Wat doet je moeder? De invloed van moeders beroepsstatus op de onderwijsuitkomsten van haar kinderen en hoe die zich verhoudt tot vaders invloed | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Mens & Maatschappij
  4. Volume 98, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 98, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0025-9454
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2816

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, we investigated the influence of mother’s occupational status on her child’s educational outcomes and to what extent this depends on father’s occupational status. Based on the Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) model, we expected that mother’s occupational status positively affects the educational outcomes of her child, although this influence may be weaker than father’s influence due to remains of traditional gender roles in the Netherlands. Second, we expected that daughters benefit more from mother’s occupational status than sons. Finally, we derived from the dominance model (Erikson, 1984) that the positive influence of mother’s occupational status becomes weaker when father’s occupational status is higher. The three hypotheses were tested with datasets from the LISS panel in 2012 on 1.176 Dutch participants who grew up in dual earner households. The results of multilevel regression analyses show that mother’s occupational status indeed has a moderately positive effect on her child’s education level. This effect does not differ between sons and daughters and is independent of fathers’ occupational status. Unexpectedly, father’s occupational status does not affect his child’s educational level when mother’s occupational status is taken into account. This suggests that in dual earner households mother’s occupational status is more relevant than father’s occupational status.

© Maxim van Empel & Ineke Maas
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.1.004.EMPE
2023-03-01
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acker, J. (1973). Women and social stratification: A case of intellectual sexism. American Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 936-945.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballarino, G., MeravigliaC. & PanichellaN. (2021). Both parents’ matter. Family-based educational inequality in Italy over the second half of the 20th century. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 73, 100597.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bavel, J. van, Schwartz, C.R. & Esteve, A. (2018). The reversal of the gender gap in education and its consequences for family life. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 341–360.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Becker, G.S., Hubbard, W.H. & Murphy, K.M. (2010). Explaining the worldwide boom in higher education of women. Journal of Human Capital, 4(3), 203-241.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beller, E. (2009). Bringing intergenerational social mobility research into the twenty-first century: Why mothers matter. American Sociological Review, 74(4), 507-528.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blau, P. & Duncan, O.D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boehnke, M. (2011). Gender role attitudes around the globe: Egalitarian vs. traditional views. Asian Journal of Social Science, 39(1), 57-74.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Boudon, R. (1974). Education, opportunity, and social inequality. Changing prospects in western society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brakel, M. van den. (2020). Emancipatiemonitor 2020: Hoe doet Nederland het ten opzichte van andere EU-landen? Geraadpleegd op 30maart2022, opgehaald van: https://digitaal.scp.nl/emancipatiemonitor2020/hoe-doet-nederland-hetten-opzichte-van-andere-eu-landen.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, M. & Scott, J. (2009). Changing public views of gender roles in seven nations, 1988–2002. In The International Social Survey Programme 1984-2009 (pp. 380-399). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Breen, R. & Goldthorpe, J.H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 9(3), 275-305.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W. & Pollak, R. (2009). Nonpersistent inequality in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(5), 1475-1521.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Buis, M.L. (2013). The composition of family background: The influence of the economic and cultural resources of both parents on the offspring’s educational attainment in the Netherlands between 1939 and 1991. European Sociological Review, 29(3), 593-602.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bukodi, E. & Goldthorpe, J.H. (2013). Decomposing ‘social origins’: The effects of parents’ class, status, and education on the educational attainment of their children. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 1024-1039.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. CBS Statline. (2021a, november16). Bevolking; onderwijsniveau; geslacht, leeftijd en migratieachtergrond. Geraadpleegd op 11maart2022, opgehaald van: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82275NED/table?fromstatweb.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. CBS Statline. (2021b, augustus20). Bevolking; geslacht, leeftijd en burgelijke staat, 1 januari. Geraadpleegd op 3juni2022, opgehaald van: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/7461BEV/table?fromstatweb.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Centaal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2019, november13). In een derde van beroepen op hoogste niveau is meerderheid vrouw. Geraadpleegd op 30maart2022, opgehaald van: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2019/46/in-een-derde-van-beroepen-op-hoogste-niveau-is-meerderheid-vrouw.
  18. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (z.d.). Mannen en vrouwen. Geraadpleegd op 11maart2022, opgehaald van: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82275NED/table?fromstatweb.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Centraal Planbureau. (2018). Arbeidsmarktparticipatie. Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dronkers, J. (1993). Educational reform in the Netherlands: did it change the impact of parental occupation and education?Sociology of Education, 66(4) 262-277.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dumais, S.A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75(1) 44-68.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Erikson, R. (1984). Social class of men, women, and families. Sociology, 18(4), 500–514.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Erikson, R., Goldthorpe, J.H., Jackson, M., Yaish, M. & Cox, D.R. (2005). On class differentials in educational attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(27), 9730-9733.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Esping-Andersen, G. (2004). Untying the Gordian knot of social inheritance. Research in Social Stratification, 21, 115–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Graetz, B. (1991). The class location of families: a refined classification and analysis. Sociology, 25(1), 101-118.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ganzeboom, H.B.G. (2005). On the cost of being crude: comparison of detailed and coarse occupational coding in the ISSP 1987 data. In J.H.P.Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & J.Harkness (Eds.), Methodological aspects in cross-national research (pp. 241-257). Mannheim: GESIS-ZUMA. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-49161-7
