28Score Comparisons for Prospective and Ideal Time Allocation by Genderto paid work （r = ˗.366）. For ideal time allocation, no correlation coefficient above the medium effect size （r ＞ .300） was observed between genders. Regarding prospective time allocations to the five activity areas, paid work showed a negative correlation between housework （r = ˗.517） and childcare （r = ˗.513）. Childcare also displayed a moderate negative correlation with leisure （r = ˗.374）. With regard to ideal time allocation, moderate negative correlations were observed between leisure time and paid work, childcare, and housework （r = ˗.395, r = ˗.394, and r = ˗.389, respectively） and between paid work and childcare （r = ˗.316）. In terms of the relation between prospective and ideal time allocation, higher positive correla-tions were obtained for childcare （r = .692）, learning （r = .519）, and paid work （r = .514）. Meanwhile, a moderate correlation was found for housework （r = .493）, and an even lower correlation was obtained for leisure （r = .281）.This study conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA on the time allocation scores for the five activities using a 2 （gender） × 2 （prospective/ideal） design. Figure 1-1 shows the results for housework, where the interaction between gender and prospective/ideal time allocation reached significance （F（1, 650） = 34.459, p = .001, ηp2 = .050）. A simple main-effect test on prospective/ideal time allocation indicated that men allotted more time to the ideal （M = 1.787） than to the prospective aspect （M = 1.655） with an effect size of ηp2 = .155, while women allocated more time to the prospective （M = 2.541） than to the ideal dimen-sion （M = 2.135） with an effect size of ηp2 = .356. The same test was performed on gender, indicating that women allocated longer time than men to both the prospective and ideal aspects with a larger effect size for the former （ηp2 = 1.465） than the latter （ηp2 = .430）. Figure 1-2 presents the results for childcare, where the interaction reached significance （F（1, 650） = 27.983, p = .001, ηp2 = .041）. A simple main-effect test on prospective/ideal time allocation indicated that men allotted longer time to the ideal （M = 1.729） than the prospective aspect （M = 1.597） with an effect size of ηp2 = .135, while women allocated longer time to the prospective （M= 2.518） than the ideal aspect （M = 2.216） with an effect size of ηp2 = .230. A simple main-effect test on gender revealed that women allotted longer time than men to both the prospective and ideal dimensions with a larger effect size for the former （ηp2 = 1.329） than the latter （ηp2 = .527）. Overall, the same scoring patterns were observed in housework and childcare.Figure 1-3 shows the results for paid work, which indicate significant interaction （F（1, 650） = 25.484, p = .001, ηp2 = .038）. A simple main-effect test on prospective/ideal time allocation indicated that both men and women allotted more time to the prospective （M = 4.126 and M = 2.848, respectively） than the ideal aspects （M = 3.068 and M = 2.450, respectively）, but the effect size for men （ηp2 = .855） was higher than for women （ηp2 = .241）. Regarding gender, a simple main-effect test showed that men allocated longer time to paid work than women for both the prospective and ideal dimensions, with the former exhibiting a larger effect size （ηp2 = 1.461） than the latter （ηp2 =.529）. As shown in Figure 1-4, the results for learning showed no significant interactions whereas the main effect of gender was significant （F（1, 650） = 20.557, p ＜ .001, ηp2 = . 031）, with men （M = 1.066） allotting longer time than women
元のページ ../index.html#34