Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 329–349 | Cite as

Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being: Comparing Societies with Respect to Gender Equality

  • Clemens Tesch-RömerEmail author
  • Andreas Motel-Klingebiel
  • Martin J. Tomasik
Article

Abstract

These analyses explore the relationship between gender inequality and subjective well-being. The hypothesis was tested as to whether societal gender inequality is related to the size of gender differences in subjective well-being in various societies. Results come from comparative data sets (World Values Survey, involving 57 countries; OASIS project, involving Norway, England, Germany, Spain and Israel). The size of gender differences varied with the extent of societal gender inequality and the cultural attitudes regarding gender equality in different countries. Including individual resources like education and income in the analyses reduced the size of gender and country differences. Gender differences in subjective well-being could therefore be related to gender specific access to goal relevant resources.

Keywords

Gender Well-being Quality of life Welfare-state comparisons 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The OASIS project (Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity) was funded within the 5th Framework Program „Quality of Life” of the European Commission (QLK6-CT-1999-02182) and involves five research teams from Oslo, Norway (NOVA), Keele, United Kingdom (Keele University), Bilbao, Spain (University of the Basque Country), Haifa, Israel (University of Haifa) and Berlin, Germany (German Centre of Gerontology).

References

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (1994). Advantages of model-based analysis of missing data over pairwise deletion. Paper presented at the RMD Conference on Causal Modeling, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, A. B. (1983). The economics of inequality (2 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  6. Baltes, M. M., et al. (1999). Men and women in the Berlin aging study. In P. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), The Berlin aging study: Aging from 70 to 100 (pp. 259–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowers, J., & Drake, K. W. (2005). EDA for HLM: Visualization when probabilistic inference fails. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  9. Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22, 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2003). Intentionality and time in human development and aging. Compensation und goal adjustment in changing developmental context. In U. M. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development (pp. 105–124). Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Central Bureau of Statistics Israel. (2005). Households and Families-5.30. from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st05_30.pdf.Google Scholar
  13. CIA —Central Intelligence Agency. (2001). The World Factbook 2001. (Central Intelligence Agency (http://www2.cia.gov/2001/factbook_2001.zip-December 12, 2005), Washington).Google Scholar
  14. Costa, P. T. J., et al. (1981). Personal adjustment to aging: Longitudinal prediction from neuroticism and extraversion’. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 78–85.Google Scholar
  15. Costa, P. T. J., et al. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coulter, F. A. E., et al. (1992). Equivalence scale relativities and the extent of inequality and poverty. The Economic Journal, 102, 1067–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daatland, S. O., & Motel-Klingebiel, A. (2006). Separating the local and the general in cross-cultural aging research. In H.-W. Wahl et al. (Eds.), New dynamics in old age: individual, environmental and societal perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
  18. Di Noia, J. (2002). Indicators of gender equality for American states and regions: An update. Social Indicators Research, 59, 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being’. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being?. Social Indicators Research, 57, 119–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: A nomothetic and Idiographic approach’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 926–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diener, E., et al. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diener, E., et al. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur?. Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. European Values Study Group and World Values Survey Association. (2006). European and World Values Surveys Four-Wave Integrated Data File, 1981–2004, v.20060423. Aggregate File Producers: Análisis Sociológicos Económicos y Políticos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Data Files Suppliers: Analisis Sociologicos Economicos y Politicos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg University, Tillburg, The Netherlands/ Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung (ZA), Cologne, Germany: Aggregate File Distributors: Análisis Sociológicos Económicos y Políticos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands/Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung (ZA) Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
  28. Eurostat. (2005). The social situation in the European Union 2004. Brussels: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  29. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferrara, M. (1996). The ‘southern model’ of welfare in Southern Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Figini, P. (1998). Inequality measures, equivalence scales und adjustment for household size and composition. Ireland, Dublin: Dept. of Economics, Trinity College.Google Scholar
  32. Figini, P. (2000). Measuring inequality: On the correlation between indices (No. Luxembourg Income Study, Working Paper No. 229). (Luxembourg Income Study: Luxembourg).Google Scholar
  33. Fujita, F., et al. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerhards, J. (2005). Kulturelle Unterschiede in der Europäischen Union. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  35. Gini, C. (1955). Variabilità e mutabilità. Reprinted in Memorie di metodologica statistica. In E. Pizetti & T. Salvemini (Eds.), (Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi (first published in 1912), Rom).Google Scholar
