Table 4.

Log-logistic hazard model (hazard ratios) for the transition to the second pregnancy with the predictors for the adjustment in the work domain

	Model 1: all couples N = 1454	Model 2: dual earners N = 856
Adjustment in work
Satisfaction with the flexibility to balance family–work
Sat. flexibility balance family–work (women)		1.08**
Sat. flexibility balance family–work (men)		1.01
Satisfaction with the employment opportunities
Sat. employment opportunities (women)	1.15***	1.06
Sat. employment opportunities (men)	0.98	1.06
Turn down work opportunities after childbirth
Turn down work opportunities (women)	0.92**	0.93+
Turn down work opportunities (men)	0.98	0.93
Control variables
Education
High ed. homogamy	4.16***	2.79***
She more educated	2.04***	1.36
He more educated	3.01***	2.19***
Age
Age (men)	0.89***	0.89***
Age (women)	0.92***	0.94**
Employment
He unemployed/inactive	0.55	1.00
He employed part-time	0.89	0.82
She unemployed/inactive	1.00	1.00
She employed part-time	0.69**	0.61***
Health
Objective health (men)	1.23	1.25
Objective health (women)	0.86	0.94
Income
Income: 2nd quartile	0.63***	0.58***
Income: 3rd quartile	0.54***	0.63**
Income: 4th quartile	0.56***	0.75
Outsourced childcare
High use of outsourced childcare	1.24	1.37**
Marital status
Married	1.42	1.50
Personality traits
Extraversion (women)	1.02	0.97
Agreeableness (women)	0.98	0.89
Conscientiousness (women)	0.97	0.96
Emotional stability (women)	0.93	0.93
Openness (women)	0.86*	0.92
Extraversion (men)	1.01	0.97
Agreeableness (men)	0.98	0.98
Conscientiousness (men)	0.85**	0.82**
Emotional stability (men)	1.01	1.02
Openness (men)	1.05	1.00
Constant	8.40**	10.06*

Reference categories: both non-unexpected difficulties; low education homogamy; he/she employed full time; income 1st quartile; cohabiting; little or no use of outsourced childcare

⁺ p ≤ .1; * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001