See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254110305

Parents as role models: Parental behavior affects adolescents’ plans for work
involvement

Article  in  International Journal of Behavioral Development · May 2011

DOI: 10.1177/0165025411398182

CITATIONS READS

42 6,492

2 authors:

Bettina S. Wiese Alexandra M Freund

RWTH Aachen University University of Zurich
106 PUBLICATIONS   2,109 CITATIONS    212 PUBLICATIONS   7,411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A motivational life-span approach to exhaustion and recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandra M Freund on 20 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Special section

International Journal of
Behavioral Development
Parents as role models: Parental 35(3) 218–224
ª The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
behavior affects adolescents’ plans sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0165025411398182
for work involvement ijbd.sagepub.com

Bettina S. Wiese1 and Alexandra M. Freund1

Abstract
This study (N ¼ 520 high-school students) investigates the influence of parental work involvement on adolescents’ own plans regarding
their future work involvement. As expected, adolescents’ perceptions of parental work behavior affected their plans for own work
involvement. Same-sex parents served as main role models for the adolescents’ own plans, whereas opposite-sex parents served as models
for the preferred degree of work participation for the adolescents’ future life partners. Interestingly, ideals of how much one’s own parents
should have worked were substantially more important than the actual parental work involvement during their childhood. Adolescents,
then, are influenced by their parents as role models but they reflect and modify these models according to their beliefs regarding an ideal
balance of work and family.

