Gendered Pathways to Adulthood: Select Findings from Cross Cohort Comparisons Wendy Sigle-Rushton Department 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 mens 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 studies National Child Development Study (NCDS) British Cohort Study (BCS) BaselineWave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4Wave 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 Data: two prospective studies National Child Development Study (NCDS) British Cohort Study (BCS) BaselineWave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4Wave 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 Data: two prospective studies National Child Development Study (NCDS) British Cohort Study (BCS) BaselineWave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4Wave 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 Data: two prospective studies National Child Development Study (NCDS) British Cohort Study (BCS) BaselineWave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4Wave 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 Data: two prospective studies National Child Development Study (NCDS) British Cohort Study (BCS) BaselineWave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4Wave 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

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) Childs sex Behavioural scores Academic scores Lived in social housing (interacted with sex) Fathers social class Parental engagement (reading)

Behavioural Scores AggressionAnxietyRestlessness NCDSBCS NCDS BCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Divorce ** *= Divorce*male *0.93**0.82*0.93=* Model 2 Divorce ***1.31*1.29+* Divorce*male ***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 Divorce1.55*1.29+ Divorce*male = Model 2 Divorce1.28*1.19* Divorce*male * Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes No qualificationsBenefit Receipt NCDSBCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Divorce2.14***1.83***1.86***1.74*** Divorce*male0.61*=*0.99===0.71===1.01=== Model 2 Divorce1.73***1.45***1.68***1.48*** Divorce*male0.64+==1.05***0.74=*1.02** Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Behavioural Scores AggressionAnxietyRestlessness NCDSBCS NCDS BCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Social housing1.85***2.46***1.13*1.21*1.26*1.64*** Social housing * male0.73**=0.78+==0.98= =0.71* Model 2 Social housing1.48***1.54*** Social housing * male0.76***0.74*** * Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Behavioural Scores AggressionAnxietyRestlessness NCDSBCS NCDS BCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Social housing1.85***2.46***1.13*1.21*1.26*1.64*** Social housing * male0.73**=0.78+==0.98= =0.71* Model 2 Social housing1.48***1.54*** Social housing * male0.76***0.74*** * Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Low Academic Test Scores NCDS BCS Model 1 Social housing2.45***2.74*** Social housing*male0.87===0.98=== Model 2 Social housing1.60***1.57**** Social housing*male0.85===1.00===* Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes No qualificationsBenefit Receipt NCDSBCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Social housing2.87***4.40***1.64***2.66*** Social housing*male0.79===0.58**=1.07===0.93=== Model 2 Social housing1.79***2.72***1.28**1.83*** Social housing*male0.83===0.58**=1.06=0.94.** Notes: + p<0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Adult Outcomes No qualificationsBenefit Receipt NCDSBCS NCDS BCS Model 1 Social housing2.87***4.40***1.64***2.66*** Social housing*male0.79===0.58**=1.07===0.93=== Model 2 Social housing1.79***2.72***1.28**1.83*** Social housing*male0.83===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 coded as equal sharing Childhood background variables Mothers paid employment Family disruption Mothers education Presence of siblings Other control variables Educational qualifications Independent living Previous Partnership Marital status Presence of children Own and partners employment status

Data and Measurement: Reports of the Division of Household Labour – Cohort Members (CM) in Partnership, by Sex NCDS MenNCDS Women Equal sharing16.9 (N=3907) 15.1 (N=4225) BCS MenBCS Women Equal sharing40.3 (N=3206) 28.6 (N=3822)

Odds Ratios Linking Childhood Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Disruption by wave *1.15 Disruption waves Disruption waves * Mothers paid work, birth-wave Mothers paid work, waves Mothers paid work at age Younger siblings Older siblings Mother stayed on in school1.30* *

Odds Ratios Linking Childhood Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Disruption by wave *1.15 Disruption waves Disruption waves * Mothers paid work, birth-wave Mothers paid work, waves Mothers paid work at age Younger siblings Older siblings Mother stayed on in school1.30* *

Odds Ratios Linking Childhood Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Disruption by wave *1.15 Disruption waves Disruption waves * Mothers paid work, birth-wave Mothers paid work, waves Mothers paid work at age Younger siblings Older siblings Mother stayed on in school1.30* *

Odds Ratios Linking Adult Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Low qualifications High qualifications **1.67***1.31** Independent living1.63***1.21* * Married0.71** Previous partnership1.44**1.45***1.45**1.11 Own child in household (hh)0.72**0.50*** *** Non-biological children in hh *** Male works part-time Male works full-time0.42***0.68*0.42***0.52*** Female works part-time1.35* * Female works full-time4.00***2.19***4.30***2.68***

Odds Ratios Linking Adult Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Low qualifications High qualifications **1.67***1.31** Independent living1.63***1.21* * Married0.71** Previous partnership1.44**1.45***1.45**1.11 Own child in household (hh)0.72**0.50*** *** Non-biological children in hh *** Male works part-time Male works full-time0.42***0.68*0.42***0.52*** Female works part-time1.35* * Female works full-time4.00***2.19***4.30***2.68***

Odds Ratios Linking Adult Experiences to Equal Division of Housework, by Sex and Cohort MenWomen NCDSBCSNCDSBCS Low qualifications High qualifications **1.67***1.31** Independent living1.63***1.21* * Married0.71** Previous partnership1.44**1.45***1.45**1.11 Own child in household (hh)0.72**0.50*** *** Non-biological children in hh *** Male works part-time Male works full-time0.42***0.68*0.42***0.52*** Female works part-time1.35* * Female works full-time4.00***2.19***4.30***2.68***

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?