Nicole M. Fortin
Department of Economics and CIFAR
University of British Columbia
University of California at Davis
May 2010
Source: Goldin (2006)
2
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
1975
1980
1985
All Men
Predicted by Quadratic
Canadian Women
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
All Women
College-Educated Women
Source: U.S. BLS, March CPS and Canada, Cansim
4

Given that the FLP of college-educated women had almost reach
parity with men's in the mid-1990s, this stabilization or slight
retreat was disappointing for the women's movement.

It has been characterized as “opting out” in the popular press
(Belkin, 2003; Wallis, 2004; Story, 2005) and among
sociologists (Cotter et al., 2007; Stone, 2007).

The “opting-out” phenomena has raised more skepticism among
economists (Boushey, 2005; Goldin and Katz, 2007)
 Women’s educational attainment has continued to rise, as
well as their relative wages.
 Their husband’s income has remained relatively unchanged,
with an elasticity of income quite low (Blau and Kahn, 2005)
 Demand-side factors (e.g. technological change, sectoral
shifts; Black and Spitz-Oener, 2007) favor women’s work.
 Some evidence in male-dominated jobs (Antecol, 2010).
5
Placed in the recent literature that has emphasized the role of
social norms and beliefs in modulating the impact of economic
fundamentals on labor market outcomes, this paper appeals to
changing gender role attitudes, whose progression halted in
the mid-1990s, as a source of explanation for the retreat in FLP.

I will argue that gender role attitudes are the missing genderspecific factors that explain the differences in the concavity of
time trends in male and female labor force participation, which
remain after accounting for the usual factors,
 which include years of schooling, number of children, dummies
for white, married, ever divorced, preschooler present, mother
ever worked, living in an intact family, and dummies (9) for
religion at age 16, and region dummies (8).

6

Recognizing that traditional gender role attitudes,
 which capture the notion the husband should be the main
“breadwinner" and the wife the main “homemaker",
are not necessarily antagonistic to egalitarian attitudes,
 which capture the notion that women are as capable as men
in the workforce (more an equal opportunity view),
the impact of both type of attitudes is studied.
Accommodating both views or identities (“homemaker” vs.
“career women”) in the Work-Life Balance (WLB) has arguably
become the new face of feminism.

Gender role attitudes are thought to impact not only the work
decisions of married women, but also those of lone-mothers who
have the option of relying on government assistance, or indeed the
career and lifestyle choices of single women.

7
Gender Role Attitudes
Birth Years Cohort Name
Survey:
Labor Force
Participation
CPS
GSS
Age at HIV/AIDS
First
Subjective
Traditional Egalitarian
Marriage
Risk
GSS
GSS
GSS
NHIS
Years: 1983-1985
1966-75
Generation X
All
59.0
63.1
—
61.7
—
45.0
—
66.3
—
20.5
—
—
65.7
67.3
56.8
67.8
36.2
41.4
75.2
70.6
18.7
20.8
6.4
5.3
70.5
69.8
68.3
71.4
32.2
38.0
78.7
75.9
19.9
21.6
20.2
16.3
77.0
71.9
75.4
72.9
36.8
40.3
73.2
72.5
—
—
13.2
11.5
73.8
70.1
72.9
70.2
41.0
39.9
69.6
72.2
23.2
22.2
10.6
9.5
Years: 1988-1990
1966-75
Generation X
All
Years: 1993-1994
1966-75
Generation X
All
Years: 1998-2000
1966-75
Generation X
All
Years: 2004-2006
1966-75
Generation X
All
8
Economic
Fundamentals:
Education, Wages,
Non-wage Income
Mother’s Labor
Force Participation
Woman’s Decision
to Participate in the
Labor Market
Who am I ?
Career Woman or
Stay at Home Mom
Other influences
9
When gender role attitudes observed in the past are used to
explain current labor force participation (as with the NLS72), the
issue of reverse causality does not arise.

But when gender role attitudes and FLP are observed
contemporaneously (as with the GSS), potential endogeneity
arises as an important challenge in the analysis of the impact of
these attitudes.

The analysis uses a double prong instrumental variable strategy
appealing to extraneous attitudes found in the GSS, and to an
exogenous shock to attitudes, namely the AIDS scare, which
may have acted as a counter-current to the “Pill Revolution”.

The AIDS scare is thought to be an exogenous shock to
attitudes, but perhaps only one factor among others affecting
these attitudes.

10
Economic
Fundamentals:
Education, Wages,
Non-wage Income
Mother’s Labor
Force Participation
Woman’s Decision
to Participate in the
Labor Market
Who am I ?
Career Woman or
Stay at Home Mom
Other influences
11
Economic
Fundamentals:
Education, Wages,
Non-wage Income
Mother’s Labor
Force Participation
Woman’s Decision
to Participate in the
Labor Market
Who am I ?
Career Woman or
Stay at Home Mom
Other influences
AIDS Scare
12
This paper contributes to the study of the impact of gender role
attitudes on FLP in several novel ways, by
1) Accounting for non-linear time-period, life-cycle and cohort
effects, as well as a host of background variables, using data
from the 1977-2006 General Social Surveys (GSS)
2) Using longitudinal data from the single cohort National
Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS72) to
address concerns about reverse causality and corroborate the
age-period-cohort specification.
3) Using a double prong instrumental variables strategy
based on extraneous attitudes about sexual morality and
political views found in the GSS,
and on an exogenous shock to attitudes, namely the mid-1990s
AIDS scare using repeated cross-sectional data from the 19882006 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) in the context of
a variant of two-sample two-stage least squares (TS2LS)
to address concerns about endogeneity.