  36. Glick, P., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glick, P., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hansson, A., et al. (2005). Well-being in an adult Swedish population. Social Indicators Research, 74, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harvey, E. B., et al. (1990). Toward an index of gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 22, 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hawthorne, G., et al. (2006). Interpreting the WHOQOL-Brèf: Preliminary population norms and effect sizes’. Social Indicators Research, 77, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Headey, B., et al. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.Google Scholar
  43. Inglehart, R., et al. (Eds.) (2004). Human beliefs and values. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  44. Kondratowitz, H.-J. V. (2003). Comparing welfare states. In A. Lowenstein & J. Ogg (Eds.), Old age and autonomy: The role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity (pp. 25–62). Haifa: Haifa University.Google Scholar
  45. Kozma, A., DiFazio, R., Stones, M. J., & Hannah, T. E. (1992). Long- and short-term affective states in happiness: Age and sex comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 27, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krause, N. F. (1991). Stressful events and life satisfaction among elderly men and women. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 46, S84–S92.Google Scholar
  47. Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lippa, R. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Lowenstein, A., et al. (2002). The research instruments in the OASIS project (Old age and autonomy: The role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity). Haifa, Israel: University of Haifa.Google Scholar
  50. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods fort he Behavioral Social Sciences, 1, 85–91.Google Scholar
  51. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes. Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Michalos, A. C. (2000). Evaluation of equality policies for the status of women in Canada. Social Indicators Research, 49, 241–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Motel-Klingebiel, A., et al. (2005). Welfare states do not crowd out the family: Evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 863–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Motel-Klingebiel, A., et al. (2003). The quantitative survey. In A. Lowenstein & J. Ogg (Eds.), Old age and autonomy: The role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity (pp. 63–101). Haifa: Haifa University.Google Scholar
  55. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Rusting, C. L. (1999). Gender differences in well-being. In D. Kahneman, et al. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 330–350). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. Nydegger, R. (2004). Gender and mental health: Incidence and treatment issues. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 93–116). Westport: Praeger/Greenwood.Google Scholar
  58. OECD —Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). Society at a glance: OECD social indicators 2005 edition. Paris: OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.Google Scholar
  59. Okun, M. A., & George, L. K. (1984). Physician- and self-ratings of health, neuroticism, and subjective well-being among men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well-being in old age: A meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 56B, P195–P213.Google Scholar
  61. Russo, N. F., & Green, B. L. (1993). Women and mental health. In F. L. Denmakr & M. A. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 379–436). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  62. Sen, A. (2004). Gender equity and the population problem. In V. Navarro & C. Muntaner (Eds.), Political and economic determinants of population health and well-being: Controversies and developments (pp. 27–33). Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
  63. Sen, K. (1996). Gender. In S. Ebrahim, & A. Kalache (Eds.), Epidemiology in old age (pp. 210–220). London: BMJ.Google Scholar
  64. Shmotkin, D. (1990). Subjective well-being as a function of age and gender: A multivariate look for differentiated trends. Social Indicators Research, 23, 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith, L. L., & Reise, S. P. (1998). Gender differences on negative affectivity: An IRT study of differential item functioning on the multidimensional personality questionnaire stress reaction scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1350–1362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Srivastava, A., et al. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sugarman, D. B., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Indicators of gender equality for American states and regions. Social Indicators Research, 20, 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Suh, E., et al. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tesch-Römer, C., & Wurm, S. (2006). Veränderung des subjektiven Wohlbefindens in der zweiten Lebenshälfte. In: C. Tesch-Roemer et al. (Eds.), Altwerden in Deutschland. Sozialer Wandel und individuelle Entwicklung in der zweiten Lebenshälfte (pp. 385–446). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. United Nations Development Programme. (2002). Human Development Report 2002. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Veenhoven, R., & Ouwenell, P. (1995). Livability of the welfare-state. Social Indicators Research, 36, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. WHOQOL Group. (1994). Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 24–56.Google Scholar
  73. WHOQOL Group. (1998a). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.Google Scholar
  74. WHOQOL Group. (1998b). The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 1569–1585.Google Scholar
  75. Wurm, S., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2006). Gesundheit, Hilfebedarf und Versorgung’. In C. Tesch-Römer et al. (Eds.), Altwerden in Deutschland. Sozialer Wandel und individuelle Entwicklung in der zweiten Lebenshälfte (pp. 329–383). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clemens Tesch-Römer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Motel-Klingebiel
    • 1
  • Martin J. Tomasik
    • 2
  1. 1.German Centre of GerontologyBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Friedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations