The Effect of Inequalities within Families on …...Comparative Research on Occupational Status. In Advances in Cross-National Comparison. A European Working Book for Demographic and

SFB 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities” ○ http://www.sfb882.uni-bielefeld.de/ ○ Funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG)

The Effect of Inequalities within Families on Occupational Aspirations of Adolescents

Henrik Pruisken (SFB 882 A3) Presentation at the 11th SOEP-Conference, 01.07.2014


Introduction

• Occupational aspirations relevant for the later status attainment • Inequalities within families may have an important influence on the

development of the occupational aspirations • New role models in dual-earner families change the experience of boys and

girls within families • Parental involvement is gendered

SFB 882 “From Heterogeneities to Inequalities” ○ http://www.sfb882.uni-bielefeld.de/ ○ Funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) 3

Are there differences in the influence of the fathers and mothers involvement on the occupational aspirations of boys and girls? How do differences in the parental involvement influence the occupational aspirations of siblings within families?

Main Research Question


Parental Involvement as an Investment

• Parental involvement as an investment by the parents in the childs’ development

• Quality of the parent-child relation as social capital for the child • Supportive parenting improves the cognitive and psychological

development • “Supportive parents express interest in children's activities, talk or play

games with them, provide help with everyday problems and schoolwork, express enthusiasm and praise over accomplishments, and show affection and love.“


Gender Aspects of Parenting

Differences regarding to the gender of the parent • Fathers mainly involved in instrumental topics, mothers are involved in

more diverse topics

• Fathers involvement is a scarcer resource so it is more important Differences regarding to the gender of the child • Psychoanalyses assumes that fathers are more important for adolescent

girls than boys

• Fathers seem to be more involved with boys but girls profit more from the support of fathers when it is available

• sex-minority hypothesis


Effects of Differential Parenting

• Strong social comparison orientation between siblings

• Differential parenting is an important non-shared environment of siblings

that leads to differential outcomes

• Sibling barricade: parenting toward one child is linked with opposite results on the child’s sibling


Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: The fathers‘ support is more important for the development of the occupational aspirations then the mothers‘. Hypothesis 2: The fathers‘ support is more important for the development of the occupational aspirations of girls then boys. Hypothesis 3: The effect of supportive parenting is stronger when the socio-economic status of the parents is higher.


Data, Variables, Method

Data • Data from SOEP Youth Questionnaire 2000-2012 and other SOEP datasets

• Youth in SOEP-households at age of 17

• ca. 300 respondents per year

• Sample: 1366 respondents and 268 Siblings in families


Variables

Operationalization Occupational Aspirations • International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI) in terms of the average income

and education in a specific occupation

• Based on ISCO-88 codes of the intended occupation of the respondents • Range from 9 (subsistence agricultural & fishery workers) to 90 (judges)


Operationalization Supportive Parenting


Overview of the Variables Observations Mean / Distribution Standard Deviation Min Max

ISEI 1366 48.512 17.413 16 90

Supportive ParentingSupportive Co-Parenting 1366 32.828 5.420 11 45

Mother 1366 33.814 5.505 9 45

Father 1366 31.842 6.232 9 45

More or equal Support by Father 1366 0.462 0.499 0 1

Socio-Demographic Characteristics Women 1366 0.493 0.5 0 1

Educational LevelLow 305 22.33% 0 1

Middle 652 47.73% 0 1

High 409 29.94% 0 1

Socio-Economic Status HouseholdISEI Mother 1366 31.400 22.986 0 90

ISEI Father 1366 39.687 22.019 0 90

Occupational Status MotherRegistered Unemployed 67 4.9% 0 1

Non-Working 278 20.35% 0 1

Working 1021 74.74% 0 1

Occupational Status FatherRegistered Unemployed 99 7.25% 0 1

Non-Working 70 5.12% 0 1

Working 1197 87.63% 0 1

Sibling-StructureNumber of Siblings 1366 1.708 1.152 1 11

Oldest Child 1366 0.439 0.496 0 1

Only Sisters 1366 0.356 0.479 0 1

Only Brothers 1366 0.381 0.486 0 1

Importance of ParentsImportance of Father 1366 3.573 0.631 1 4

Importance of Mother 1366 3.722 0.493 1 4


Method

• OLS-Regressions (Model 1-5) without and with interaction terms

• Heckman-Correction is used to correct for selection bias of the depended variable