13
Gender role attitudes, whose secular trends reversed in the mid1990s when the AIDS crisis peaked, are found to explain
 at least a third of the recent leveling-off in FLP, that is, as
much as all the usual variables combined
 while general cultural trends towards more conservative social,
religious and political views do not.

More precisely, the estimated coefficients of gender role attitudes
imply that the 2 points rise in average traditional attitudes and 4
points decline in average egalitarian attitudes from 1993-94 to 200406 would account for one half to a full percentage point decline in
FLP.

14
(1)
Explanatory
variables:
Econometric
Specification
All Men
OLS (life-cycle
& cohort controls)
All Women
OLS (life-cycle
& cohort controls)
OLS (additional
usual controls)
LPM
2SLS
2SLS/TS2SLSa
Time
(2)
(3)
Traditional
2
Time /100
attitudes
(4)
Egalitarian
attitudes
(5)
(6)
Time
Time /100
Years: 1977-2006
2
0.019*** -0.040***
(0.008) (0.016)
0.015***
(0.003)
0.010***
(0.001)
0.006
(0.004)
0.007*
(0.004)
0.006*
(0.003)
0.039***
(0.011)
0.031***
(0.010)
0.029***
(0.011)
0.012***
(0.004)
0.010***
(0.004)
-0.219***
(0.024)
-0.231***
(0.070)
(8)
Egalitarian
attitudes
Years: 1988-2006
0.006*** -0.012**
(0.002) (0.006)
-0.025***
(0.008)
-0.019***
(0.007)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.011
(0.007)
-0.010
(0.008)
(7)
Traditional
attitudes
0.051**
(0.021)
0.257***
(0.088)
-0.067***
(0.020)
-0.056***
(0.020)
-0.052***
(0.019)
-0.054***
(0.017)
-0.046***
(0.018)
-0.196***
(0.027)
-0.239***
(0.083)
0.048*
(0.025)
0.313**
(0.133)
Note: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, at 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted
by *. Also included in the regressions are quadratic in age, cohort dummies (7), years of schooling, number of children, dummies for white,
married, ever divorced, preschooler present, mother ever worked, living in an intact family, and dummies (9) for religion at age 16, and
region dummies.
15
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
A. Attitude Sample - Table 4
1980
Actual
Trend Col.1
1985
1990
Year
Pred. Col.1
Trend Col.2
1995
Pred. Col.2
Trend Col.5
2000
2005
Pred. Col.5
Male Trend
.2
.4
.6
.8
B. Post-1988 Sample - Table 7
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Actual
Trend Col. 2
Pred. Col. 2
Trend Col. 3
Pred. Col. 3
Trend Col. 9
Pred. Col. 9
Male Trend
17

The results are strongest among women with less than a
college degree, for these women the AIDS scare as an
instrument is actually more significant.

Among married women, where the analysis include husband’s
income, gender role attitudes account for about one third of the
time trends.

Among college-educated married women (about 800 obs), the
results are less precise and not as strong, leaving room for
explanations based on negative feedback from the labor market,
such as glass ceiling effects.

Among African-American women however, self-rated health
is found to be as important as gender role attitudes in accounting
for the evolution of FLP.
18






Relevant Literature
Theoretical Underpinnings: Economic Identity Theory and the
AIDS Scare
Data and Descriptive Evidence
 Time-period, life-cycle and cohorts effects in FLP
 Measurement of gender role attitudes
 Subjective risk of HIV/AIDS
Econometric Specification and variant of TS2SLS
Regression Results
 Main results
 Longitudinal analysis with the NLS-72
 Instrumental variables strategies
 Alternative hypotheses (divorce, religious, social and political
conservatism, ethnic and health factors)
 Sub-groups (African-American women, College-educated
women vs. women with less than college, men)
Conclusion
19
Impact of gender role attitudes on FLP and other labor market
outcomes
 Levine (1993), Vella (1994), Fortin (2005), Fernandez and
Fogli (2005), Charles, Guryan, and Pan (2009)
 Intergeneration transmission of gender role attitudes
 Fernandez, Fogli and Olivetti (2004), Farré-Olalla and Vella
(2007)
 Dynamic macro-models with gender role attitudes
 Fernandez (2007) and Fogli and Veldkamp(2007)

Cohort-effects – “Pill Revolution”
 Goldin and Katz (2002), Goldin (2004) and Bailey (2006)
 Identity and Gender
 Akerlof and Kranton (2000, 2002), Goldin and Shim (2004),
Goldin (2006)
• Impact of AIDS Crisis, Mad Cow Scare
• Ahituv, Hotz and Philipson (1996), Adda (2007), Johnson and
Raphael (2009)

20
• Akerlof and Kranton (2000, 2002, 2005) have proposed to
incorporate one's sense of self as an important element of the utility
function.
Identity translates cultural values and social norms into
motivational factors: agents act as they “ should” given their
chosen social category.

