The Motherhood Wage Penalty Revisited: Experience, Heterogeneity, Work Effort, and Work-Schedule Flexibility

By Deborah J. Anderson, Melissa Binder, Kate Krause. 2003

414 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b156f9a007ff96b1c534ac8fdaf6ecb5aa28fe3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Gender Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Differences in Disadvantage (2010, background): “Although most prior studies report smaller or no wage penalties for black mothers relative to whites (Anderson et al. 2003; Budig and England 2001; Glauber 2007a; Hill 1979; Neumark and Korenman 1994; Waldfogel 1997), they may underestimate the impact of children if motherhood penalties appear only…”
Do Employers Prefer Fathers? Evidence from a Field Experiment Testing the Gender by Parenthood Interaction Effect on Callbacks to Job Applications (2017, background): “Waldfogel (1997) has found that the motherhood wage penalty in the United States increases with the level of education, whereas other scholars have found the opposite or have reported more complex patterns (Todd, 2001; Anderson et al., 2003; AmuedoDorantes and Kimmel, 2005).”
The Job Costs of Family Demands (2005, background): “According to our results, further diffusion of this organizational innovation is one way to redress women’s disproportionate share of the negative consequences of work adjustments in response to family demands and may especially benefit working mothers (Anderson et al., 2003; Budig & England, 2001).”
Do Highly Paid, Highly Skilled Women Experience the Largest Motherhood Penalty? (2016, background): “…eliminated, when models add a control for employment experience and tenure; that is, they explain part, but not all, of total motherhood penalties (Anderson et al. 2002, 2003; Budig and England 2001; Budig and Hodges 2010; Waldfogel 1997; Wilde et al. 2010).4 (Staff and Mortimer [2012] explain…”
“The Motherhood Wage Gap for Women in the United States: The Importance of College and Fertility Delay” (2005, methodology): “Accounting for the aforementioned sample selection bias cuts the average motherhood wage penalty estimate from the earlier specifications by approximately half.”
The Mommy Track Divides: The Impact of Childbearing on Wages of Women of Differing Skill Levels (2010, neutral): “4 Recently Anderson et al. (2002), Anderson et al. (2003) report finding a hump-shaped penalty with respect to education: only middle education women experience a penalty—high and low education women show little effect.”
Work–Family Policy Trade-Offs for Mothers? Unpacking the Cross-National Variation in Motherhood Earnings Penalties (2016, background): “The individual-level mechanisms that produce this penalty have been extensively studied (Anderson et al., 2003; Avellar & Smock, 2003; Budig & England, 2001; Budig & Hodges, 2010; Gangl & Ziefle, 2009; Glauber, 2007; Lundberg & Rose, 2000; Waldfogel, 1997, 1998a, 1998b).”
Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?1 (2007, background): “…results are consistent with qualitative work showing that employers discriminate against mothers (Blair-Loy 2003; Crittenden 2001; Kennelly 1999) and with survey research that consistently finds a wage penalty for motherhood (Budig and England 2001; Anderson et al. 2003; Waldfogel and Meyer 2000).”
Pay Differences Among the Highly Trained: Cohort Differences in the Sex Gap in Lawyers' Earnings (2005, neutral): “…of city of residence, and graduation year. p < .10+ p < .05* p < .01** p < .001*** Table 3: Regression of Log Annual E rnings 15 Years after Graduation, by Cohort examining the earnings of professional, highly educated women (Anderson et al. 2003; BlairLoy and Wharton 2003; Wood et al. 1993).”