Keywords
adolescence, family, future plans, parents, role model, work

Nowadays, children growing up in industrialized, Western societies
may receive mixed gender role signals. Politics and media push an
egalitarian view of men and women both working and being
engaged in raising their children. At the same time, children are also
likely to witness a more traditional gender role division at home,
with their mothers being more engaged in and responsible for
housework and child care than their fathers, even though many
mothers also work at least part time. How do adolescents’ experi-
ences of their parents’ work involvement affect their plans regard-
ing their work involvement in different phases of the family life
cycle (i.e., when having preschool and school-aged children)? We
approach this question from the perspective of social learning the-
ory (SLT; Bandura, 1977). In SLT, the concept of modeling serves
as a paradigm for understanding the process of gendered socializa-
tion. Gendered role behavior is considered the result of cumulative
experiences, in which socialization agents such as parents, teachers,
and peers shape children’s gender-related behaviors. This con-
verges with Eagly’s (1987) social role theory. Eagly suggests that
adolescents are more likely to view career orientation in women
as familiar and nonthreatening if their own mothers were employed
outside the home. These attitudes are considered independent of
whether or not parents had difficulties in combining work and fam-
ily. Instead, they are proposed to depend exclusively on the expo-
sure to a dual-earning situation at home. In contrast to this view,
we posit that the development of adolescents’ work/family orienta-
tions is more complex than the assumption of simple role modeling
would suggest.
More specifically, we maintain that children and adolescents do
not only observe their parents’ gender-related behavior regarding
work and family. Instead, their parents’ behaviors have direct bear-
ing on them (e.g., How much time do the mother and father spend
with them? How accessible are the parents when at home?
How happy do they seem?). These experiences, in turn, influence
children’s and adolescents’ attitudes towards what constitutes the
ideal engagement of men and women in the work and the family
domain. In other words: The evaluation of parents’ behavior is
hypothesized to be of crucial importance in forming attitudes and
plans regarding combining work and family. When forming future
plans regarding how to combine work and family, adolescents are
expected to take into account whether or not they themselves,
during their childhood, would have preferred their parents to be
involved more or less at home or at work. In fact, some adolescents
might come to the conclusion that they will want to do anything but
what their parents did. In general, as children grow older and
particularly during adolescence, as part of establishing autonomy
they become more and more critical regarding their parents’
lifestyle (e.g., Noom, Decovic, & Meeus, 1999). In late adoles-
cence, the evaluation of parents’ behavior may become even more
sophisticated by taking into account contextual constraints and
social norms their parents faced. Considering their own future, they
might envision different options (e.g., better structural conditions
for an egalitarian lifestyle). Therefore, they might assume to be able
to live very much in accordance with their ideals. As this process
goes beyond simple social modeling but takes cognitive-
evaluative processes into account as well, we use the term reflected
modeling.
Ideals about the combination of work and family typically also
encompass a future partner. With respect to the future partner, the
opposite-sex parent might serve as a role model, whereas for own
plans, the relevant role model might be the same-sex parent.
1
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Corresponding author:
Bettina S. Wiese, Department of Psychology, University of Basel,
Birmannsgasse 8, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland.
Email: bettina.wiese@unibas.ch
Wiese and Freund
This gender-matching assumption is based in social learning
theory, where perceived similarity to the role model is an important
factor. Clearly, gender is a core dimension for establishing similar-
ity with a model (Blair, 1992), particularly regarding gender-
relevant behaviors. Again, we expect a reflected modeling process
in forming ideals about the work/family engagement of
adolescents’ future partners. Beyond the influence of the actual
work involvement of the opposite-sex parent the evaluation of this
involvement should guide one’s own plans. In addition, adolescents
might also consider complementarity in the work/family involve-
ment to be important. For instance, if a girl plans to work full time
during the preschool years of her children, she might want her part-
ner to reduce work hours to optimize family functioning.
Former findings on parental work
involvement effects on adolescents’ work/
family attitudes and plans
The literature on the effects of maternal employment on
adolescents’ attitudes toward work and family roles is complex and
inconclusive. This might be partly due to the fact that this literature
has not taken into account the evaluation of their parents’ behaviors
by the adolescents, or what we have called reflected modeling. With
this perspective in mind, it might not be surprising that a number of
studies failed to find associations between maternal employment
and adolescents’ gender role attitudes (e.g., O’Neal Weeks, Wise,
& Duncan, 1984; Willetts-Bloom & Nock, 1994), but other studies
did. Tuck, Rolfe, and Adair (1994) showed that adolescents of
mothers who were primary caregivers had less egalitarian gender
roles than those of mothers who were working, especially if
working in managerial positions with employee responsibility.
In contrast, fathers’ occupational situation did not affect adoles-