Benabou and Tirole (2006) have introduced competing identities
that are competing for time or resources, such as a traditional
identity and a modern identity, where investing in the identitycapital of one can damage the other.

Here I retain some of the basic elements of their framework:
retain the basic elements of the framework:
 identity-endowment, identity-asset and saliency of
identities.

21
The “Women’s Liberation Movement” can be seen as having
proposed the new identity of “career women” equal to men in the
workplace, and assuming their own identity by keeping their birth
name (Goldin and Shim, 2004).

The “Pill Revolution” enabled the new career woman to be a
“liberated” woman in control of her sexuality and fertility, that is,
created a disassociation between the “marriage market” and the
“sex market”.

In that context, the AIDS scare may have acted as a countercurrent to the Pill Revolution making the lifestyle of the single, but
condom-able, career woman less comfortable.

Other health scares, such as the 2003 Mad Cow and SARS
scare, the 2009 Swine Flu scare, also had profound impacts on
attitudes, identities and even trade.

22
Data from the National Health Interview Surveys which have been
conducted yearly, for over fifty years, as one of the major data
collection programs of the National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) combine information on health characteristics and many
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Designed to monitor the health of the U.S. population, these large
repeated cross-sectional surveys comprise from 20,000 to 30,000
observations a year.

In the late 1980s, the NCHS added they an “AIDS Knowledge and
Attitudes" supplement; in 1997 a subset of that module was
incorporated into the core components “Sample Adult” .

The information one's own chances of getting HIV/AIDS is from the
question: “What are your chances of getting HIV/AIDS?
High/Already have HIV/AIDS (1), Medium (2/3), Low (1/3),
or None (0).“

23
0
.05
.1
.15
.2
.25
A. Changes over Time
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1940-45
1959-65
All
Note: Average of “What are your chances of getting HIV/AIDS? High
/Already have HIV/AIDS (1), Medium (2/3), Low (1/3), or None (0).“
25
The main data are drawn the 1977 to 2006 General Social Surveys
(GSS) conducted yearly (or bi-yearly) by National Opinion Research
Center.

Each cross-section comprises 1372 to 2992 observations per year
with a total of total of 20,000 females and 19,194 males between the
ages of 18 and 65.

But the sample for which consistent gender role attitudes are
measured comprises a subset of about 9000 women, because the
same questions are not asked in each survey.

Data from National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of
1972 (NLS72) which follows the first post-Pill cohort (1954-55 birth
cohorts) are also used.

29
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
B. Changes over the Life-Cycle
20
25
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
30
35
40
Age
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
45
50
55
60
65
1940-45
1959-65
All
30
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
A. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
31
Various flexible A-P-C specifications show the following
parsimonious specification captures well the time trend in FLP
 Yit = α0+ α1T + α2T2 + α3 A + γ4A2 + Σj δj Bj + βgGit + βxXit + εit
 where Yit is the outcome of interest
 where T is time , A is age and Bj are the 8 birth cohort
categories
 where Git are gender role attitudes that capture the saliency of
traditional or egalitarian identities
 where Xiti individual characteristics that capture the identityendowment (living in intact family, mother ever worked,
religion at 16, etc.), identity-asset (education, children,
married, divorced, etc.) variables
 For simplicity, the model is estimated with a Linear Probability
Model, but corroborated by a Probit model

36
(1)
(2)
(3)
Mean LFP
Time (1977=1)
0.012***
(0.002)
-0.025***
(0.005)
0.017***
(0.002)
2
Time /100
-0.034***
(0.005)
Age
0.044*** 0.043***
(0.002) (0.002)
2
Age /100
-0.051*** -0.057***
(0.003) (0.002)
Birth cohort (1953-1958 omitted)
<=1920
-0.354*** -0.290***
(0.027) (0.030)
1921-39
-0.175*** -0.162***
(0.013) (0.016)
1939-45
-0.072
-0.079***
(0.015) (0.015)
1946-52
0.005
-0.017
(0.012) (0.012)
1959-65
-0.011
0.025**
(0.012) (0.012)
1966-75
-0.051*** 0.033**
(0.013) (0.014)
1975-88
-0.101*** 0.069***
(0.019) (0.030)
Observations
20000
20000
20000
R-squared
0.04
0.059
0.061
(4)
(5)
All Women: 0.672
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
All Men: 0.879
0.018***
(0.002)
-0.033***
(0.005)
Full set
of age
dummies
(65 omit.)
Full set
0.018***
of time
(0.002)
-0.033*** dummies -0.031***
(0.005) (1998 omit.)(0.005)
Full set Full set
0.036***
of age
of age
(0.003)
dummies dummies -0.050***
(65 omit.) (65 omit.) (0.003)***
0.012***
(0.002)
-0.023***
(0.005)
0.044***
(0.003)
-0.057***
(0.003)***
0.002
(0.002)
-0.004
(0.003)
0.052***
(0.002)
-0.067***
(0.003)
0.002
(0.002)
-0.007*
(0.004)
Full set
of age
dummies
(65 omit.)
0.027
(0.054)
-0.013
(0.033)
0.001
(0.022)
0.024
(0.014)
-0.011
(0.014)
-0.054**
(0.022)
-0.091***
(0.035)
20000
0.073
Full set
of birth
cohort
dummies
(1988
birth
omitted)
-0.001
(0.052)
0.019
(0.032)
0.006
(0.021)
0.013
(0.014)
-0.008
(0.014)
-0.036*
(0.021)
-0.054
(0.034)
19919
0.132
0.016
(0.050)
0.019
(0.026)
0.007
(0.017)
0.017*
(0.010)
0.010
(0.010)
-0.007
(0.018)
-0.013
(0.029)
16193
0.123
0.078
(0.049)
0.031
(0.026)
0.020
(0.017)
0.021**
(0.010)
0.007
(0.010)
-0.025
(0.018)
-0.040
(0.029)
16193
0.140
20000
0.076
0.023
(0.054)
-0.011
(0.033)
0.002
(0.022)
0.025
(0.014)
-0.012
(0.014)
-0.057**
(0.022)
-0.095***
(0.035)
20000
0.075
0.004
(0.053)
0.007
(0.032)
0.010
(0.021)
0.026
(0.014)
-0.020*
(0.014)
-0.069***
(0.021)
-0.090***
(0.035)
20000
0.063
-0.006
(0.004)
Full set
of age
dummies
(65 omit.)
Full set
of birth
cohort
dummies
(1988
birth
omitted)
16193
0.146

