Table 3. Cross-lagged panel analysis predicting number of children and benevolent sexism over a two-year period.
| Number of Children Time 2 | Benevolent Sexism Time 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | CI 2.5% | CI 97.5% | B | SE | CI 2.5% | CI 97.5% | |
| Gender a | 0.025 | 0.019 | -0.008 | 0.066 | 0.101*** | 0.022 | 0.058 | 0.144 |
| Age b | 0.004* | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.001 | -0.002 | 0.002 |
| Education b c | -0.004 | 0.003 | -0.010 | 0.000 | -0.023*** | 0.005 | -0.033 | -0.012 |
| Household Income b d | 0.073*** | 0.021 | 0.029 | 0.104 | -0.041* | 0.017 | -0.077 | -0.009 |
| Benevolent Sexism T1 b e | 0.036 | 0.019 | -0.003 | 0.061 | 0.687*** | 0.013 | 0.661 | 0.713 |
| Hostile Sexism T1 b e | -0.019 | 0.013 | -0.038 | 0.010 | 0.086*** | 0.014 | 0.058 | 0.113 |
| Number of Children T1 b f | 0.366*** | 0.028 | 0.331 | 0.428 | 0.033** | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.053 |
| Age × Gender | 0.000 | 0.002 | -0.003 | 0.004 | 0.004* | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Education × Gender | 0.002 | 0.004 | -0.006 | 0.011 | -0.005 | 0.008 | -0.020 | 0.010 |
| H.Income × Gender | 0.003 | 0.026 | -0.042 | 0.058 | 0.028 | 0.024 | -0.018 | 0.077 |
| Benevolent Sexism × Gender | -0.029 | 0.021 | -0.061 | 0.017 | 0.024 | 0.021 | -0.016 | 0.064 |
| Hostile Sexism × Gender | 0.026 | 0.015 | -0.009 | 0.049 | -0.047* | 0.021 | -0.088 | -0.006 |
| Number of Children × Gender | -0.046 | 0.033 | -0.114 | 0.009 | -0.011 | 0.016 | -0.042 | 0.019 |
N = 6,017
*** p < .001
** p < .01
* p < .05
a Gender was contrast coded (0 = woman; 1 = man)
b These variables were centred
c Education ranged from 0 (no qualification) to 10 (highest level of qualification)
d Household income was log-centred
e Scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)
f Number of children ranged between 0–13.