• Sibling-Fixed-Effect (Model 6) are used to measure the effect of differential parenting within families and to control for unobserved family characteristics


Results Model 1 Model 2

ISEI ISEI

Supportive Parenting

Supportive Co-Parenting 0.157 **

Mother 0.054

Father 0.184 +

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Women 1.602 * 1.684 *

Educational Level. Ref.: Low 0 0

Middle 7.88 *** 7.905 ***

High 25.471 *** 25.518 ***

Socio-Economic Status Household

ISEI Mother 0.076 ** 0.076 *

ISEI Father 0.069 ** 0.068 *

Occupational Status Mother. Ref.: Registered

Unemployed0 0

Non-Working 4.2 * 4.149 *

Working 0.592 0.576

Occupational Status Father. Ref.: Registered

Unemployed0 0

Non-Working -0.866 -0.885

Working -3.993 * -3.997 *

Sibling-Structure

Number of Siblings -0.76 + -0.765 +

Oldest Child 1.84 * 1.797 *

Only Sisters -3.261 ** -3.244 **

Only Brothers -2.436 * -2.378 *

Importance of Parents

Importance of Father -0.885 -1.489

Importance of Mother -0.17 0.384

Constant 27.024 *** 27.043 ***

N 1366 1366+ p < 0.10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001


Results

Model 3 Model 4

ISEI ISEI


Mother 0.021

Father 0.113

More or equal Support by Father 0.088


Women 1.679 * 0.688

Educational Level. Ref.: Low 0 0

Middle 7.922 *** 8.032 ***

High 25.381 *** 25.983 ***


ISEI Mother 0.047 0.074 *

ISEI Father -0.169 + 0.076 **

Occupational Status Mother. Ref.:

Registered Unemployed0 0

Non-Working 4.283 * 4.175 *

Working 0.442 0.638

Occupational Status Father. Ref.:

Registered Unemployed0 0

Non-Working -0.391 -0.464

Working -3.167 + -3.944 *

Sibling-Structure

Number of Siblings -0.77 + -0.8 +

Oldest Child 1.769 * 1.878 *

Only Sisters -3.091 ** -3.478 **

Only Brothers -2.35 * -2.461 *


Importance of Father -1.597 -0.897

Importance of Mother 0.352 0.728

Interactions

ISEI Father*Support by Father 0.007 **

ISEI Mother*Support by Mother 0.001

Women*More or equal Support by Father 2.693 +

Constant 41.97 *** 36.066 ***

N 1366 1366


Results

Model 5 FE

ISEI


Mother -0.617 *

Father 0.756 **


Women 3.551 *

Educational Level. Ref.: Low 0

Middle 7.795 ***

High 21.613 ***


ISEI Mother 0.186

ISEI Father 0.055

Occupational Status Mother. Ref.: Registered

Unemployed0

Non-Working -0.898

Working -3.409

Occupational Status Father. Ref.: Registered

Unemployed0

Non-Working 2.466

Working -0.836

Sibling-Structure

Oldest Child 0.731


Importance of Father -7.87 **

Importance of Mother 7.775 **

Constant 28.355 **

N (Families) 268

N (Siblings) 568

r2 between 0.4438

r2 within 0.2447+ p < 0.10. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001


Results concerning the hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: The fathers‘ support is more important for the development of the occupational aspirations then the mothers‘: confirmed Hypothesis 2: The fathers‘ support is more important for the development of the occupational aspirations of girls then boys: confirmed Hypothesis 3: The effect of supportive parenting is stronger when the socio-economic status of the parents is higher: confirmed


Amato, Paul R. 1990. Dimensions of the Family Environment as Perceived by Children: A

Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family 52:613–620.