In the NLS72, ten questions were asked in 1979:
5 on traditional views and 5 on egalitarian attitudes
Table 1. Average Agreement with Gender Role Attitudes by Labor Force Participation
Variable
Name
FT196A
FT196B
FT196C
FT196D
FT196E
FT196F
FT196G
FT196H
FT196I
FT196J
EGAL
TRAD
A: National Longitudinal Survey of 1972
How do you feel about the following statements? Strongly agree,
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. (asked in 1979)
a. A working mother of pre-school children can be just as good
a mother as the woman who doesn’t work
b. It is usually better for everyone involved if the man is the acheiver
outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family
c. Young men should be encouraged to take jobs that are usuall
filled by women (nursing, secretarial, work. etc.)
d. Most women are just not interested in having big and important jobs
e. Many qualified women can’t get good jobs; men with the same skills
have much less trouble
f. Most women are happiest when they are making a home and caring
for children
g. High schools counselors should urge young women to train for
jobs which are now held mainly by men
h. It is more important for a wife to help her husband than to have a
career herself
i. Schools teach women to want the less important jobs (reverse)
j. Men should be given first chance at most jobs because they have the
primary responsibility for providing for a family
Composite of (FT196A+FT196C+FT196E+FT196G+FT196I)
Composite of (FT196B+FT196D+FT196F+FT196H+FT196J)
NonLFP in LFP in
1986 1986
∆
57.5
68.8
-11.3
46.7
35.0
11.7
46.0
48.0
-2.0
32.0
58.2
30.6
60.5
1.4
-2.3
44.6
37.9
6.7
54.3
56.9
-2.6
45.0
36.3
8.7
41.3
37.0
43.1
30.0
-1.8
7.0
51.5
40.4
55.5
20.5
-4.0
19.9
38
In the GSS, out of a total of eight questions on gender role
attitudes, only four are asked in the 2000s

Table 1. Average Agreement with Gender Role Attitudes by Labor Force Participation
Variable
Name
FEPOL
B: General Social Survey 1977-2006
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: Most men are
better suited emotionally for politics than are most women. (reverse)
Now I'm going to read several more statements. As I read each one,
please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly
disagree with it. For example, here is the statement:
FECHLD
A. A working mother can establish just as warm and secure a
relationship with her children as a mother who does not work.
FEPRESCH C. A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works
FEFAM
D. It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever
outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.
EGAL
Composite of (FEPOL+FECHLD)
TRAD
Composite of (FEFAM+FEPRESCH)
Non-LFP
LFP
∆
67
77.3
-10.3
58.4
69.2
-10.8
50.3
47.9
41.1
35.7
9.2
12.2
62.3
49.1
73.0
38.5
-10.7
10.6
39
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
A. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
41
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
A. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
43
Mean LFP: 0.692
Time (1977=1)
Time2/100
(1)
0.015***
(0.003)
-0.025***
(0.008)
Traditional attitudes
(2)
0.010***
(0.001)
-0.019***
(0.007)
(3)
0.007*
(0.004)
-0.011
(0.008)
-0.246***
(0.022)
Egalitarian attitudes
(4)
(5)
0.008** 0.006
(0.004) (0.004)
-0.014* -0.010
(0.008) (0.008)
-0.219***
(0.024)
0.135*** 0.051**
(0.019) (0.021)
FEFAMa
(6)
(7)
Full set
0.007**
of time
(0.003)
dummies -0.013*
(1998 omit.)(0.008)
-0.223***
(0.024)
0.047**
(0.021)
-0.174***
(0.020)
FEPOLa
FEPRESCHa
FECHLDa
Mother ever worked
0.027** 0.018*
(0.011) (0.011)
0.027** 0.018
(0.011) (0.011)
0.020
(0.011)
0.020*
(0.011)
(8)
(9)
(10)
0.008** 0.008** 0.008***
(0.004) (0.004) (0.003)
-0.014* -0.015* -0.014*
(0.008) (0.008) (0.008)
(11)
0.005*
(0.003)
-0.009
(0.008)
-0.089***
(0.023)
0.024*
-0.011
(0.013)
(0.013)
-0.185***
-0.113***
(0.019)
(0.022)
0.189*** 0.125***
(0.018) (0.021)
0.024** 0.020* 0.022** 0.018*
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Note: Parameter estimates from Linear Probability Model. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, at
5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted by *. Columns (2)-(11) also includes years of schooling, number of children, everworking, living in
an intact family and dummies (9) for religion at age 16, and region dummies (8).
45
At -0.246 (0.022), the impact of traditional attitudes implies
that the slight rise [0.028 (0.011)] in average traditional
attitudes from 0.373 in 1994 to 0.401 in 2006 would account for
a [(0.401-0.373)*-0.246*100] 0.7 percentage point decline in
FLP.