cents’ gender roles. Gardner and LaBrecque (1986) found that
high-school seniors of full-time employed mothers displayed more
liberal gender role attitudes than those of nonworking mothers. Based
on data from more than 17,000 adolescents, Kiecolt and Acock (1988)
showed that maternal employment was associated with more liberal
attitudes among girls but left boys’ attitudes unaffected.
With respect to own work involvement plans, Starrels (1992)
found that children whose mothers worked outside the home
reported that they, too, would work when they had children. In the
same vein, in a study with female adolescents, Marks and Houston
(2002) showed that the work pattern of mothers of preschool chil-
dren had a significant impact on plans to combine work and mother-
hood. Mothers’ work behavior once children were of school age,
however, was not a significant predictor. Based on a study with
female students, O’Connell, Betz, and Kurth (1989) reported that
having a mother who worked was associated with plans to be a
full-time working mother in the future. Neither Marks and Houston
(2002) nor O’Connell et al. (1989) differentiated between different
degrees of mothers’ workforce participation and they did not
include boys’ views. Thorn and Gilbert (1998) showed in a sample
of male college students that fathers’ participation in household
work was associated with an orientation towards a lifestyle in which
traditionally divided roles are shared by both spouses. In a study
with late adolescent college students, Keith (1988) found that chil-
dren from two-career families were likely to desire two-career fam-
ilies for themselves in the future. Interestingly, however, sons of
higher status employed women reported that they wanted wives
who would not work after having children. The study does not offer
219
an explanation, but suggests the possibility that sons may perceive
two-career families to be high in stress, causing them to opt for
more traditional family styles. Finally, in a study with college
seniors in their early twenties, Barnett, Gareis, James, and Steele
(2003) demonstrated that students whose mothers worked outside
the home during their childhood expressed less concern about
work–marriage conflicts compared to adolescents whose mothers
did not work or worked only few hours. However, especially with
regard to mothers’ work enrollment, one might also argue that chil-
dren who wished that their mothers had worked more than they
actually did, might be convinced that female workforce participa-
tion is possible without creating severe conflicts within the family.
Research questions
Taken together, the current study addresses three questions.
The first is descriptive and concerns discrepancies in mothers’ and
fathers’ actual and ideal workforce participation as judged by their
adolescent children. Are there differences with respect to adoles-
cents’ views on discrepancies in mothers’ and fathers’ actual and
ideal work involvement?
The second research question refers to the prediction of adoles-
cents’ plans concerning their own work involvement in the future
(i.e., when having own children). We expect a gender-matching
effect such that girls’ work plans are more influenced by their moth-
ers’ actual work history and boys’ plans are more influenced by
their fathers’ actual work history. Testing the hypothesis of
reflected modeling, adolescents’ ideals of their parents’ work invol-
vement during their childhood should be even more important for
their future plans.
The third research question concerns the prediction of
adolescents’ preferences for their future partners’ work involvement.
Again, on the basis of the gender-matching hypothesis, the actual work
involvement of opposite-sex parents should influence adolescents’
plans regarding their future partner. According to the reflected model-
ing hypothesis, the influence of retrospectively preferred parental
work involvement on adolescents’ preferences for their future part-
ners’ work involvement should be stronger than the influence of the
opposite-sex parents’ actual work history.
Method
Procedure and participants
The current study is part of a larger longitudinal project on
high-school graduates’ occupational development. We concentrate
on data from the first measurement occasion. Out of a total of
32 contacted high schools in the German-speaking Cantons of
Switzerland, 16 participated in the study. After receiving permis-
sion from the principal, a teacher asked the students whether they
wanted to participate. Testing was done in the classroom in groups
of about 25 students and took place a few weeks before their final
exams (Matura). Data collection comprised a paper and pencil
questionnaire and computerized tasks. It took about one hour. Par-
ticipation was reimbursed with 25 Swiss francs (at the time equiv-
alent to US$25).
The sample was comprised of N ¼ 520 senior high-school
students aged between 17 and 22 years (M ¼ 19.15, SD ¼ 0.75).
With 64.1% of participants being female, girls were somewhat
overrepresented in the sample (57.7% of those graduating in the
220
year 2008 were female; Statistisches Bundesamt, 2009). About half
of the sample (50.7%) lived in rural and half in urban areas.
Measures
Parents’ work involvement. We assessed parental actual
employment history as perceived by the adolescents by asking them
whether each of their parents worked full time, part time, or stayed
at home (a) during their preschool years and (b) during their school
years. For mothers during preschool years, 9.9% of the adolescents
indicated full-time employment, 32.1% indicated part-time
employment, and 58.0% indicated that mothers stayed at home.
For the school age years, the respective percentages were 19.3%
full-time employment, 63.9% part-time employment, and 16.8%
stayed at home. The high number of mothers working part
time is common in Switzerland (Massarelli, 2009). Ninety-four
point seven percent of the adolescents reported that their fathers
worked full time during the preschool years, 4.5% worked part
