Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-qc52z Total loading time: 0.998 Render date: 2023-02-07T16:12:49.436Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Household education gaps and gender role attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2021

Marco Giani
Affiliation:
Department of Political Economy, King's College London, London, UK
David Hope*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Economy, King's College London, London, UK
Øyvind Søraas Skorge
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, Bjørknes University College, Oslo, Norway Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway
*
*Corresponding author. Email: david.hope@kcl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Individuals' attitudes about gender roles have been shown to be associated with a wide range of political outcomes. It is therefore crucial to better understand what shapes these attitudes. This note takes advantage of a randomized survey experiment embedded in the 2018 wave of the European Social Survey (ESS) to investigate how differences in education levels between partners influence the “gender childcare bias”—the extent to which individuals disapprove more of women working full time with children under three than men. Although male and female respondents exhibit an equally strong gender childcare bias on average, we find clear-cut evidence that the bias varies asymmetrically across the household education gap for women and men. In particular, positive household education gaps lead to a smaller gender childcare bias for female respondents, whereas the opposite holds for male respondents. Our findings are more in line with a resource-bargaining approach than a gender identity approach to the formation of gender role attitudes.

Type
Research Note
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Political Science Association

1. Introduction

Individuals' attitudes about gender roles have been shown to be associated with a wide range of political outcomes such as political participation and interest (Andersen, Reference Andersen1996; Corder and Wolbrecht, Reference Corder and Wolbrecht2006; Fraile and Gomez, Reference Fraile and Gomez2017), party choice (Inglehart and Norris, Reference Inglehart and Norris2003), women's political representation (Hill, Reference Hill1981; Arceneaux, Reference Arceneaux2001; Paxton and Kunovich, Reference Paxton and Kunovich2003), women's decision to run political office (Elder, Reference Elder2004), ministerial portfolio allocations (Goddard, Reference Goddard2019), the durability of marriage among top politicians (Folke and Rickne, Reference Folke and Rickne2020), welfare spending (Bolzendahl and Brooks, Reference Bolzendahl and Brooks2007; Bolzendahl, Reference Bolzendahl2009), and voters and member of parliament (MP)'s support for gender-related policies such as abortion laws and affirmative action (Washington, Reference Washington2008; Kane and Whipkey, Reference Kane and Whipkey2009; Van Effenterre, Reference Van Effenterre2020).Footnote 1 It is therefore crucial that we understand what shapes these attitudes. Yet, influential theories on the formation of gender role attitudes provide competing explanations. A resource-bargaining approach sees gender role attitudes as a function of the relative power of individuals within the household (see, e.g., Iversen and Rosenbluth, Reference Iversen and Rosenbluth2006; Skorge, Reference Skorge, Engelstad, Holst and Aakvaag2019; Syrda, Reference Syrda2020). In contrast, a gender identity (or gender deviance) approach highlights the cost of deviating from stereotypical gender roles (see, e.g., Bittman et al., Reference Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre and Matheson2003; Dechant and Schulz, Reference Dechant and Schulz2014; Bertrand et al., Reference Bertrand, Kamenica and Pan2015; Folke and Rickne, Reference Folke and Rickne2020).

We use a randomized survey experiment embedded in the 2018 wave of the European Social Survey (ESS) to provide new insights into what drives individuals' gender role attitudes. More specifically, we investigate how differences in education levels between partners affect the “gender childcare bias”—the extent to which individuals disapprove more of women working full time with children under three than men. We find strong and robust evidence that positive household education gaps lead to a larger gender childcare bias for men, whereas the opposite holds for women. Irrespective of respondents' education and income levels, women (men) with greater educational resources than their partners exhibit less (more) bias against women when asked about their disapproval of individuals with young children working full time. While our analysis is focused specifically on gender bias in attitudes to childcare, our results provide support for a resource-bargaining approach to the formation of gender role attitudes and show little support for a gender identity approach.

2. Research design

We use data from the ESS, which is a large-scale, cross-national survey carried out every two years through face-to-face interviews. We draw on Round 9 of the ESS (2018), which covered 19 European countries and contained a randomized survey experiment on gender attitudes. Given that we are interested in household education gaps, we look only at respondents with a partner.

Respondents were asked the extent to which they disapprove if a person has a full-time job while they have children under three years old (0 = strongly approve, …, 4 = strongly disapprove). This is the dependent variable y.

The survey experiment then randomized whether the person asked about in the question was a man or a woman—that is, half the respondents were asked the extent to which they disapprove of a man working full time with children under 3 (assignment B = 0) and the other half were asked the same question about a woman (assignment B = 1). This design allows us to estimate the “gender childcare bias”—the extent to which individuals disapprove more of women working full time with children under three than men—by taking the difference between the aggregate score of the dependent variable y under assignment B = 1 and that under assignment B = 0.

