Abstract
This study examined gender differences in the intended use of parental leave benefits. In a targeted sample of relevant adult respondents (i.e., adults aged 25–45 who work full-time, plan to have children, and are in a financially stable marriage or domestic partnership; N = 82), large gender differences were observed in work-related attitudes, intended leave, desired leave for spouse/partner, and intended use of time during mandatory parental leave. Despite men and women reporting similar attitudes towards caring for children and sharing equally in caregiving responsibilities, men consistently reported planning to take less time away from work for parental leave than women, and both men and women reported a desire for their partners to take leave periods differing in ways consistent with traditional gender roles. The structure of leave benefits was found to influence gender leave gaps, with paid leave tending to decrease the gap and longer leave availability tending to increase the gap. In mandatory leave scenarios, men were significantly more likely than women to report intentions to use mandatory leave for human capital development, such as taking on additional work, searching for new employment, catching up on projects for a current employer, learning new job-relevant skills, and exploring new business ideas. Implications regarding human capital development are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In addition to the sample of adults recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we first conducted a pilot study among a sample of junior and senior undergraduate business students. The results from our pilot study were all largely replicated (see appendices). However, the undergraduate sample did not include the same inclusion criteria (e.g., intent to have children, financially stable marriage or partnership, etc.). Rather, participants in the undergraduate student were instructed to assume they fulfilled these same criteria, while also given an opportunity to indicate that the questions were not applicable to them because they have no intentions to have a child in the future. We focus on the results of our adult sample given the greater relevance of our sample to our research questions, however we have reported our pilot study results in the appendices along with the pooled results of the two samples.
Individuals were excluded if they failed to provide consistent responses regarding their gender, birth year, and plans to have children in the future.
References
Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is there a career penalty for mothers' time out? A comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88(2), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0252.
Allen, T. D., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Parental leave of absence: Some not so family-friendly implications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01380.x.
Andersen, S. H. (2018). Paternity leave and the motherhood penalty: New causal evidence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(5), 1125–1143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12507.
Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00597.x.
Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2019). Workplace support of fathers’ parental leave use in Norway. Community, Work & Family, 22(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1472067.
Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657415.
Butler, A. B., & Skattebo, A. (2004). What is acceptable for women may not be for men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job performance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596478.
Chatterji, P. & Markowitz, S. (2012). Family leave after childbirth and the health of new mothers. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 15, 61-76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22813939/
de Linde Leonard, M., & Stanley, T. D. (2020). The wages of mothers' labor: A meta‐regression analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. Early View. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12693
Donovan, S. A. (2019). Paid Family Leave in the United States (CRS Report No. R44835). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44835.pdf
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Engström, P., Kolm, A. S., & Liang, C. Y. (2009). Maternal-biased parental leave. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(4), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.04.002.
Ejrnæs, M., & Kunze, A. (2013). Work and wage dynamics around childbirth. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(3), 856–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12025.
Evertsson, M., & Duvander, A. Z. (2010). Parental leave—Possibility or trap? Does family leave length affect Swedish women’s labour market opportunities? European Sociological Review, 27(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq018.
Ewald, A., Gilbert, E., & Huppatz, K. (2020). Fathering and flexible working arrangements: A systematic interdisciplinary review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12363.
Fulcher, M., Dinella, L. M., & Weisgram, E. S. (2015). Constructing a feminist reorganization of the heterosexual breadwinner/caregiver family model: College students’ plans for their own future families. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0487-8.
Glauber, R. (2018). Trends in the motherhood wage penalty and fatherhood wage premium for low, middle, and high earners. Demography, 55(5), 1663–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0712-5.
Goodman, J. M., Richardson, D. M., Steeves-Reece, A., Poma, L. D., Plumb, A., Wray, K., et al. (2019). Understanding parental leave experiences: Connecting the dots with a multiple-methods approach. Community, Work & Family, 22, 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1629874.
Gough, M. (2017). Birth spacing, human capital, and the motherhood penalty at midlife in the United States. Demographic Research, 37, 363–416. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.13.
Görlich, D., & De Grip, A. (2007). Human capital depreciation during family-related career interruptions in male and female occupations (No. 1379). Kiel Working Paper. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/4075
Guertzgen, N., & Hank, K. (2018). Maternity leave and mothers’ long-term sickness absence: Evidence from West Germany. Demography, 55(2), 587–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0654-y.
Gupta, N. D., & Smith, N. (2002). Children and career interruptions: The family gap in Denmark. Economica, 69(276), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00303.
Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2019). Policy is not enough–the influence of the gendered workplace on fathers’ use of parental leave in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2018.1495616.
Han, W. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Parental leave: The impact of recent legislation on parents’ leave taking. Demography, 40(1), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2003.0003.
Kaufman, G. (2018). Barriers to equality: Why British fathers do not use parental leave. Community, Work & Family, 21(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2017.1307806.
Kelley, H., Galbraith, Q., & Strong, J. (2020). Working moms: Motherhood penalty or motherhood return? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(1), 102075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102075.
Kleven, H., Landais, C., & Søgaard, J. E. (2019). Children and gender inequality: Evidence from Denmark. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(4), 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20180010.
Lappegård, T. (2012). Couples’ parental leave practices: The role of the workplace situation. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 33(3), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9291-6.
Lindström, E. A. (2013). Gender bias in parental leave: Evidence from Sweden. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(2), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-012-9324-1.
Meil, G. (2013). European men’s use of parental leave and their involvement in child care and housework. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 44(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.44.5.557.
Omidakhsh, N., Sprague, A., & Heymann, J. (2020). Dismantling restrictive gender norms: Can better designed paternal leave policies help? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12205.
Patnaik, A. (2019). Reserving time for daddy: The consequences of fathers’ quotas. Journal of Labor Economics, 37(4), 1009–1059. https://doi.org/10.1086/703115.
Persson, P., & Rossin-Slater, M. (2019). When dad can stay home: Fathers' workplace flexibility and maternal health (No. w25902). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Porter, M. (2015). Combating gender inequality at home and at work: Why the International Labour Organization should provide for mandatory paid paternity leave. The George Washington International Law Review, 48, 203.
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12017.
Schönberg, U., & Ludsteck, J. (2014). Expansions in maternity leave coverage and mothers’ labor market outcomes after childbirth. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(3), 469–505. https://doi.org/10.1086/675078.
Thébaud, S., & Pedulla, D. S. (2016). Masculinity and the stalled revolution: How gender ideologies and norms shape young men’s responses to work–family policies. Gender & Society, 30(4), 590–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216649946.
U.S. Department of Labor (2012). Family and Medical Leave in 2012: Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/legacy/files/FMLA-2012-Technical-Report.pdf
Vandello, J. A., Hettinger, V. E., Bosson, J. K., & Siddiqi, J. (2013). When equal isn't really equal: The masculine dilemma of seeking work flexibility. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12016.
Vella, F. (1994). Gender roles and human capital investment: The relationship between traditional attitudes and female labour market performance. Economica, 61, 191–211.