time, and 0.8% stayed at home. The respective values for the school
age years were: 91.6% full time, 7.0% part time, and 1.7% stayed
at home.
To assess the ideal work involvement of their parents, adoles-
cents were asked to indicate the degree of work involvement they
would have wished for during their own preschool and school age
years. For mothers during preschool years, the ideal work involve-
ment was: 6.8% full time, 44.15% part time, and 49.1% not work-
ing; and during the school age years: 17.8% full time, 74.7% part
time, and 7.5% staying at home. The ideal work involvement for
fathers during preschool years was described by 60.1% as full time,
by 38.5% as part time, and by 1.4% as not working; for the school
age years: 80.8% full time, 17.7% part time, and 1.6% staying at
home.
Own plans for work involvement. Adolescents indicated
whether they planned to work full time, part time, or to stay at home
during the preschool/school years of their future offspring.
There were clear gender differences. During the preschool years,
1.3% of the girls but 44.4% of the boys wanted to work full time,
63.9% of the girls and 53.3% of the boys wanted to work part time,
and 34.8% of the girls but only 2.2% of the boys wanted to stay at
home (w2[2] ¼ 179.21, p < .01). During the school years of their
future offspring, 16.2% of the girls compared to 73.8% of the boys
planned to work full time, 78.1% of the girls but only 25.6% of the
boys planned to work part time, and 1.5% of the girls and 0.6% of
the boys planned to stay at home (w2[2] ¼ 157.26, p < .01).
Preferred work involvement of future partner. Partici-
pants were asked to indicate whether they wanted their future
partners to work full time, part time, or stay at home when having
children. During the preschool years, 29.2% of the girls wanted
their partners to work full time, 63.3% wanted their partners to
work part time, and 1.6% wanted their partners to stay at home.
The respective values for the time with school-aged children were:
full time 57.4%, part time 42.6%, stay at home 0%. Among boys,
2.2% indicated that their wanted their future partners to work full
time during the preschool years. Fifty-three point nine percent pre-
ferred part-time employment for their partners and 43.9% preferred
their partners being housewives. With school-aged children, boys’
work involvement preferences for their partners were: full time
9.4%, part time 81.8%, stay at home 8.8%.
International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(3)
Note that girls indicated a higher preference for part-time work
by their future partners (63.3%) than the boys planned for them-
selves (53.3%). In addition, more boys wanted their partners to stay
at home with preschool children (43.9%) than the girls indicated to
prefer themselves (34.8%).
Neuroticism. With respect to the measurement of discrepancies
between what their parents did and what adolescents would have
preferred them to do, we included neuroticism as a control variable.
Neuroticism was assessed with five items from the neuroticism scale
(6-point scale with higher values indicating stronger agreement;
M ¼ 2.92, SD ¼ 0.85, Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .72) suggested by John and
Srivastava (1999; German version: Lang, Lüdtke, & Asendorpf,
2001). Converging with other studies (Schmitt, Realo, Voracek,
& Allik, 2008), females reported higher neuroticism (M ¼ 3.10,
SD ¼ 0.83) than males (M ¼ 2.61, SD ¼ 0.79; F[1] ¼ 39.11, p < .01).
Results
Discrepancies between adolescents’ reports on
actual and ideal parental work involvement
In a first step, for the evaluation of mothers’ working behavior, we
built three groups to characterize the degree and direction of discre-
pancy. The three groups were built separately for the preschool and
school years of the participants: (a) No discrepancies (preschool
years: 77.4%; school age years: 75.9%), (b) having experienced
maternal work involvement as too low (13.9%; 15.4%), (c) having
experienced maternal work involvement as too high (8.7%; 8.7%).
Discrepancy groups regarding fathers’ work involvement during the
preschool and school age years were computed in the same way:
(a) No discrepancy (preschool years: 64.7%; school age years:
83.7%), (b) work involvement experienced as too low (0.6%;
2.5%), (c) work involvement experienced as too high (34.7%; 13.8%).
In a second step, because some of the groups were very small
(e.g., participants who experienced their fathers having worked too
few hours), we collapsed the two groups who experienced any
discrepancy, regardless of the direction (discrepancies regarding
maternal work involvement: preschool years: yes 22.6%, no
77.4%; school age years: yes 24.1%, no 75.9%; regarding paternal
work involvement: preschool years: yes 35.3%, no 64.7 %; school
age years: yes 16.3%, no 83.7%).
In a third step, we regressed both gender and neuroticism on the
binary discrepancy scores using binomial logistic regression
analyses. With respect to mothers’ work involvement during
the preschool years, a significant effect resulted (w2[2] ¼ 8.73,
p < .05), which was due to neuroticism (b ¼ .39, p < .01) but not
to gender (b ¼ .33, ns). Adolescents with higher neuroticism scores
were more likely to experience a discrepancy regarding the actual
and ideal work involvement of their mothers during their
preschool years. When it comes to discrepancies regarding the
actual and ideal maternal work involvement during the school
years, however, neither gender nor neuroticism were predictive
(w2[2] ¼ 1.83, ns). With respect to paternal work involvement
during the preschool years (w2[2] ¼ 21.71, p < .05), discrepancy
scores were not predicted by neuroticism (b ¼ .52, ns) but by gen-
der (b ¼ 1.02, p < .01): more girls (42.2%) than boys (22.8%)
reported a discrepancy. Neither neuroticism nor gender predicted
discrepancy scores in fathers’ work involvement during the school
age years (w2[2] ¼ 1.15, ns).
Wiese and Freund 221