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Ganzeboom, H.B.G. (z.d.) Appendix 2.a: Overview of the International Standard Level of Education [ISLED], ESS-R1-R4. Geraadpleegd op 13maart2022, opgehaald van: http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/isled/isled_ESS1234.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ganzeboom, H.B.G., Graaf, P.M. de & Treiman, D.J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1-56.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Garnier, M. & Hout, M. (1976). Inequality of educational opportunity in France and the United States. Social Science Research, 5(3), 225-246.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Garnsey, E. (1978). Women’s work and theories of class stratification. Sociology, 12(2), 223-243.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldthorpe, J.H. (1983). Women and class analysis: in defence of the conventional view. Sociology, 17(4), 465-488.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Harris, R.J. & Firestone, J.M. (1998). Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among women: A multivariate analysis. Sex Roles, 38(3), 239-252.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hek, M. van, Kraaykamp, G. & Wolbers, M.H. (2015). Family resources and male–female educational attainment: Sex specific trends for Dutch cohorts (1930–1984). Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 40, 29-38.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hill, E.J., Märtinson, V.K., Ferris, M. & Baker, R.Z. (2004). Beyond the mommy track: The influence of new-concept part-time work for professional women on work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(1), 121-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hook, J.L. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965– 2003. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 639-660.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackson, M. (Ed.). (2013). Determined to succeed?: Performance versus choice in educational attainment. Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Mother’s occupational status and children’s schooling. American Sociological Review, 59(2) 257-275.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Korupp, S.E., Ganzeboom, H.B.G. & Lippe, T. van der (2002). Do mothers matter? A comparison of models of the influence of mothers’ and fathers’ educational and occupational status on children’s educational attainment. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 17–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Krais, B. (2006). Gender, sociological theory and Bourdieu’s sociology of practice. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(6), 119-134.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Levy, J.S. (1992). An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology, 13(2) 171-186.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lewis, J. (2016). Should we worry about family change?University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lippe, T. van der, Dam, M. van & Ganzeboom, H.B.G. (1995). De tweede sekse in stratificatie-onderzoek. De invloed van de moeder op de kinderen naast die van de vader. Mens en Maatschappij, 70(1), 41-53.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lucas, S.R. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642-1690.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Marks, G.N. (2014). Education, social background, and cognitive ability: The decline of the social. Abingdon: Routlegde.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Marshall, G. & Swift, A. (1993). Social class and social justice. British Journal of Sociology, 44(2) 187-211.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McDonald, G.W. (1977). Parental identification by the adolescent: A social power approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39(2) 705-719.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Portegijs, W. & Brakel, M. van den (2016). Emancipation Monitor 2016. The Hague: SCP and CBS.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Porter, S.R. & Whitcomb, M.E. (2005). Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement, and personality. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 127-152.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Scherpenzeel, A.C. & Das, M. (2010). “True” longitudinal and probability-based internet panels: Evidence from the Netherlands. In Das, M., P.Ester, and L.Kaczmirek (Eds.), Social and behavioral research and the internet: Advances in applied methods and research strategies. (pp. 77-104). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Schröder, H. & Ganzeboom, H.B.G. (2012). The comparative measurement of level of education in the ISSP—an assessment and application of the ISLED Scale. Geraadpleegd op 18maart2022, opgehaald van: http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/ISOL/ISOL2012c2-SchroederGanzeboom.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Sociaal-Economische Raad. (2021). Gelijke kansen in het onderwijs. Den Haag: Sociaal-Economische Raad.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Thijs, P., Grotenhuis, M. te, Scheepers, P. & Brink, M. van den (2019). The rise in support for gender egalitarianism in The Netherlands, 1979-2006: The roles of educational expansion, secularization, and female labor force participation. Sex Roles, 81(9), 594-609.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Vries, J. de. & Ganzeboom, H.B.G. (2008). Hoe meet ik een beroep? Open en gesloten vragen naar beroep toegepast in statusverwervingsonderzoek. Mens & Maatschappij, 83(1) 70-95.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wagner, M., Kuppler, M., Rietz, C. & Kaspar, R. (2019). Non-response in surveys of very old people. European Journal of ageing, 16(2), 249-258.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Walby, S. (2005). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 321-343.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wall, G. & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering? An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21(4), 508-527.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Webber, G. & Williams, C. (2008). Mothers in “good” and “bad” part-time jobs: Different problems, same results. Gender & Society, 22(6), 752-777.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. World Health Organization (z.d.). Gender and health. Geraadpleegd op 30maart2022, opgehaald van: https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.1.004.EMPE
Loading
Wat doet je moeder? De invloed van moeders beroepsstatus op de onderwijsuitkomsten van haar kinderen en hoe die zich verhoudt tot vaders invloed
M&M 98, 60 (2023); https://doi.org/10.5117/MEM2023.1.004.EMPE
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.1.004.EMPE
/content/journals/10.5117/MEM2023.1.004.EMPE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): Breen and Goldthorpe model; dominance model; educational inequality; father’s occupational status; mother’s occupational status

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error