Amato, Paul R. 1998. More than money? Men's contributions to their children's lives. In Men in families.

When do they get involved? What difference does it make?, Hrsg. Alan Booth und Ann C.

Bradley, Robert H., und Robert F. Corwyn. 2004. "Family Process" Investments That Matter for Child

Well-Being. In Family investments in children's potential. Resources and parenting behaviors that

promote success. Monographs in parenting, Hrsg. Ariel Kalil und Thomas C. DeLeire, 1-32. Mahwah, N.J:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology

94:95–120.

Collins, Andrew W., und Graeme Russell. 1991. Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle

childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review 11:99–136.

Conley, Dalton. 2000. Sibship sex composition: Effects on educational attainment. Social Science

Research 29:441–457.

Conley, Dalton, und Rebecca Glauber. 2006. Parental Educational Investment and Children's Academic

Risk. Estimates of the Impact of Sibship Size and Birth Order from Exogenous Variationin Fertility. The

journal of human resources XLI.

Conley, Dalton, und Rebecca Glauber. 2008. All in the family?: Family composition, resources, and sibling

similarity in socioeconomic status. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 26:297–306.

Conley, Dalton, Kathryn M. Pfeiffer, und Melissa Velez. 2007. Explaining sibling differences in

achievement and behavioral outcomes. The importance of within- and between-family factors. Social

Science Research 36:1087–1104.

Dunn, Judith, Clare Stocker, und Robert Plomin. 1991. Nonshared experiences within the family:

Correlates of behavioral problems in middle childhood. Annual progress in child psychiatry and child

development:27–44.

References


References Fox, Greer L., und Carol Bruce. 2001. Conditional Fatherhood: Identity Theory and Parental Investment

Theory as Alternative Sources of Explanation of Fathering. Journal of Marriage and Family 63:394–

403.

Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., und Donald J. Treiman. 1996. Internationally comparable measures of

occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science

Research 25:201–239.

Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., und Donald J. Treiman. 2003. Three Internationally Standardised Measures of

Comparative Research on Occupational Status. In Advances in Cross-National Comparison. A European

Working Book for Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables, Hrsg. Jürgen H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik und

Christof Wolf, 159-193. New York [u.a.]: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Marini, Margaret M., Pi-Ling Fan, Erica Finley, und Ann M. Beutel. 1996. Gender and Job Values.

Sociology of Education 69:49–65.

Mortimer, Jeylan T. 1996. Social Psychological Aspects of Achievement. In Generating social

stratification. Toward a new research agenda. Social inequality series, Hrsg. Alan C. Kerckhoff, 17-36.

Boulder, Colo: WestviewPress.

Plomin, Robert, Kathryn Asbury, und Judith Dunn. 2001. Why Are Children in the Same Family So

Different? Nonshared Environment a Decade Later. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46:225–233.

Schoon, Ingrid, und Elzbieta Polek. 2011. Teenage career aspirations and adult career attainment: The

role of gender, social background and general cognitive ability. International Journal of Behavioral

Development 35:210–217.

Scholte, Ron H. J., Rutger C. M. E. Engels, Raymond A. T. Kemp, Zeena Harakeh, und Geertjan Overbeek.

2007. Differential Parental Treatment, Sibling Relationships and Delinquency in Adolescence. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence 36:661–671.

Rosenberg, Morris. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Starrels, Marjorie E. 1994. Gender Differences in Parent-Child Relations. Journal of Family Issues 15:148–

165.

Wagner, Gert G., Joachim R. Frick, und Jürgen Schupp. 2007. The German Socio-Economic Panel Study

(SOEP) - Scope, Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch 127:139–169.

Documents

The Effect of Inequalities within Families on …...Comparative Research on Occupational Status. In Advances in Cross-National Comparison. A European Working Book for Demographic and