Table 1. Girls’ work-related plans during the preschool years (either not working or working part time)

95% Confidence interval for odds ratio

Variables B Wald Test (z-ratio) Odds ratio Upper Lower

Parental work involvement (as reported by adolescents)

Mother: preschool years 0.72* 5.14 2.06 3.85 1.10
Father: preschool years 0.45 0.53 1.56 5.15 0.47
Ideal parental work involvement (retrospection)
Mother: preschool years 1.54** 21.95 4.65 8.85 2.45
Father: preschool years 0.14 0.27 0.87 1.46 0.52
(Constant) 3.64 3.69 0.03

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; w2(4) ¼ 75.81**.

Table 2. Girls’ work-related plans during the school age years (either working part time or working full time)

95% Confidence interval for odds ratio

Variables B Wald Test (z-ratio) Odds ratio Upper Lower

Parental work involvement (as reported by adolescents)

Mother: school age years 0.38 1.30 1.47 2.83 0.76
Father: school age years 0.10 0.03 0.90 2.84 0.29
Ideal parental work involvement (retrospection)
Mother: school age years 1.61** 15.12 5.02 11.33 2.23
Father: school age years 0.37 0.63 1.45 3.60 0.58
(Constant) 6.70 12.36 0.00

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; w2(4) ¼ 36.73**.

In sum, the majority of adolescents did not express that they
would have wished for a different work involvement of their fathers
or mothers. The strongest discrepancy was found with respect to
fathers’ work involvement during the preschool years. Adolescents
would have preferred their fathers to have worked less than they
did. Girls’ respective discrepancy scores were higher than boys.
Adolescents’ own work involvement plans
To test the hypotheses concerning the prediction of adolescents’
own work involvement plans, we conducted a series of logistic
regression analyses using binomial instead of multinomial analyses
because of distribution restrictions (i.e., there were a number of
cells with zero cases).
increased to 73.5% (75.7% for not working, 72.5% for working part
time).
To predict girls’ work participation plans during the school age
years, again, binomial logistic regression analyses were conducted.
The criterion was the plan to either work part time or to work full
time with school age children. As hypothesized, the significant
effect (w2[2] ¼ 19.23, p < .01) was due to maternal (b ¼ 1.20,
p < .01) but not to paternal (b ¼ 0.24, ns) behavior. Overall predic-
tion success was 82.6%. Note, however, that none of the cases with
full-time plans were correctly predicted. The next analysis also
included ideal parental work involvement (see Table 2). Here, only
ideal maternal work involvement played a significant predictive
role. A comparison of w2-values showed that the second model was
reliably different from the first one (w2[2] ¼ 17.50, p < .01). Overall
prediction success increased to 85.2% (94.9% for working part
time, 38.2% for working full time).

Girls’ work involvement plans. To predict girls’ work partic-

ipation plans during the preschool years, we first ran a binomial
logistic regression analysis with actual maternal and paternal work
involvement during the preschool years, as remembered by the
girls themselves, as predictors. The criterion was the girl’s plan
to either stay at home or to work part time. The significant effect
(w2[2] ¼ 49.94, p < .01) was due to maternal (b ¼ 1.59, p < .01) but
not to paternal (b ¼ 0.33, ns) work history. The overall prediction
success was 65.5% (82.0% for staying at home, 56.0% for working
part time). Next, we also included ideal parental work involvement
(see Table 1). There was a significant effect for both actual and
ideal maternal work involvement. A comparison of w2-values
showed that the second model was reliably different from the first
model (w2[2] ¼ 25.87, p < .01). Overall prediction success slightly
Boys’ work involvement plans. To predict boys’ work
participation plans (part time or full time) during the preschool
years, a binomial logistic regression analysis was conducted with
actual parental work involvement during the preschool years as
remembered by the boys. Although the overall effect was signifi-
cant (w2[2] ¼ 10.29, p < .01), neither mothers’ (b ¼ 0.32, ns) nor
fathers’ (b ¼ 20.22, ns) work involvement contributed significantly
to the prediction. This might be due to the low number (n ¼ 6) of
fathers who had actually worked part time. The overall prediction
success was low (57.2%; 47.4% for part time, 69.2% for full time).
A regression analyses that additionally included ideal parental work
involvement (see Table 3) evinced a predictive effect of ideal pater-
nal work involvement. The second model was reliably different
222 International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(3)

Table 3. Boys’ work-related plans during the preschool years (either working part time or working full time)

95% Confidence interval for odds ratio

Variables B Wald Test (z-ratio) Odds ratio Upper Lower

Parental work involvement (as reported by adolescents)

Mother: preschool years 0.23 0.47 0.79 1.54 0.41
Father: preschool years 17.88 0.00 5.795E7 0.00
Ideal parental work involvement (retrospection)
Mother: preschool years 0.14 0.17 0.87 1.69 0.45
Father: preschool years 2.79** 19.64 16.28 55.93 4.74
(Constant) 61.10 0.00 0.00

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; w2(4) ¼ 45.05**.

