Gendered Pathways to Adulthood: Select Findings from Cross Cohort Comparisons

Gendered Pathways to Adulthood: Select Findings from Cross Cohort Comparisons

Wendy Sigle-RushtonDepartment of Social Policy

London School of Economics

Background

Trends in the form and function of family life Decline in specialised, gendered division of labour

• Increasing female labour market participation• (More recently) some increase in men’s unpaid work

Increasing divorce rates Protracted transition to adulthood

Changes in housing provision and role of social housing over time

How have changes affected children? Both short and longer term Are there gender differences?

Data and Methods

Data: two prospective studiesNational Child Development Study (NCDS)British Cohort Study (BCS)

Baseline Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

NCDS Age 0, 1958

Age 7, 1965

Age 11, 1969

Age 16, 1974

Age 23, 1981

Age 33, 1991

BCS Age 0, 1970

Age 5, 1975

Age 10, 1980

Age 16, 1986

Age 26, 1996

Age 30, 2000

Data



NCDS Age 0, 1958

Age 7, 1965

Age 11, 1969

Age 16, 1974

Age 23, 1981

Age 33, 1991

BCS Age 0, 1970

Age 5, 1975

Age 10, 1980

Age 16, 1986

Age 26, 1996

Age 30, 2000

Data



NCDS Age 0, 1958

Age 7, 1965

Age 11, 1969

Age 16, 1974

Age 23, 1981

Age 33, 1991

BCS Age 0, 1970

Age 5, 1975

Age 10, 1980

Age 16, 1986

Age 26, 1996

Age 30, 2000

Data



NCDS Age 0, 1958

Age 7, 1965

Age 11, 1969

Age 16, 1974

Age 23, 1981

Age 33, 1991

BCS Age 0, 1970

Age 5, 1975

Age 10, 1980

Age 16, 1986

Age 26, 1996

Age 30, 2000

Data



NCDS Age 0, 1958

Age 7, 1965

Age 11, 1969

Age 16, 1974

Age 23, 1981

Age 33, 1991

BCS Age 0, 1970

Age 5, 1975

Age 10, 1980

Age 16, 1986

Age 26, 1996

Age 30, 2000

Study 1: Cross-Cohort Study of Divorce and Well-being

Outcome variables: Wave 2: behavioural scores, academic test scores Wave 5: no qualifications, receipt of non-universal

benefits Control variables (measured at wave 1):

Disruption (interacted with sex) Child’s sex Behavioural scores Academic scores Lived in social housing (interacted with sex) Father’s social class Parental engagement (reading)

Behavioural Scores

Aggression Anxiety Restlessness

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Model 1

Divorce 1.29 1.72** 1.42+ 1.41*= 1.55+ 1.33+

Divorce*male 1.09 0.85++ 0.87* 0.93** 0.82* 0.93=*

Model 2

Divorce 1.19 1.50*** 1.31* 1.29+* 1.50+ 1.21+

Divorce*male 0.86 0.79*** 0.90* 1.02** 0.67* 0.89**

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Low Academic Test Scores

NCDS BCS

Model 1

Divorce 1.55* 1.29+

Divorce*male 0.98 0.96=

Model 2

Divorce 1.28* 1.19*

Divorce*male 0.84 0.96*

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes

No qualifications Benefit Receipt

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Model 1

Divorce 2.14*** 1.83*** 1.86*** 1.74***

Divorce*male 0.61*=* 0.99=== 0.71=== 1.01===

Model 2

Divorce 1.73*** 1.45*** 1.68*** 1.48***

Divorce*male 0.64+== 1.05*** 0.74=* 1.02**

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Behavioural Scores



Model 1

Social housing 1.85*** 2.46*** 1.13* 1.21* 1.26* 1.64***

Social housing * male 0.73**= 0.78+== 0.98= 0.88 0.91= 0.71*

Model 2

Social housing 1.48*** 1.54*** 1.05 1.02 1.01 1.23+

Social housing * male 0.76***

0.74*** 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.69*

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Behavioural Scores



Model 1

Social housing 1.85*** 2.46*** 1.13* 1.21* 1.26* 1.64***

Social housing * male 0.73**= 0.78+== 0.98= 0.88 0.91= 0.71*

Model 2

Social housing 1.48*** 1.54*** 1.05 1.02 1.01 1.23+

Social housing * male 0.76***

0.74*** 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.69*

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Low Academic Test ScoresNCDS BCS