Figure 1(a) presents the distribution of the main dependent variable for respondents assigned to answer the question about a woman (grey bars) and a man (outlined bars) for female and male respondents, respectively. We can clearly see that both male and female respondents disapprove more of a woman working full time with young children. The difference in means reveals a substantial bias for both women (0.60; SE = 0.02) and men (0.61; SE = 0.02).Footnote 2 There is thus clear evidence of a gender childcare bias, which amounts to more than half a point on the 0–4 (strongly approve-strongly disapprove) scale. Moreover, women and men exhibit an equally strong gender childcare bias.Footnote 3

Figure 1. Distributions for the dependent and the moderator variables displayed separately for female and male respondents according to the random assignment. (a) Dependent variable. (b) Moderator variable.

Our aim is to test how the gender childcare bias varies with the household education gap for women and men. To measure the household education gap, we take each respondent's level of education on a 1–7 ES-ISCED scale minus the respondent partner's level of education on the same scale. It thus ranges from −6 to +6 (Appendix A.1 provides full definitions and summary statistics for all variables used in the analyses). Figure 1(b) shows that the distribution of the household education gap, denoted as ΔE, is symmetric, meaning that the likelihood of having a more educated partner is the same as the likelihood of having a less educated partner. Many couples also have either the same (46 percent) or one-point different (24 percent) levels of education. This is not surprising in light of a large body of empirical evidence on the strength of assortative matching in marriage outcomes (see, e.g., Siow, Reference Siow2015).

One way to examine how the household education gap conditions the gender childcare bias would be to include an interaction term between the random assignment B and the household education gap ΔE in an OLS model. Yet, such a specification would only correctly capture a bias that is monotonically increasing or decreasing with ΔE.Footnote 4 One appealing method that allows for the possibility that gender childcare bias varies non-monotonically across the household education gap is the kernel method proposed by Hainmueller et al. (Reference Hainmueller, Mummolo and Xu2019), where we locally estimate the bias over the range of the household education gap. For each individual i in country c, we have the following specification:

(1)$$ y_{i,c} = \alpha _c + f( {\Delta E_{i,c}} ) + g( {\Delta E_{i,c}} ) B_i + \gamma ( {\Delta E_{i,c}} ) Z_{i,c} + \varepsilon _{i,c}.$$

In Equation 1, f( ⋅ ), g( ⋅ ), and γ( ⋅ ) are smooth functions estimated using a Gaussian kernel (for details, see Hainmueller et al., Reference Hainmueller, Mummolo and Xu2019). Of interest to us is g( ⋅ ), which is the marginal gender childcare bias conditional on the household gender gap in education, ΔE i,c.Footnote 5

We also include a vector of covariates, Z i,c. Crucially, these coefficients are also permitted to vary non-monotonically over the values of ΔE i,c, which alleviates chances of misspecification bias and permits us to control flexibly for other factors that may plausibly be correlated with the household education gap and the gender childcare bias (Blackwell and Olson, Reference Blackwell and Olson2019: 174; Hainmueller et al., Reference Hainmueller, Mummolo and Xu2019). In our models, we include the following covariates: level of education, household income and its square, occupational prestige, age and its square, share of the household members that are women, ethnic minority status, whether the respondent is foreign born, unemployment status, partner's unemployment status, urban/rural residence, religiosity, female survey interviewer, and whether the partner interfered in the survey interview.Footnote 6 In other words, we control for the possibility that the variation in the gender childcare bias over the household gender gap is due to differences across individuals on these covariates.Footnote 7

Of particular importance is the control for education, as the household education gap could simply be picking up that respondents with more education show less of a gender childcare bias.Footnote 8 By including education, our results show how the gender childcare bias varies with the household education gap net of respondents' education level. We also include country fixed effects, α c, so that our estimates compare respondents within the same country. As the theoretical perspectives lead us to expect different effects for women and men, we estimate Equation 1 separately for female and male respondents.

3. Results

Figure 2 presents the estimates of how the marginal gender childcare bias varies with the household education gap for female and male respondents. Across the range of the household education gap, and for both women and men, there is a gender childcare bias, as the marginal bias is always different from zero. Moreover, female and male respondents share the same marginal gender childcare bias when they have equal levels of education to their partner. This shows how expectations about care and career are generally stacked against mothers' full participation in the labor market, and against men's full participation at home.