By comparison, the increase in years of schooling from 13.04
in 1994 to 13.12 in 2006 would have lead to an increase 0.18
percentage point.

Importantly, the introduction of traditional attitudes reduces
the magnitude of quadratic term of the time trend from
0.018 to -0.011, rendering it insignificant and comparable in
point estimate to that of men.

46
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
A. Attitude Sample - Table 4
1980
Actual
Trend Col.1
1985
1990
Year
Pred. Col.1
Trend Col.2
1995
Pred. Col.2
Trend Col.5
2000
2005
Pred. Col.5
Male Trend
Mean LFP in 1986
at age 32: 0.728
Traditional attitudes
in 1979a
Egalitarian attitudes
in 1979a
LFP in 1979: 0.734
(1)
(2)
-0.294***
(0.034)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
-0.278*** -0.232***
(0.037) (0.040)
0.173*** 0.049
0.133***
(0.045)
(0.044)
(0.044)
0.180*** 0.189***
(0.016) (0.016)
Note: Parameter estimates from Linear Probability Model. Robust standard errors are in
parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, 5% level denoted by **, at 10%
level denoted by *. Included in the regressions are number of children, dummies for
education levels (6), married, ever divorced, mother ever worked, presence of pre-school
children, white, living in an intact family and dummies (6) for religion while growing up and
region dummies (3).
48
Sample
Mean LFP
Time (1977=1)
Time2/100
(1)
GSS
0.589
0.020***
(0.003)
-0.038***
(0.007)
Traditional attitudes
Egalitarian attitudes
Ever divorced
Presence of
Pre-school children
Mother ever worked
Log of other income
Observations
R-squared
10612
0.071
(2)
(3)
(4)
GSS-Attitude Sample
0.655
0.016*** 0.014*** 0.009*
(0.004) (0.004) (0.005)
-0.036*** -0.033*** -0.022**
(0.011) (0.011) (0.010)
-0.297***
(0.032)
0.048
(0.030)
(0.003) (0.003) (0.003)
0.014
0.014
0.006
(0.018) (0.018) (0.018)
-0.173*** -0.173*** -0.174***
(0.019) (0.019) (0.019)
0.018
0.018
0.009
(0.016) (0.016) (0.011)
-0.080*** -0.078***
(0.009) (0.009)
3967
3967
3967
0.140
0.158
0.183
(5)
(6)
NLS72
0.695
-0.260***
(0.058)
0.088
(0.062)
0.054***
(0.021)
-0.102***
(0.020)
0.025
(0.018)
-0.089***
(0.013)
3469
0.113
0.040*
(0.021)
-0.105***
(0.019)
0.022
(0.018)
-0.091***
(0.013)
3469
0.112
Note: Parameter estimates from Linear Probability Model. Robust standard errors are in
parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level
denoted by *. All columns also include number of children, dummies for white, living in an intact
family and dummies for religion while growing up and region dummies as in Appendix Table A1.
49


In the GSS, questions about gender role attitudes and labor
market decisions are asked contemporaneously, this raises
the issue of possible biases associated with the avoidance of
cognitive dissonance (Akerlof and Dickens, 1982).
Letting A  ( A, A ), P
(1) can be rewritten as
r
2
r
 (t , t 2 ), Cr  (C1 ,..., C8 ) , equation
Yi  G i β g  A ir β a  Pir β p  Cir β c  X i β x   i ,

Cognitive dissonance generates an errors-in-variables,
G  G *   where G * denote the true attitudes.

In the classical case, E ( G * )  0 , this would lead to an
attenuation bias in β .
( 2)
g
50
This issue is addressed using a double prong instrumental
variables strategy with some instruments coming from the GSS
and another instrument from a TS2SLS.

The instruments from the GSS are answers to questions about
the respondents’ political views and attitudes towards
sexual relations.

These variables are correlated with gender role attitudes and
are thought to impact labor market decisions only through
attitudes toward whether women should work outside the home
or not.

