdf (visited Mar. 29, 2007).)