Table 4. Boys’ work-related plans during the school age years (either working part time or working full time)

95% Confidence interval for odds ratio

Variables B Wald Test (z-ratio) Odds ratio Upper Lower

Parental work involvement (as reported by adolescents)

Mother: school age years 0.14 0.16 0.87 1.74 0.44
Father: school age years 0.55 1.11 1.73 4.84 0.62
Ideal parental work involvement (retrospection)
Mother: school age years 0.02 0.00 1.02 2.30 0.45
Father: school age years 1.16** 6.98 3.19 7.53 1.35
(Constant) 3.52 4.18 0.03

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; w2(4) ¼ 14.67**.

from the first one (w2[2] ¼ 34.76, p < .01). Overall prediction success
increased to 67.1% (47.4% for part time, 67.1% for full time).
To predict boys’ work-participation plans (part time, full time)
during the school age years, a binomial logistic regression analysis
with actual maternal and paternal work involvement as predictors
resulted in a significant model (w2[2] ¼ 7.46, p < .05). As expected,
this effect was due to paternal (b ¼ 1.15, p < .05) but not to
maternal (b ¼ 0.15, ns) working behavior. The overall prediction
success was 73.9 (6.5 % for working part time, 97.7% for working
full time). An analysis that additionally included ideal parental
work involvement also led to a significant result (see Table 4) with
only ideal paternal work involvement being relevant. The second
model turned out to be better than the first (w2[2] ¼ 7.21,
p < .05), but overall prediction success increased only very slightly
(75.0%; 15.2% for part time, 96.2% for full time).
The overall pattern of results provides clear evidence for the
hypothesis of reflected modeling: the influence of retrospectively
preferred parental work involvement on adolescents’ work involve-
ment plans was stronger than the influence of parents’ actual work
history as perceived by the adolescents.
Adolescents’ preferences for future partners’ work
involvement
The second set of analyses concerned the prediction of preferences
for adolescents’ future partners’ work involvement. Again, we
conducted a series of binomial logistic regression analyses.
Girls’ work involvement preferences for their future
partners. To predict girls’ preferences for their future partners
during the preschool years, we included actual maternal and
paternal work involvement during the preschool years as predictors.
The criterion was the girl’s preference for her partner to either work
part time or full time with preschool children. The omnibus test was
not significant (w2[2] ¼ 3.60, ns). Next, ideal parental work
involvement was included, leading to a significant overall effect
(w2[4] ¼ 47.10, p < .01), which was due to ideal paternal work
involvement (b ¼ 1.83, p < .01). Overall prediction success was
70.4%. Note, however, that none of the full-time cases was correctly
predicted.
The next analysis was run to predict girls’ preferences for their
future partners during the school age years, with girl’s preference
for her partner to either work part time or to work full time, with
school-aged children as a criterion and maternal and paternal work
involvement as remembered by the girls as predictors. The overall
effect was significant (w2[2] ¼ 13.20, p < .01; for maternal work
involvement b ¼ 0.67, p < .05; for paternal work involvement
b ¼ 0.74, p < .10). Overall prediction success was 60.4% (27.6%
for not working, 84.6% for part time). An additional analysis
including ideal parental work involvement evinced a significant
overall effect (w2[2] ¼ 50.57, p < .01), which was due to actual
maternal (b ¼ 0.83, p < .01) and ideal paternal (b ¼ 1.93, p < .01)
work involvement. This second analysis was reliably different from
the first model (w2[2] ¼ 37.37, p < .01). Prediction success increased
(70.6%; 49.3% for part time, 86.3% for full time).
Boys’ work involvement preferences for their future
partners. The mirror analyses were conducted to predict boys’
preferences for their future partners during the preschool years.
We first ran an analysis with actual maternal and paternal
Wiese and Freund
workforce participation as predictors. The criterion was the boy’s
preference for his partner to either stay at home or to work part
time. The omnibus test was significant (w2[2] ¼ 15.50, p < .01),
which, as expected, was due to maternal (b ¼ 1.00, p < .01) but not
to paternal (b ¼ 0.10, ns) work history. Overall prediction success
was 66.5% (80.8% for staying at home, 54.7% for working part
time). An analysis that additionally included ideal parental work
involvement resulted in a significant overall effect (w2[4] ¼
40.88, p < .01) due to ideal maternal work involvement (b ¼
1.70, p < .01). Again, the second model was reliably different from
the first one (w2[2] ¼ 25.38, p < .01). Overall, prediction success
increased (74.0%; 80.8% for staying at home, 68.4% for part time).
The same analyses were conducted to predict boys’ work prefer-
ences for their partners during the school age years; again, we first
conducted a binomial logistic regression analyses with actual
parental workforce participation on the predictor side. The criterion
was the boy’s preference for his partner to either work part time