51
The exact questions are:
 There's been a lot of discussion about the way morals and
attitudes about sex are changing in this country. If a man and
woman have sex relations before marriage, do you think it is
always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or
not wrong at all? [VAR:PREMARSX]

“We hear a lot of talk these days about liberals and
conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven point scale on
which the political views that people might hold are arranged
from extremely liberal point 1 to extremely conservative point 7?
Where would you place yourself on this scale?” [VAR:POLVIEWS]

52
Risky
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
A. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
53
.4
.5
.6
C. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
55
Econometric
Specification
Dependent variable:
Time
Time2 /10
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
First-Stage
Traditional
attitudes
-0.017***
(0.002)
0.030***
(0.003)
2SLS
First-Stage
Egalitarian
attitudes
0.027***
(0.004)
-0.045***
(0.008)
2SLS
Traditional
attitudes
Egalitarian
attitudes
Instruments:
Premarital sex
0.131***
wrong
(0.006)
Liberal political
-0.137***
views
(0.011)
R-squared
0.17
F-Test on instruments/
Anderson canon corr. 386.6
Sargan/ Anderson-Rudin
Overid : p-value
FLP
0.007*
(0.004)
-0.011
(0.007)
-0.231***
(0.070)
FLP
0.006*
(0.003)
-0.010
(0.008)
0.257***
(0.088)
-0.107***
(0.009)
0.147***
(0.015)
0.14
744.6
0.001
0.9795
0.13
111.4
220.7
0.074
0.7854
Note: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Significance at 1% level
denoted by ***, at 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted by *.
Quadratic in age and cohorts dummies included , as wells years of
schooling, number of children, dummies for white, married, ever divorced,
preschooler present, mother everworking, living in an intact family, and
dummies (9) for religion at age 16, and region dummies (8).
57

In the usual case (Angrist and Krueger, 1991; Inoue and
Solon, 2005) , both samples contain on the instruments.
 Here the instrument is available only in sample 2. So an
estimate of the instrument in sample 1 has to be constructed.
 Let Z be the excluded instrument not available in sample 1
1
and let X1  ( A r , P r , Cr )

From each cross-section of sample 2 (the NHIS), I estimate
Z 2it  A i Γ 2t   2it ,
t  1,...T
where A i is a M-vector of age dummies. Stacking the
estimates results in a M Χ T matrix Γ̂ 2 .
58

An estimate of the subjective risk of HIV/AIDS is constructed as
ˆ P
Zˆ1it  Ai Γ
2
where P is a T-vector of time dummies, assuming as in Inoue
and Solon that Γ1  Γ2 .
 Writing the linear projection of included instruments

Zˆ1i : Zˆ1*i  X1
ˆ  Zˆ  Zˆ * then net out the included
, the residuals R
i
1i
1i
onto X1
instruments, and can be used as excluded instruments to
identify β p
and β g .
 In other words, the instrumentation relies on the fact that

women of different ages at different time periods evaluated their
chances of getting HIV/AIDS differently.
59
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Econometric
Specification
LPM
LPM
LPM
LPM
LPM
Dependent Variable:
MLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
0.019***
(0.008)
-0.040***
(0.016)
0.039***
(0.011)
-0.067***
(0.020)
0.031***
(0.010)
-0.056***
(0.020)
0.029***
(0.011)
-0.052***
(0.019)
-0.196***
(0.027)
0.048*
(0.025)
0.029***
(0.010)
-0.052***
(0.019)
Time
Time2/10
Traditional
attitudes
Egalitarian
attitudes
Instruments:
Liberal political
views
Estimated HIV/AIDS
risk residual
R-squared
0.14
F-Test on instruments
Sargan/ Anderson-Rudin
Overid : p-value
0.05
0.12
0.12
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
First-Stage TS2SLS First-Stage TS2SLS
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
attitudes
FLP
attitudes
FLP
0.007***
(0.002)
-0.031***
(0.010)
0.122***
(0.022)
0.010
(0.007)
-0.042
(0.031)
0.009***
(0.006)
-0.035***
(0.010)
0.415
(0.829)
0.313**
(0.133)
-0.469**
0.172***
(0.014)
-0.469**
(0.234)
(0.231)
0.13
0.1
4.02
0.010***
(0.004)
-0.046***
(0.018)
78.56
0.12
156.3
0.016
0.8996
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, at 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted by
*. Quadratic in age and cohorts dummies included , as well as years of schooling, number of children, dummies for white, married,
ever divorced, preschooler present, mother everworking, living in an intact family, and dummies (9) for religion at age 16, and region
dummies (8).
60
.2
.4
.6
.8
B. Post-1988 Sample - Table 7
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Actual
Trend Col. 2
Pred. Col. 2
Trend Col. 3
Pred. Col. 3
Trend Col. 9
Pred. Col. 9
Male Trend
61