Model 1

Social housing 2.45*** 2.74***

Social housing*male 0.87=== 0.98===

Model 2

Social housing 1.60*** 1.57****

Social housing*male 0.85=== 1.00===*

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes


NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Model 1

Social housing 2.87*** 4.40*** 1.64*** 2.66***

Social housing*male 0.79=== 0.58**= 1.07=== 0.93===

Model 2

Social housing 1.79*** 2.72*** 1.28** 1.83***

Social housing*male 0.83=== 0.58**= 1.06= 0.94.**

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes


NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Model 1

Social housing 2.87*** 4.40*** 1.64*** 2.66***

Social housing*male 0.79=== 0.58**= 1.07=== 0.93===

Model 2

Social housing 1.79*** 2.72*** 1.28** 1.83***

Social housing*male 0.83=== 0.58**= 1.06= 0.94.**

Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Study 2: Gendered Predictors of Equal Sharing of Housework

Dependent Variable Equal sharing of domestic work

• Responsibility for domestic work (4 items)• Scale 0-2, with higher scores indicating higher contribution• Average score: between 0.75-1.25 coded as equal sharing

Childhood background variables Mothers’ paid employment Family disruption Mother’s education Presence of siblings

Other control variables Educational qualifications Independent living Previous Partnership Marital status Presence of children Own and partner’s employment status

Data and Measurement: Reports of the Division of Household Labour – Cohort Members (CM) in Partnership, by Sex

NCDS Men NCDS Women

Equal sharing 16.9(N=3907)

15.1(N=4225)

BCS Men BCS Women

Equal sharing 40.3(N=3206)

28.6(N=3822)

Odds Ratios Linking Childhood Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort

Men Women

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Disruption by wave 1 0.83 1.32 1.62 * 1.15

Disruption waves 1 - 2 1.21 0.83 0.84 0.98

Disruption waves 2 - 3 1.13 0.66 * 1.12 0.81

Mother’s paid work, birth-wave 1 0.99 0.85 0.93 1.07

Mother’s paid work, waves 1 - 2 1.06 1.06 0.96 0.83

Mother’s paid work at age 16 1.07 0.95 0.94 1.06

Younger siblings 1.08 1.07 1.03 0.93

Older siblings 0.94 1.14 0.99 1.13

Mother stayed on in school 1.30 * 0.87 1.06 0.84 *


Men Women

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS








Older siblings 0.94 1.14 0.99 1.13



Men Women

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS








Older siblings 0.94 1.14 0.99 1.13


Odds Ratios Linking Adult Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by

Sex and CohortMen Women

NCDS BCS NCDS BCS

Low qualifications 1.22 1.02 1.24 1.02

High qualifications 1.03 1.32 ** 1.67 *** 1.31 **

Independent living 1.63 *** 1.21 * 1.09 1.20 *

Married 0.71 ** 0.93 0.97 0.88

Previous partnership 1.44 ** 1.45 *** 1.45 ** 1.11

Own child in household (hh) 0.72 ** 0.50 *** 0.80 0.57 ***

Non-biological children in hh 0.80 0.40 *** 0.66 0.58

Male works part-time 1.16 2.16 1.00 0.94

Male works full-time 0.42 *** 0.68 * 0.42 *** 0.52 ***

Female works part-time 1.35 * 1.18 1.06 1.29 *

Female works full-time 4.00 *** 2.19 *** 4.30 *** 2.68 ***



NCDS BCS NCDS BCS




Married 0.71 ** 0.93 0.97 0.88










NCDS BCS NCDS BCS




Married 0.71 ** 0.93 0.97 0.88








Concluding Observations General project findings:

Many childhood antecedents matter for adult outcomes• Adult indicators of disadvantage• Early adult experiences and contemporaneous variables?

Strong gender and cohort differences for most adult outcomes Few examples of gender or cohort differences in strength of

association with childhood antecedents Parental divorce/disruption

Short-term outcomes• No significant gender or cohort differences • Significant main effects become insignificant

Longer-term outcomes• No gender differences except for NCDS men and qualifications• More sharing of domestic work for NCDS women, less sharing for BCS

men

Concluding Observations

Social Housing Short-term outcomes

• Links between social housing and aggression are stronger for girls

• Links between social housing and restlessness are stronger for BCS girls

• No gender differences in academic performance but significant main effects

Longer-term outcomes• Links to more disadvantage

Perhaps requires further scrutiny?• Gendered pathways from adolescence to early

adulthood to subsequent disadvantage?

Documents

Gendered Pathways to Adulthood: Select Findings from Cross Cohort Comparisons