Waber, B. (2019, December). Parental leave isn't just policy at my company—it's a huge part of our culture, and here's how. Business Insider.https://www.businessinsider.com/how-made-parental-leave-policy-part-of-company-culture
Wayne, J. H., & Cordeiro, B. L. (2003). Who is a good organizational citizen? Social perception of male and female employees who use family leave. Sex Roles, 49, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024600323316.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Gender differences in family preferences including undergraduate pilot sample and pooled sample
Men | Women | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Family preference | M | SD | M | SD | t test (d.f.) | Cohen's d | M.W.U test |
Adult sample | |||||||
Want to be caretaker | 4.60 | 1.61 | 4.85 | 1.76 | 0.683 (78.46) | 0.151 | 0.873 |
Want to equally share caregiving | 5.43 | 1.53 | 5.75 | 1.59 | 1.003 (79.38) | 0.222 | 1.287 |
Want to be breadwinner | 5.74 | 1.29 | 3.68 | 1.76 | − 6.032 (71.32)*** | − 1.343 | − 5.03*** |
Undergraduate sample | |||||||
Want to be caretaker | 4.60 | 1.27 | 4.35 | 1.50 | − 0.798 (63.57) | − 0.184 | − 0.56 |
Want to equally share caregiving | 5.72 | 1.06 | 6.00 | 1.26 | 1.045 (63.55) | 0.242 | 1.631 |
Want to be breadwinner | 5.23 | 1.31 | 4.24 | 1.13 | − 3.673 (76.82)*** | − 0.803 | − 3.388*** |
Pooled sample | |||||||
Want to be caretaker | 4.60 | 1.43 | 4.62 | 1.65 | 0.089 (145.26) | 0.014 | 0.461 |
Want to equally share caregiving | 5.58 | 1.30 | 5.88 | 1.44 | 1.353 (148.88) | 0.215 | 1.974* |
Want to be breadwinner | 5.47 | 1.32 | 3.93 | 1.52 | − 6.827 (145.48)*** | − 1.086 | − 6.078*** |
Appendix 2: Gender differences in intended use of parental leave including undergraduate pilot sample and pooled sample
Men | Women | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leave scenario | M | SD | M | SD | t test (d.f.) | Cohen's d | M.W.U-test |
Adult sample | |||||||
Unpaid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 4.81 | 3.95 | 8.23 | 3.72 | 4.032 (79.99)*** | 0.890 | 3.857*** |
12 weeks (partner) | 8.00 | 4.25 | 4.63 | 3.64 | − 3.868 (79.09)*** | − 0.851 | − 3.547*** |
52 weeks (self) | 5.88 | 8.17 | 12.60 | 11.37 | 3.061 (70.57)** | 0.682 | 4.362*** |
52 weeks (partner) | 13.48 | 14.40 | 5.51 | 4.93 | − 3.377 (51.13)** | − 0.729 | − 3.563*** |
Paid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 9.79 | 3.60 | 11.88 | 1.14 | 3.579 (49.47)*** | 0.775 | 3.446*** |
12 weeks (partner) | 11.14 | 2.70 | 11.00 | 2.57 | − 0.245 (80.00) | − 0.054 | − 0.986 |
52 weeks (self) | 33.14 | 21.04 | 37.80 | 17.39 | 1.094 (78.47) | 0.241 | 1.230 |
52 weeks (partner) | 41.67 | 17.21 | 29.90 | 20.67 | − 2.794 (76.00)** | − 0.620 | − 2.931** |
Undergraduate sample | |||||||
Unpaid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 5.57 | 3.28 | 9.36 | 3.58 | 4.824 (65.16)*** | 1.112 | 4.185*** |
12 weeks (partner) | 8.96 | 3.46 | 5.24 | 4.29 | − 4.118 (59.31)*** | − 0.971 | − 3.729*** |
52 weeks (self) | 8.09 | 10.03 | 14.06 | 11.68 | 2.385 (62.14)* | 0.556 | 3.656*** |
52 weeks (partner) | 18.26 | 17.16 | 8.06 | 10.20 | − 3.321 (76.21)** | − 0.693 | − 3.848*** |
Paid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 10.43 | 2.82 | 12.03 | 0.64 | 3.711 (51.27)*** | 0.728 | 3.385*** |
12 weeks (partner) | 11.37 | 2.33 | 11.48 | 1.68 | 0.255 (77.00) | 0.055 | − 0.149 |
52 weeks (self) | 31.09 | 19.85 | 40.06 | 16.72 | 2.186 (75.35)* | 0.482 | 2.215* |
52 weeks (partner) | 37.83 | 18.30 | 34.22 | 19.64 | − 0.825 (63.51) | − 0.192 | − 0.813 |
Pooled sample | |||||||
Unpaid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 5.21 | 3.61 | 8.74 | 3.68 | 6.122 (152.72)*** | 0.969 | 5.623*** |
12 weeks (partner) | 8.51 | 3.86 | 4.90 | 3.93 | − 5.847 (152.83)*** | − 0.925 | − 5.333*** |