or to work full time. The significant overall effect (w2[2] ¼ 9.80,
p < .01) was due to maternal (b ¼ 1.26, p < .05) but not to paternal
(b ¼ 18.90, ns) work history. The overall prediction success for the
preference concerning the future partner’s work involvement was
90.8%. However, none of the cases of part-time preference was cor-
rectly classified. A binomial logistic regression analyses that addi-
tionally included ideal parental work involvement yielded a
significant effect (w2[4] ¼ 15.91, p < .01), which was due to ideal
maternal work involvement only (b ¼ 1.66, p < .01). A comparison
of w2-values showed that the second model was reliably different
from the first (w2[2] ¼ 6.11, p < .05). Percentages of correct
classifications, however, did not increase.
Taken together, this set of results supports the gender-matching
hypothesis in that adolescents’ preferences for future partners’
work involvement were associated with opposite-sex parents’ ideal
and actual work history, with retrospectively preferred parental
work involvement playing the crucial role, especially with respect
to the preschool years.
Discussion
The current study provides empirical support for the reflected
modeling hypothesis. Overall, preferred parental work involvement
turned out to be more important than actual parental work involve-
ment. In other words, parents served as a role model if their actual
behavior as reported by the adolescents converged with what these
adolescents wished for during their childhood. The current results
also support the gender-matching hypothesis. As expected, parental
work participation affected adolescents’ work participation plans
with same-sex parents serving as main role models. Opposite-sex
parents served as the main model for the preferred degree of work
participation for future life partners.
There was high convergence between adolescents’ perceptions
of parents’ actual working behavior and adolescents’ ideals regard-
ing their parents’ work involvement. The largest discrepancies
between actual and ideal parental work involvement were found
with respect to fathers’ work involvement during the preschool
years. About one-third of the adolescents would have preferred
their fathers to having worked fewer hours. Or, in other words, ado-
lescents seem to have wished that their fathers spent more time at
home. The discrepancy between adolescents’ perceptions of their
fathers’ actual and preferred working behavior was more pro-
nounced among girls than among boys. This might also explain
223
why more girls preferred their future partners to work part time
during the preschool years than boys of their own age (who may
be their future partners) planned.
Note that also among boys about 20% reported a discrepancy
between the perceived actual and ideal hours their fathers have
worked during their preschool years. Not surprisingly, then,
currently, adolescent boys reported a high interest in working part
time themselves, particularly during their future children’s pre-
school years. However, their plans of working part time during that
phase of the family life cycle may not persist when they actually
have children of their own. Adolescents who have not yet graduated
from high school have no experience of the financial requirements for
supporting a family or of (implicit) organizational rules regarding
working hours (i.e., face time culture). Although organizational cul-
tures might change in the future, it is likely that, as adults—even if
their lifestyle preferences stay stable—they will have to seriously
weigh the pros and cons of reducing their working hours when having
to support young children.
There is one exception from the overall finding that actual
parental working behavior loses its predictive power when preferred
parental working behavior is taken into account. Girls’ work
involvement plans with preschool children were equally predicted
by their own mother’s actual as well as ideal work involvement. One
explanation of this finding could be that girls take into account the
structural constraints that both their mothers as well as they
themselves have to face regarding child care institutions and social
expectations (see Freund & Wiese, 2011).
One of the limitations of this study concerns the selectivity of
the sample that included exclusively high-school students. Results
might be different for adolescents following the vocational track.
High-school students might be more egalitarian when thinking
about their future coordination of work and family than students
from lower school tracks. One might argue, however, that the
current sample is particularly interesting regarding their plans for
future work involvement, as the highly educated often serve as life-
style trendsetters. Note also that Switzerland is more traditional
than other Western countries regarding gendered work involve-
ment. Another limitation of this study concerns the self-report,
cross-sectional methodology. One might be concerned about the
use of self-report data from a single source, especially with respect
to the discrepancies between parental actual and preferred work
