IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/336248.html

Gender Ideology and Work–Family Conflict: A Global Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bhagat, Lakshita
  • Kriti, Shubhra
  • Goli, Srinivas

Abstract

Reconciliation of work and family roles has become a central issue for advancing women’s empowerment, gender equality, and sustainable family systems worldwide. While the previous research has examined the ‘work–family interface’, multi-country evidence on the link between gender ideology (GI) and work–family conflict (WFC), remains inconclusive. As GI influences occupational choice and household division of labour, this study investigates a critical question: whether individuals with traditional gender beliefs experience higher WFC than those with egalitarian views. Using data from the ISSP 2012 module ‘Family and Changing Gender Roles’, we find a positive association between GI scores and WFC, indicating that respondents with traditional beliefs are more likely to report WFC than those with egalitarian ideology. While the findings remain robust across multiple robustness checks, yet the magnitude of the association is far from uniform, showing clear heterogeneity across individual factors such as sex and education, as well as community contexts, including place and region of residence.

Suggested Citation

  • Bhagat, Lakshita & Kriti, Shubhra & Goli, Srinivas, 2026. "Gender Ideology and Work–Family Conflict: A Global Comparative Analysis," EconStor Preprints 336248, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:336248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/336248/1/Gender-Ideology-and-Work%e2%80%93Family-Conflict.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina Bornatici & Marieke Heers, 2020. "Work–Family Arrangement and Conflict: Do Individual Gender Role Attitudes and National Gender Culture Matter?," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 46-60.
    2. Christina Bornatici & Marieke Heers, 2020. "Work–Family Arrangement and Conflict: Do Individual Gender Role Attitudes and National Gender Culture Matter?," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 46-60.
    3. Frances Goldscheider & Eva Bernhardt & Trude Lappegård, 2015. "The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(2), pages 207-239, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alenka Švab & Tanja Oblak Črnič, 2023. "Gender Differences in Epidemic Everyday Scenarios: An Exploratory Study of Family Life in Slovenia," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 324-336.
    2. Slätis, Victor, 2026. "The Modernity Trap : Structural Constraints on Fertility in Wealthy Democracies," SocArXiv xbe6p_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    4. Liat Raz-Yurovich & Barbara S. Okun, 2024. "Are highly educated partners really more gender egalitarian? A couple-level analysis of social class differentials in attitudes and behaviors," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 50(34), pages 1005-1038.
    5. Lisa Van Landschoot & Helga de Valk & Jan Van Bavel, 2017. "Fertility among descendants of immigrants in Belgium: The role of the partner," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(60), pages 1827-1858.
    6. Fox, Jonathan & Klüsener, Sebastian & Myrskylä, Mikko, 2018. "Is a positive relationship between fertility and economic development emerging at the sub-national regional level? Theoretical considerations and evidence from Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88295, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Natalie Nitsche & Anna Matysiak & Jan Bavel & Daniele Vignoli, 2018. "Partners’ Educational Pairings and Fertility Across Europe," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(4), pages 1195-1232, August.
    8. Milovanović Miloš, 2023. "The Relationship between Fertility and Female Participation in the Labour Force in OECD Countries 2000–2020: It Is (Again) Negative," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 10(57), pages 254-274, January.
    9. Katri Otonkorpi‐Lehtoranta & Milla Salin & Mia Hakovirta & Anniina Kaittila, 2022. "Gendering boundary work: Experiences of work–family practices among Finnish working parents during COVID‐19 lockdown," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 1952-1968, November.
    10. Henrik-Alexander Schubert & Christian Dudel & Marina Kolobova & Mikko Myrskylä, 2023. "Revisiting the J-shape: human development and fertility in the United States," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2023-022, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    11. Siv Schéele & Gunnar Andersson, 2018. "Municipality attraction and commuter mobility in urban Sweden: An analysis based on longitudinal population data," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(9), pages 1875-1903, July.
    12. Robert A. Pollak, 2016. "Marriage Market Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 22309, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Chen, Nana & Xu, Hangtian, 2021. "Why has the birth rate relatively increased in China's wealthy cities?," MPRA Paper 105960, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Giyeon Seo & Tanya Koropeckyj‐Cox & Sanghag Kim, 2022. "Correlates of Contemporary Gender Preference for Children in South Korea," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 48(1), pages 161-188, March.
    15. Athanasios Lapatinas & Anstasia Litina & Skerdilajda Zanaj, 2021. "Economic complexity shapes attitudes about gender roles," DEM Discussion Paper Series 21-16, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    16. Tan, Jolene & Cui, Qi & Uchikoshi, Fumiya, 2025. "The increasing importance of changes in nuptiality: policy mismatch and fertility decline in low-fertility Asian societies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127749, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Rodríguez-González, Ana, 2021. "The Impact of the Female Advantage in Education on the Marriage Market," Working Papers 2021:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Zuzanna Brzozowska & Eva Beaujouan & Kryštof Zeman, 2022. "Is Two Still Best? Change in Parity-Specific Fertility Across Education in Low-Fertility Countries," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 2085-2114, October.
    19. Angela Greulich & Olivier Thevenon & Mathilde Guergoat-Larivière, 2015. "Securing women's employment: A fertility booster in European countries?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01298946, HAL.
    20. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:336248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.