52 weeks (self) | 7.04 | 9.22 | 13.26 | 11.45 | 3.748 (137.15)*** | 0.604 | 5.532*** |
52 weeks (partner) | 16.00 | 16.01 | 6.68 | 7.85 | − 4.822 (133.44)*** | − 0.716 | − 5.424*** |
Paid | |||||||
12 weeks (self) | 10.13 | 3.21 | 11.95 | 0.94 | 5.060 (104.59)*** | 0.740 | 4.793* |
12 weeks (partner) | 11.26 | 2.50 | 11.22 | 2.21 | − 0.114 (158.34) | − 0.018 | − 0.860 |
52 weeks (self) | 32.06 | 20.33 | 38.82 | 17.01 | 2.306 (159.93)* | 0.358 | 2.466* |
52 weeks (partner) | 39.64 | 17.80 | 31.82 | 20.19 | − 2.576 (142.79)* | − 0.414 | − 2.710** |
Appendix 3: Gender differences in time use during mandatory parental leave including undergraduate pilot sample and pooled sample
Men | Women | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time use | M | SD | M | SD | t test (d.f.) | Cohen's d | M.W.U-test |
Adult sample | |||||||
12 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.76 | 0.69 | 9.55 | 1.32 | − 0.904 (58.29)*** | − 0.203 | − 0.694 |
Caring for partner | 9.38 | 1.32 | 6.64 | 3.06 | − 5.154 (50.90) | − 1.176 | − 4.766*** |
Additional work for extra income | 4.24 | 2.93 | 3.13 | 2.81 | − 1.740 (78.91) † | − 0.386 | − 2.308* |
Catch up on existing work | 4.24 | 2.79 | 3.59 | 2.94 | − 1.017 (77.79) | − 0.227 | − 1.414 |
Additional projects (current employer) | 3.88 | 2.87 | 3.23 | 2.83 | − 1.025 (78.70) | − 0.228 | − 1.456 |
Job hunt | 3.88 | 2.87 | 3.23 | 2.83 | − 1.105 (77.45) | − 0.246 | − 2.020* |
Learn new skills | 5.26 | 2.63 | 4.45 | 3.02 | − 1.295 (77.33) | − 0.287 | − 1.338 |
Explore new business ideas | 4.90 | 2.92 | 3.38 | 3.08 | − 2.274 (77.70)* | − 0.507 | − 2.748** |
52 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.81 | 0.67 | 9.63 | 0.87 | − 1.073 (73.43) | − 0.239 | − 1.088 |
Caring for partner | 9.38 | 1.13 | 6.95 | 2.84 | − 5.054 (50.48)*** | − 1.137 | − 4.737*** |
Additional work for extra income | 6.24 | 3.06 | 4.18 | 3.10 | − 3.004 (78.38)** | − 0.668 | − 2.800** |
Catch up on existing work | 5.48 | 3.32 | 4.45 | 3.03 | − 1.463 (79.85) | − 0.322 | − 1.387 |
Additional projects (current employer) | 5.31 | 2.96 | 4.41 | 3.23 | − 1.304 (77.01) | − 0.291 | − 1.358 |
Job hunt | 4.79 | 3.21 | 3.21 | 3.12 | − 2.245 (78.83)* | − 0.499 | − 2.595** |
Learn new skills | 6.90 | 2.45 | 5.55 | 3.10 | − 2.191 (74.23)* | − 0.487 | − 1.930 |
Explore new business ideas | 5.74 | 2.85 | 4.03 | 3.29 | − 2.497 (75.42)* | − 0.558 | − 2.551* |
Undergraduate Sample | |||||||
12 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.67 | 0.86 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 2.689 (47.00)* | 0.503 | 2.778** |
Caring for partner | 9.63 | 0.79 | 7.48 | 2.82 | − 4.249 (35.47)** | − 1.130 | − 3.911*** |
Additional work for extra income | 4.67 | 3.17 | 2.52 | 2.38 | − 4.249 (75.18)** | − 0.745 | − 3.379*** |
Catch up on existing work | 5.81 | 2.32 | 3.58 | 2.61 | − 3.962 (63.48)*** | − 0.745 | − 3.886*** |
Additional projects (current employer) | 5.28 | 2.56 | 3.18 | 2.49 | − 3.659 (70.16)*** | − 0.827 | − 3.669*** |
Job hunt | 4.13 | 2.58 | 2.56 | 1.97 | − 3.066 (76.53)** | − 0.663 | − 2.786** |
Learn new skills | 5.98 | 2.55 | 3.82 | 2.65 | − 3.662 (67.11)*** | − 0.834 | − 3.512*** |
Explore new business ideas | 5.43 | 2.81 | 3.75 | 2.63 | − 2.704 (69.64)** | − 0.612 | − 2.595** |
52 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.65 | 0.93 | 9.88 | 0.55 | 1.387 (78.83) | 0.284 | 1.573 |
Caring for partner | 9.53 | 1.00 | 7.61 | 2.67 | − 3.959 (38.14)*** | − 1.036 | − 3.647*** |
Additional work for extra income | 5.73 | 3.26 | 3.15 | 2.60 | − 3.975 (77.67)*** | − 0.856 | − 3.574*** |
Catch up on existing work | 5.98 | 2.59 | 4.00 | 2.81 | − 3.975 (65.06)** | − 0.738 | − 3.350*** |