I explored various alternative hypotheses
1) Increase in divorce rates and attitudes toward divorce
2) Social conservatism (attitudes toward premarital sex)
3) Political conservatism
4) Increased religiosity (church attendance, e.g. Glaeser and
Sacerdote, 2007; bible inerrancy also tested, e.g. Sherkat,
2000)
5) Cultural background (42 dummies on ethnic ancestry, e.g.
Fernandez and Fogli (2005), Zaiceva and Zimmerman
(2007))
6) Increasing rates of ill-health (morbid obesity, e.g. Cawley,
2004)
62
.4
.5
.6
.7
C. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
65
Time (1977=1)
Time2/100
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.011***
(0.004)
-0.018**
(0.008)
0.006
(0.004)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.220***
(0.024)
0.052**
(0.022)
0.018
(0.012)
-0.007
(0.024)
0.010***
(0.003)
-0.018**
(0.008)
0.006
(0.004)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.221***
(0.025)
0.052**
(0.022)
0.019
(0.012)
Traditional attitudes
Egalitarian attitudes
Ever divorced
Liberal political
views
Premarital sex
wrong
Divorce should
be easier
Church attendance
Self-rated
health
Current religion
(9 dummies)
0.025**
(0.012)
0.046*
(0.023)
0.022*
(0.012)
(5)
(6)
0.009** 0.005
(0.003) (0.004)
-0.016** -0.007
(0.008) (0.008)
-0.226***
(0.025)
0.058**
(0.022)
0.034*** 0.028**
(0.012) (0.012)
(7)
(8)
0.010***
(0.003)
-0.019**
(0.008)
0.026**
(0.012)
0.006
(0.004)
-0.011
(0.008)
-0.220***
(0.025)
0.053**
(0.022)
0.021*
(0.012)
0.020
(0.017)
0.048***
(0.017)
(9)
0.011**
(0.004)
-0.018*
(0.009)
0.032**
(0.015)
(10)
0.007
(0.004)
-0.011
(0.009)
-0.234***
(0.030)
0.026
(0.027)
0.025*
(0.015)
-0.035*** 0.005
(0.013) (0.014)
-0.026*
(0.013)
-0.044***
(0.013)
0.187*** 0.187***
(0.026) (0.026)
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Note: Parameter estimates from Linear Probability Model. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Significance at 1% level denoted by
***, at 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted by *. All columns also include years of schooling, number of children, dummies for
white, married, preschooler present, mother everworking, living in an intact family and dummies (9) for religion at age 16, and region
dummies (8).
67
(1)
GSS 1977-2006
Mean LFP:
Time
2
Time /10
(2)
All Women
0.657
0.009*
0.007
0.005
(0.005) (0.006) (0.006)
-0.023
-0.014
-0.008
(0.013) (0.016) (0.016)
Traditional
attitudes
Egalitarian
attitudes
Self-rated health
Married
(3)
0.031
(0.022)
0.289***
(0.039)
0.020
(0.022)
(4)
0.003
(0.008)
-0.015
(0.019)
0.023
(0.029)
(5)
(6)
Attitude Sample
0.693
0.003
0.000
(0.008) (0.010)
-0.010
-0.003
(0.019) (0.023)
-0.175***
(0.065)
0.056
(0.054)
0.275***
(0.065)
0.030
-0.008
(0.029) (0.036)
(7)
-0.003
(0.010)
0.004
(0.023)
-0.303***
(0.079)
-0.077
(0.065)
0.273***
(0.064)
0.000
(0.025)
Note: Parameter estimates from Linear Probability Model. Robust standard errors are in parentheses.
Significance at 1% level denoted by ***, at 5% level denoted by **, at 10% level denoted by *. Other
demographics include number of children, dummies for living in an intact family and dummies (9) for
religion at age 16, and region dummies (8).
68

The possible cascade of effects from the HIV/AIDS crisis, to more
negative attitudes towards premarital sex and less favorable
egalitarian attitudes, to lower level of FLP would appear to have
several weaker links among African-American women.

Importantly, they are less likely to be married,
 Data from the 2006 March CPS reveals that 60 percent of
white women are currently married, whereas the percentage
among black women is 30 percent.
 In the GSS, the number are 62 percent for white women and
34 percent for black women in 2006,