Figure 2. The conditional marginal gender childcare bias, with “full-time job when children aged under 3” as the dependent variable.

Note: The Δ shows the p-value from taking the difference in the marginal gender childcare bias at values −1 and 1 of the moderator. p-values and confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap replications.

For women, the marginal gender childcare bias is linearly decreasing as women have more of the educational resources in the household. As exemplified with the curly brace in the left panel of Figure 2, women who have slightly more education than their partners, ΔE = 1, have a 0.09 smaller marginal bias than women who have slightly less education than their partners, ΔE = −1 (with p < 0.001). For men, on the other hand, the gender childcare bias monotonically increases with their relative educational resources, although not as steeply as for women and not significantly different for men with slightly more or less education than their partners (p = 0.163).Footnote 9

4. Discussion

At least two competing, influential theoretical approaches may shed light on this variation in the gender childcare bias. A gender identity (or gender deviance) perspective highlights how individuals try to conform to prevalent social norms and stereotypes, such that women should be the main carer for children. If women outperform their partners in terms of status in paid employment, women overcompensate by ascribing more to gendered care-taking norms and taking more responsibility for the household and child care work—and vice versa for men (see, e.g., Greenstein, Reference Greenstein2000; Bittman et al., Reference Bittman, England, Sayer, Folbre and Matheson2003; Bertrand et al., Reference Bertrand, Kamenica and Pan2015; Folke and Rickne, Reference Folke and Rickne2020). Bertrand et al. (Reference Bertrand, Kamenica and Pan2015), for instance, find that women out-earning their husbands take a larger responsibility for the home. This perspective may thus imply an increase in the gender childcare bias for both female and male respondents when women have more education than their partners, as individuals seek to reaffirm their gender roles. Figure 2, however, does not bear out these expectations.

A resource-bargaining framework instead emphasizes how relative educational resources increase individuals' bargaining power within the household. The partner with the highest educational resources, regardless of gender, thus favors the other partner taking the main responsibility for non-paid work within the household (as such work would not further one's transferable resources in case of divorce) (see, e.g., Lundberg and Pollak, Reference Lundberg and Pollak1996; Iversen and Rosenbluth, Reference Iversen and Rosenbluth2006; Evertsson and Nermo, Reference Evertsson and Nermo2007; Skorge, Reference Skorge, Engelstad, Holst and Aakvaag2019). This approach thus leads to the expectation that the gender childcare bias monotonically decreases (increases) in women's (men's) education level relative to their partner, as more relative educational resources enhance one's bargaining position on the household division of labor.Footnote 10 Figure 2 is clearly in line with such conjectures.Footnote 11

The pattern in Figure 2 may nevertheless also be explained by reverse causality. In particular, a childhood socialization argument could suggest that women socialized into more egalitarian gender norms during childhood are more likely to take higher education and to enter into partnerships where they have an equal or greater amount of education than their partners (Fernández et al., Reference Fernández, Fogli and Olivetti2004). This would imply that relative educational resources have no independent effect on gender role attitudes, but are instead the product of women's selection into higher education.

To further attempt to distinguish between the bargaining approach and the possibility of a socialization (reverse causality) argument, we leverage two pieces of suggestive evidence. First, the childhood socialization approach does not envision that men will choose to take more education (or select into partnerships) based on their gender role attitudes; yet, Figure 2 shows that the marginal effect declines as men have relatively less of the household educational resources. Second, recent evidence suggests that parents' division of labor affects women's preferences over family and career (Kleven et al., Reference Kleven, Landais and Søgaard2019). If our results are driven by women's selection into higher education based on childhood socialization of gender role attitudes, then controlling for parents' division of labor should help in addressing this possibility. We include covariates that measure mother and father's employment when the respondent was age 14 and parents' relative education. Figure A.3 in the Appendix shows that including these covariates does not notably affect our results. These additional probes, therefore, point more in the direction of the resource-bargaining approach.

5. Conclusions

This note provides evidence that the gender childcare bias—the extent to which individuals disapprove more of women working full time with children under three than men—is greater for men with more education than their partners, whereas the opposite holds for women. The effect is sizable and takes place even though men and women on average hold a very similar bias. Thus, the household education gap is a key driver of the gender childcare bias.

While our results pertain specifically to attitudes to childcare, which is only one dimension of gender role attitudes, they are more in line with a resource-bargaining than a gender identity approach to the formation of gender role attitudes. They suggest that the partner with the greater educational resources in the household favors a division of work and care responsibilities that sees their partner taking on more of the non-paid work in the household.