Additional projects (current employer) | 5.88 | 2.67 | 3.97 | 2.95 | -2.982 (863.94** | − 0.685 | − 3.161** |
Job hunt | 4.76 | 2.64 | 3.06 | 2.68 | − 2.824 (68.13)** | − 0.638 | − 3.000** |
Learn new skills | 6.71 | 2.35 | 4.91 | 3.32 | − 2.700 (53.27)** | − 0.649 | − 2.748** |
Explore new business ideas | 6.35 | 2.77 | 4.42 | 3.15 | − 2.843 (62.56)** | − 0.657 | − 2.720** |
Pooled sample | |||||||
12 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.71 | 0.78 | 9.75 | 1.00 | 0.296 (134.72) | 0.048 | 1.254 |
Caring for partner | 9.51 | 1.07 | 7.03 | 2.96 | − 6.763 (85.91)*** | − 1.165 | − 6.334*** |
Additional work for extra income | 4.47 | 3.05 | 2.86 | 2.63 | − 3.580 (156.31)*** | − 0.560 | − 3.970*** |
Catch up on existing work | 5.08 | 2.66 | 3.58 | 2.77 | − 3.473 (149.37) | − 0.552 | − 3.595 |
Additional projects (current employer) | 4.62 | 2.79 | 3.21 | 2.66 | − 3.271 (154.58)** | − 0.516 | − 3.551*** |
Job hunt | 3.77 | 2.61 | 2.63 | 2.44 | − 2.837 (154.45)** | − 0.447 | − 3.356*** |
Learn new skills | 5.64 | 2.60 | 4.16 | 2.86 | − 3.424 ( 147.32)*** | − 0.545 | − 3.428*** |
Explore new business ideas | 5.18 | 2.86 | 3.55 | 2.87 | − 3.575 (149.88)**** | − 0.569 | − 3.738*** |
52 week scenario | |||||||
Caring for newborn baby | 9.73 | 0.82 | 9.74 | 0.75 | 0.118 (159.29) | 0.018 | 0.237 |
Caring for partner | 9.46 | 1.06 | 7.25 | 2.76 | − 6.480 (88.93)*** | − 1.106 | − 6.095*** |
Additional work for extra income | 5.97 | 3.16 | 3.71 | 2.91 | − 4.735 (157.35)*** | − 0.740 | − 4.384*** |
Catch up on existing work | 5.75 | 2.95 | 4.25 | 2.92 | − 3.258 (154.96)** | − 0.511 | − 3.204** |
Additional projects (current employer) | 5.62 | 2.80 | 4.21 | 3.09 | − 3.007 (145.07)** | − 0.480 | − 3.138** |
Job hunt | 4.77 | 2.90 | 3.14 | 2.91 | − 3.557 (152.35)*** | − 0.561 | − 3.962*** |
Learn new skills | 6.80 | 2.39 | 5.26 | 3.19 | − 3.429 (130.08)*** | − 0.556 | − 3.218** |
Explore new business ideas | 6.07 | 2.80 | 4.21 | 3.21 | − 3.877 (141.81)*** | − 0.621 | − 3.820*** |
Appendix 4: Marginal effects from multinomial logistic regression predicting sensitivity to paid leave category in leave intentions including undergraduate pilot sample and pooled sample
Multinomial logit | Adult sample | Undergraduate sample | Pooled sample | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Classification | Classification | Classification | |||||||
Long regardless | Short regardless | Pay sensitive | Long regardless | Short regardless | Pay sensitive | Long regardless | Short regardless | Pay sensitive | |
Breadwinner Intentions | |||||||||
+ 1 unit change | − 0.067** | 0.062† | 0.005 | − 0.056 | 0.002 | 0.053 | − 0.063** | 0.027 | 0.036† |
+ 1 SD change | − 0.118*** | 0.129† | − 0.011 | − 0.073 | 0.003 | 0.071 | − 0.099*** | 0.037 | 0.062 |
Marginal change | − 0.07** | 0.054* | 0.017 | − 0.058 | 0.003 | 0.055 | − 0.066** | 0.033 | 0.033† |
P(Classification|Base) | 0.305 | 0.122 | 0.573 | 0.354 | 0.101 | 0.544 | 0.329 | 0.559 | 0.112 |
% of men within classification | 19% | 21% | 60% | 17% | 15% | 67% | 18% | 18% | 64% |
% of women within classification | 43% | 3% | 55% | 61% | 3% | 36% | 51% | 3% | 47% |
N | 82 | 79 | 161 | ||||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.071 | 0.014 | 0.036 | ||||||
L.R. χ2 (d.f.) | 10.94 (2)** | 2.12 (2) | 10.74 (2)** | ||||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tharp, D.T., Parks-Stamm, E.J. Gender Differences in the Intended Use of Parental Leave: Implications for Human Capital Development. J Fam Econ Iss 42, 47–60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09722-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09722-8