involvement. Note, however, that the discrepancies are most likely
not the result of a reporting bias as they differ for fathers and moth-
ers as well as for preschool and school age years. If the discrepancy
scores were simply due to a general bias to report preference for
fewer working hours, or to an overestimation of actual work involve-
ment, discrepancy scores would not have differed for mothers and
fathers or for preschool and school years. Moreover, we controlled
for neuroticism as a possible source for actual–ideal discrepancies.
Only one of four discrepancy scores (mothers’ work involvement
during the preschool years) was predicted by neuroticism, lending
little evidence for a bias due to neuroticism.
Longitudinal data on adolescents’ and young adults’ work/family
plans are highly desirable. A longitudinal design would allow testing
for the stability of work involvement plans while taking into account
not only childhood experiences and ideals, but also structural
constraints (e.g., organizational culture, child care availability) and
possible negotiations with future partners. The results of the current
study, however, can be considered a starting point for shedding
light on the issue of family influences on the next generation’s
work/family decisions and experiences.
224
Funding
The authors wish to acknowledge the support provided by the
Jacobs Foundation (Zurich) for this project. The first author is now
at the University of Basel.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Barnett, R., Gareis, K. C., James, J. B., & Steele, J. (2003). Planning
ahead: College seniors’ concerns about career–marriage conflict.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 305–319.
Blair, S. (1992). The sex-typing of children’s household labor: Parental
influence on daughters’ and sons’ housework. Youth and Society,
24, 178–203.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviors: A social-role
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Freund, A. M., & Wiese, B. S. (2011). Graduating from high school:
The role of gender-related attitudes, attributes, and motives for a
central transition in late adolescence. Unpublished manuscript.
Gardner, K. E., & LaBrecque, S. (1986). Effects of maternal employ-
ment on sex role orientation of adolescents. Adolescence, 11,
875–885.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Keith, P. M. (1988). The relationship of self-esteem, maternal
employment, and work–family plans to sex role orientations of late
adolescence. Adolescence, 13, 959–966.
Kiecolt, K. J., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The long term effects of family
structure on gender-role attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 50, 709–717.
Lang, F. R., Lüdtke, O., & Asendorpf, J. (2001). Testgüte und psycho-
metrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory
(BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen. [Validity and
psychometric equivalence of the German version of the Big Five
View publication stats
International Journal of Behavioral Development 35(3)
Inventory (BFI) in early, middle, and late adulthood]. Diagnostica,
47, 111–121.
Marks, G., & Houston, D. M. (2002). The determinants of young
women’s intentions about education, career development and
family life. Journal of Education and Work, 15, 321–336.
Massarelli, N. (2009). Labour market latest trends—4th quarter 2008
data. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/
ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-09-014/EN/KS-QA-09-014-EN.PDF
Noom, M. J., Decovic, M., & Meeus, W. H. (1999). Autonomy,
attachment and psychosocial adjustment during adolescence:
A double-edged sword? Journal of Adolescence, 22, 771–783.
O’Connell, L., Betz, M., & Kurth, S. (1989). Plans for balancing work
and family life: Do women pursuing nontraditional and traditional
occupations differ? Sex Roles, 20, 35–45.
O’Neal Weeks, M., Wise, G. W., & Duncan, C. (1984). The relation-
ship between sex-role attitudes and career orientations of high
school females and their mothers. Adolescence, 19, 595–607.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a
man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality
traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94, 168–182.
Starrels, M. E. (1992). Attitude similarity between mothers and children
regarding maternal employment. Journal of Marriage and Family,
54, 91–103.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2009). Statistik des jährlichen Bevölkerungs-
standes (ESPOP) 2008. Definitive Ergebnisse, BFS [Ultimate data
on population demographics according to census results, BFS].
Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Thorn, B. L., & Gilbert, L. A. (1998). Antecedents of work and family
role expectations of college men. Journal of Family Psychology, 12,
259–267.
Tuck, B., Rolfe, J., & Adair, V. (1994). Adolescents’ attitudes toward
gender roles within work and its relationship to gender, personality
type, and parental occupations. Sex Roles, 31, 547–558.
Willetts-Bloom, M. C., & Nock, S. L. (1994). The influence of maternal
employment on the gender role attitudes of men and women. Sex
Roles, 30, 371–389.