From Maternal Employment to Child Outcomes: Preexisting Group Differences and Moderating Variables 1

2021 ◽  
pp. 237-282
Author(s):  
Martha J. Zaslow ◽  
Beth A. Rabinovich ◽  
Joan T. D. Suwalsky
2006 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 84-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirstine Hansen ◽  
Heather Joshi ◽  
Georgia Verropoulou

Childcare provision in the UK has evolved alongside the expansion of mothers' employment, transforming the experiences of successive generations. This paper reviews some mixed evidence on child outcomes of maternal employment and offers a detailed examination of the working mothers' use of childcare. In particular, it looks at the differential use of formal and informal childcare provision using the first survey of the Millennium Cohort Study, which is compared, as far as possible, with evidence from the earlier birth cohort studies in 1970 and 1958. The affordability and trustworthiness of formal childcare remains a constraint on its use and indirectly on labour supply for some mothers.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 490-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy A. Goldberg ◽  
Rachel G. Lucas-Thompson

The goals of the current study were to apply the construct of stereotype accuracy to the domain of college women’s perceptions of the effects of full-time maternal employment on children. Both accuracy/inaccuracy and positive/negative direction were examined. Participants were 1,259 college women who provided stereotyped projections about the effects of full-time employment on children’s IQ scores, formal achievement tests, school grades, and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Their stereotype effect sizes were compared to meta-analytic effect sizes used to estimate the “actual” effects of maternal employment on children. Individual differences in these stereotypes were also examined. Results indicate that, on average, college women overestimated the negative effects of full-time maternal employment on child outcomes, especially behavior problems. Significant variability in the direction and accuracy of the stereotypes was explained by individual characteristics such as gender ideology, extrinsic work values, and beliefs about the costs of maternal employment. Concerns are that college-educated young women may retreat from the labor force due to stereotypes about the effects of their future employment on children. Efforts by researchers, practitioners, and policy makers should be directed toward disseminating accurate information and dispelling myths about the likely impact of maternal employment on children’s development.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 346-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnne M. Youngblut ◽  
Dorothy Brooten ◽  
Lynn T. Singer ◽  
Theresa Standing ◽  
Haejung Lee ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theanna Bischoff ◽  
Joan Peskin

In investigating the relationship between fiction writing and perspective taking, beliefs about the ability of fiction writers to correctly infer the mental states of others were assessed via survey, in comparison to other professions. Next, two groups of fiction writers (established and intermediate) and a control group were compared across different measures of perspective taking. Possible moderating variables such as age, verbal intelligence, depressive symptoms, and fiction reading were measured. Participants provided writing samples, which were scored for quality. Analyses revealed that the general public believes fiction writers demonstrate above-average perspective-taking ability; however, empirical tests revealed no significant between-group differences on the outcome measures, nor any relationship between fiction writing quality and any outcome measures. The results of the suggest that fiction writers are no better than similar individuals who do not write fiction in terms of their ability to infer others’ mental states or take their perspectives.


2008 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Berger ◽  
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn ◽  
Christina Paxson ◽  
Jane Waldfogel

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 710-727
Author(s):  
Beula M. Magimairaj ◽  
Naveen K. Nagaraj ◽  
Alexander V. Sergeev ◽  
Natalie J. Benafield

Objectives School-age children with and without parent-reported listening difficulties (LiD) were compared on auditory processing, language, memory, and attention abilities. The objective was to extend what is known so far in the literature about children with LiD by using multiple measures and selective novel measures across the above areas. Design Twenty-six children who were reported by their parents as having LiD and 26 age-matched typically developing children completed clinical tests of auditory processing and multiple measures of language, attention, and memory. All children had normal-range pure-tone hearing thresholds bilaterally. Group differences were examined. Results In addition to significantly poorer speech-perception-in-noise scores, children with LiD had reduced speed and accuracy of word retrieval from long-term memory, poorer short-term memory, sentence recall, and inferencing ability. Statistically significant group differences were of moderate effect size; however, standard test scores of children with LiD were not clinically poor. No statistically significant group differences were observed in attention, working memory capacity, vocabulary, and nonverbal IQ. Conclusions Mild signal-to-noise ratio loss, as reflected by the group mean of children with LiD, supported the children's functional listening problems. In addition, children's relative weakness in select areas of language performance, short-term memory, and long-term memory lexical retrieval speed and accuracy added to previous research on evidence-based areas that need to be evaluated in children with LiD who almost always have heterogenous profiles. Importantly, the functional difficulties faced by children with LiD in relation to their test results indicated, to some extent, that commonly used assessments may not be adequately capturing the children's listening challenges. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12808607


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document