There appears to be a strong link between health and the
evolution of FLP among black women, although it is not clear
which health factor is at play here given the self-reported nature
of the variable.
69
Risky
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
D. Changes over the Life-Cycle
20
25
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
30
35
40
Age
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
45
50
55
60
65
1940-45
1959-65
All
70
Risky
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
B. Changes over the Life-Cycle
20
25
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
30
35
40
Age
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
45
50
55
60
65
1940-45
1959-65
All
72
Explanatory
variables:
Econometric
Specification
A: All Women
LPM
2SLS
2SLS/TS2SLSa
(1)
(2)
Time
Time /100
2
(3)
Traditional
attitudes
(4)
Egalitarian
attitudes
(5)
(6)
Time
Time /100
Years: 1977-2006
0.006
(0.004)
0.007*
(0.004)
0.006*
(0.003)
-0.010
(0.008)
-0.011
(0.007)
-0.010
(0.008)
B: Less than College Women
LPM
0.004
-0.005
(0.003) (0.009)
2SLS
0.004
-0.005
(0.003) (0.008)
a
2SLS/TS2SLS 0.003
-0.004
(0.003) (0.009)
-0.219***
(0.024)
-0.231***
(0.070)
(8)
Egalitarian
attitudes
Years: 1988-2006
0.051**
(0.021)
0.257***
(0.088)
-0.223***
(0.029)
-0.266***
(0.087)
2
(7)
Traditional
attitudes
0.043*
(0.024)
0.301***
(0.099)
0.029***
(0.011)
0.012***
(0.004)
0.010***
(0.004)
-0.052***
(0.019)
-0.054***
(0.017)
-0.046***
(0.018)
-0.196***
(0.027)
-0.239***
(0.083)
0.019*
(0.010)
0.020*
(0.010)
0.007
(0.006)
-0.044*
(0.023)
-0.045*
(0.009)
-0.033
(0.025)
-0.189***
(0.033)
-0.283**
(0.112)
0.048*
(0.025)
0.313**
(0.133)
0.044
(0.029)
0.451**
(0.208)
75
(1)
(2)
(3)
Traditional
2
Time /100
attitudes
Explanatory
Time
variables:
Econometric
Years: 1977-2006
Specification
C: All Married Women
LPM
0.009* -0.022**
-0.297***
(0.005) (0.010)
(0.032)
2SLS
0.010*** -0.023**
-0.306***
(0.005) (0.011)
(0.103)
2SLS/TS2SLSa 0.009* -0.022**
(0.005) (0.011)
D: College-Educated Married Women
LPM
0.010 -0.019
-0.350***
(0.009) (0.020)
(0.065)
2SLS
0.010 -0.019
-0.444**
(0.009) (0.020)
(0.204)
2SLS/TS2SLSa 0.009 -0.019
(0.009) (0.020)
(4)
Egalitarian
attitudes
(5)
(6)
Time
Time /100
2
(7)
Traditional
attitudes
(8)
Egalitarian
attitudes
Years: 1988-2006
0.048
(0.030)
0.297 ***
(0.100)
0.074
(0.062)
0.390**
(0.194)
0.012*
(0.007)
0.013*
(0.007)
0.013*
(0.006)
-0.061**
(0.030)
-0.063**
(0.030)
-0.054**
(0.026)
-0.263***
(0.041)
-0.253**
(0.121)
0.030**
(0.013)
0.031**
(0.013)
0.027**
(0.014)
-0.118**
(0.053)
-0.120**
(0.052)
-0.101*
(0.055)
-0.382***
(0.070)
-0.527**
(0.231)
0.057
(0.036)
0.265*
(0.158)
0.061
(0.068)
0.499*
(0.281)
76
Explanatory
variables:
Econometric
Specification
E: All Men
LPM
(1)
(2)
Time
Time /100
2
(3)
Traditional
attitudes
(4)
Egalitarian
attitudes
(5)
(6)
Time
Time /100
Years: 1977-2006
0.007*** -0.013**
(0.003) (0.006)
LPM
0.007*** -0.013**
(0.003) (0.006)
LPM
0.007*** -0.013**
(0.003) (0.006)
F: College-Educated Single Women
LPM
0.004
-0.006
(0.010) (0.024)
2SLS
0.005
-0.009
(0.010) (0.024)
2SLS/TS2SLSa 0.003
-0.003
(0.010) (0.023)
0.028
(0.021)
0.039**
(0.018)
(8)
Egalitarian
attitudes
Years: 1988-2006
-0.019
(0.016)
-0.028**
(0.014)
0.019
(0.056)
-0.213
(0.137)
2
(7)
Traditional
attitudes
0.067
(0.066)
0.210
(0.168)
0.021***
(0.007)
0.021***
(0.007)
0.021***
(0.007)
-0.043***
(0.016)
-0.043***
(0.016)
-0.043***
(0.016)
0.024
(0.023)
0.037*
(0.020)
0.003
(0.009)
0.003
(0.009)
0.002
(0.009)
-0.010
(0.040)
-0.008
(0.040)
-0.000
(0.040)
-0.019
(0.054)
-0.211
(0.141)
-0.023
(0.019)
-0.032*
(0.016)
-0.026
(0.068)
0.183
(0.174)
77
This paper provides compelling evidence that beliefs about gender
roles are an essential element of the analysis of the evolution of FLP
over the latter part of the twentieth century.

Gender role attitudes, whose secular trends reversed in the mid1990s when the AIDS crisis peaked, are found to explain the recent
leveling-off in FLP, while general cultural trends towards more
conservative social, religious and political views do not.

While this paper solves the puzzle of the gender differences of the
evolution of LP, it seemingly seems to open another one. How are
gender role attitudes formed? How can their evolution be explained?

78
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1982
1984
Women Very happy
Women Not too happy
1986
1988
1990
1993
1996
2000
2004
Men Very happy
Men Not too happy
79
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1972
1974
1976
1978
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1993
1996
LFP Very happy
LFP Not too happy
NLFP Very happy
NLFP Not too happy
2000
2004
80
81
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Total
800
Females
600
Males
400
200
0
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Year of Diagnostic of AIDS
Source: Public Health Agency Canada
82
Source: Mosher et al. (2004) “Use of Contraception and Use of Family
Planning Services in the United States: 1982-2002. Advance Data No. 350
83
√
0
.05
.1
.15
.2
C. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
84
√
0
.05
.1
.15
.2
D. Changes over the Life-Cycle
20
25
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
30
35
40
Age
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
45
50
55
60
65
1940-45
1959-65
All
85
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
D. Changes over the Life-Cycle
20
25
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
30
35
40
Age
1921-35
1953-58
1976-86
45
50
55
60
65
1936-45
1959-65
All
86
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
B. Changes over Time
1975
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1980
1985
1990
Year
1921-35
1953-58
1976-86
1995
2000
2005
1936-45
1959-65
All
87
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
A. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
88
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
C. Changes over Time
1975
1980
<=1920
1946-52
1966-75
1985
1990
Year
1921-39
1953-58
1976-88
1995
2000
2005
1940-45
1959-65
All
89
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
GSS cohorts vs. NLSY79 cohort
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
<1935
1952-56
1976-86
1936-45
1957-65
All GSS
1946-51
1966-75
NLSY79
Note: Averages of strong agreement (1), agreement (2/3), disagreement (1/3), strong
disagreement (0) of “It is much better (for everyone involved) if the man is the achiever outside
the home and the woman takes care of the home and family”
90