Our findings point to several fruitful avenues for future research. First, our findings are limited to the childcare dimension of gender bias. Studying the effect of household education gaps on different dimensions of gender role attitudes (elderly care, household chores, etc.) would permit a greater understanding of whether the childcare dimension is idiosyncratic, or whether our findings generalize to other possibly gendered household activities. Second, due to the nature of our data, our analysis does not permit us to assess how the gender childcare bias evolves over time. Using longitudinal data to address the stability of the documented attitudinal patterns over time would allow this limitation to be overcome.Footnote 12 Finally, our results are based on a micro-level approach on a sample of European respondents. Complementary approaches may investigate which features of the institutional context are key to resource bargaining dynamics, thereby highlighting policy implications, as well as exploring whether our findings hold in different geographical contexts.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.16.

Acknowledgements

ØSS gratefully acknowledges funding from the CORE Center for Research on Gender Equality at the Institute for Social Research, Oslo.

Footnotes

1 Gender role attitudes are also found to affect a broad range of socio-economic outcomes; for reviews of these sociological and economic literatures, see Davis and Greenstein (Reference Davis and Greenstein2009) and Bertrand (Reference Bertrand, Card and Ashenfelter2011).

2 With country-fixed effects, the main effects are 0.59 (SE = 0.02; women) and 0.61 (SE = 0.02; men).

3 In a regression of y on the assignment B, a dummy for female respondents, and their multiplicative interaction, the interaction coefficient is not significant (β interaction = −0.02, SE = 0.03, p = 0.52).

4 For instance, if the gender childcare bias among men only declines once their partners have more education than they do, or if the bias is smallest for couples that have an equal amount of education, then such a model would be inaccurate.

5 The bandwidth for the estimated kernel g(⋅) is obtained via tenfold least square cross validation. 95 percent confidence intervals are computed using a bootstrap procedure with 10,000 replications (with replacement). In the Appendix, we show that the results below are highly similar if we fix the bandwidth at a range of values (0.5, 1, 3, 5, and 10) (see Figure A.7) and if we replace the kernel with a general cross-validated spline (Figure A.8).

6 We include a dummy for female survey interviewer as a covariate because previous research has found that the gender of the interviewer can affect responses to gender-related survey questions (Kane and Macaulay, Reference Kane and Macaulay1993).

7 Figures A.1 and A.2 show that the results remain highly similar without covariates and with survey weights, respectively.

8 Education has been found to be a strong predictor of key socio-political attitudes (e.g., Hagendoorn and Nekuee, Reference Hagendoorn and Nekuee2018; Gelepithis and Giani, Reference Gelepithis and Giani2020), including gender-related attitudes (e.g., Gök et al., Reference Gök, Aydın and Weidman2019).

9 We also tested whether the slope of the interaction between the household education gap and the assignment varied statistically significantly by country. To do so we regressed our dependent variable on a three-way interaction between the household education gap, the assignment, and the country fixed effects. A joint F-test of the three-way interactions does not indicate significant cross-national variation in the slope of the interaction (women: p = 0.28; men: p = 0.67).

10 Focusing on income, a recent paper by Syrda (Reference Syrda2020) finds that male psychological distress is low when earnings are similar within the couple and higher otherwise. We do not detect such non-linearity in the context of educational gaps.

11 We also check whether our results are explained by the household gap in income (rather than education). The ESS unfortunately does not include data on individual income; still, as a proxy, we can use the ISCO occupation of respondents and their partners to create a measure of the household gap in occupational prestige (according to the well-established Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale, see Treiman, Reference Treiman1977). As a validation check, Figure A.4 in the Appendix shows a tight correlation between household income decile and the average household job prestige score. Our main finding is robust to the additional control for the household occupational prestige gap (see Figure A.5) and the household gap in prestige does not condition the gender care bias (see Figure A.6).

12 Using a qualitative approach, Dechant and Schulz (Reference Dechant and Schulz2014) demonstrated that the longitudinal dimension may be very important, as gender-egalitarianism decays over time.

