Mothers' Employment Participation: The Role of Partner Involvement and Selection Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This paper examines how a couple's division of housework and child care affects mothers' postnatal work hours, taking into account selection processes. Background Past research on mothers' employment suggests that male partners' involvement in domestic work is positively associated with mothers' employment participation. However, it is unknown to what extent this association is driven by selection processes, rather than partner behavior. This paper examines whether selection processes may jointly determine a couple's division of domestic work and a mother's postnatal work hours, and therefore account for the relationship between partner involvement in domestic work and a mother's work hours. Method Using data from the 1991 to 2008 waves of the British Household Panel, this study employs structural equation modeling and fixed effects regression. The analyses account for multiple characteristics that may determine women's selection into egalitarian work–family arrangements. Results The findings show that selection effects do indeed play a role: The male partner's involvement in housework and child care does not significantly affect most mothers' postnatal work hours when selection effects are taken into account. Only mothers who are highly disadvantaged on the labor market—those with low income and educational attainment—benefit from the partner's involvement in child care, but not housework, in terms of their postnatal employment. Conclusion Mothers who are strongly disadvantaged on the labor market benefit most from family policies that encourage their partner's involvement in child care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".