References

Andersen, K (1996) After Suffrage: Women in Partisan and Electoral Politics Before the New Deal. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K (2001) The ‘gender gap’ in state legislative representation: new data to tackle an old question. Political Research Quarterly 54, 143160.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M (2011) New perspectives on gender. In Card, D and Ashenfelter, O (eds). Handbook of Labor Economics. Amsterdam and San Diego: Elsevier, pp. 15431590.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M, Kamenica, E and Pan, J (2015) Gender identity and relative income within households. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, 571614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittman, M, England, P, Sayer, L, Folbre, N and Matheson, G (2003) When does gender trump money? Bargaining and time in household work. American Journal of Sociology 109, 186214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, M and Olson, M (2019) Reducing Model Misspecification and Bias in the Estimation of Interactions. Harvard, M.A.: Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bolzendahl, C (2009) Making the implicit explicit: gender influences on social spending in twelve industrialized democracies, 1980–99. Social Politics 16, 4081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzendahl, C and Brooks, C (2007) Women's political representation and welfare state spending in 12 capitalist democracies. Social Forces 85, 15091534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, JK and Wolbrecht, C (2006) Political context and the turnout of new women voters after suffrage. Journal of Politics 68, 3449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, SN and Greenstein, TN (2009) Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology 35, 87105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechant, A and Schulz, F (2014) Scenarios for the equal division of paid and unpaid work in the transition to parenthood in Germany. Comparative Population Studies 39, 615644.Google Scholar
Elder, L (2004) Why women don't run. Women & Politics 26, 2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESS Round 9: European Social Survey Round 9 Data (2018) Data file edition 3.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. doi:10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evertsson, M and Nermo, M (2007) Changing resources and the division of housework: a longitudinal study of Swedish couples. European Sociological Review 23, 455470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, R, Fogli, A and Olivetti, C (2004) Mothers and sons: preference formation and female labor force dynamics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, 12491299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, O and Rickne, J (2020) All the single ladies: job promotions and the durability of marriage. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12, 260287.Google Scholar
Fraile, M and Gomez, R (2017) Bridging the enduring gender gap in political interest in Europe: the relevance of promoting gender equality. European Journal of Political Research 56, 601618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelepithis, M and Giani, M (2020) Inclusion without solidarity: education, economic security, and attitudes towards redistribution. Political Studies. doi: 0032321720933082.Google Scholar
Goddard, D (2019) Entering the men's domain? Gender and portfolio allocation in european governments. European Journal of Political Research 58, 631655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gök, E, Aydın, B and Weidman, JC (2019) The impact of higher education on unemployed Turkish people's attitudes toward gender: a multilevel analysis. International Journal of Educational Development 66, 155163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, TN (2000) Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: a replication and extension. Journal of Marriage and Family 62, 322335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagendoorn, L and Nekuee, S (2018) Education and Racism: A Cross National Inventory of Positive Effects of Education on Ethnic Tolerance. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J, Mummolo, J and Xu, Y (2019) How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice. Political Analysis 27, 163192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, DB (1981) Political culture and female political representation. Journal of Politics 43, 159168.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R and Norris, P (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T and Rosenbluth, F (2006) The political economy of gender: explaining cross-national variation in the gender division of labor and the gender voting gap. American Journal of Political Science 50, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, EW and Macaulay, LJ (1993) Interviewer gender and gender attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 57, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, EW and Whipkey, KJ (2009) Predictors of public support for gender-related affirmative action: interests, gender attitudes, and stratification beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly 73, 233254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleven, H, Landais, C and Søgaard, JE (2019) Children and gender inequality: evidence from Denmark. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 11, 181209.Google Scholar
Lundberg, S and Pollak, RA (1996) Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, 139158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, P and Kunovich, S (2003) Women's political representation: the importance of ideology. Social Forces 82, 87113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siow, A (2015) Testing Becker's theory of positive assortative matching. Journal of Labor Economics 33, 409441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skorge, ØS (2019) The demand for work-family policies in advanced capitalist democracies. In Engelstad, F, Holst, C and Aakvaag, GC (eds), Democratic State and Democratic Society: Institutional Change in the Nordic Model. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 312342.Google Scholar
Syrda, J (2020) Spousal relative income and male psychological distress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, 976992.Google ScholarPubMed
Treiman, DJ (1977) Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Effenterre, C (2020) Papa does preach: daughters and polarization of attitudes toward abortion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 179, 188201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, EL (2008) Female socialization: how daughters affect their legislator fathers. American Economic Review 98, 311332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Distributions for the dependent and the moderator variables displayed separately for female and male respondents according to the random assignment. (a) Dependent variable. (b) Moderator variable.

Figure 1

Figure 2. The conditional marginal gender childcare bias, with “full-time job when children aged under 3” as the dependent variable.Note: The Δ shows the p-value from taking the difference in the marginal gender childcare bias at values −1 and 1 of the moderator. p-values and confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap replications.

Supplementary material: Link

Giani et al. Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Giani et al. supplementary material

Giani et al. supplementary material

Download Giani et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 462 KB
You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Household education gaps and gender role attitudes
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Household education gaps and gender role attitudes
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Household education gaps and gender role attitudes
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *