Social Indicators Research

, Volume 104, Issue 1, pp 157–177 | Cite as

Different Things Make Different People Happy: Examining Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being by Gender and Parental Status

  • Christian KrollEmail author


This paper addresses a number of key challenges in current subjective well-being (SWB) research: A new wave of studies should take into account that different things may make different people happy, thus going beyond a unitary ‘happiness formula’. Furthermore, empirical results need to be connected to broader theoretical narratives. Using a re-examination of the social context of well-being as its case study, this article therefore resorts to sociological theory and fills a gap by investigating how social capital is correlated in different ways with the SWB of men, women, parents, and non-parents. Ordered logit and OLS regression analyses systematically examine slope heterogeneity using UK data from the European Social Survey. It turns out that civic engagement is not at all associated with higher life satisfaction for mothers, while the relationship is positive for men and strongest for childless women. Moreover, informal socialising is positively and more strongly associated with life satisfaction among women, although only when OLS is used. In sum, the social context of well-being varies considerably by gender and parental status. Mothers do not seem to benefit from formal social capital, indicating a “motherhood penalty” (see Correll et al., Am J Sociol 112(5):1297–1338 in 2007) regarding the psychological rewards usually associated with volunteering. Given the high levels of formal social capital among mothers, the findings also highlight the importance of the homo sociologicus concept. Consequently, SWB research can be successfully used to provide new insights into long-standing interdisciplinary theory debates such as the one on homo economicus versus homo sociologicus.


Life satisfaction Social capital Volunteering Revealed preferences Homo sociologicus Homo economicus 



I would like to thank Ursula Henz, John Helliwell, Jouni Kuha, Richard Layard, Guy Mayraz, the anonymous reviewers, as well as the participants of the ISQOLS conference 2009 for helpful remarks in relation to this research. A Ph.D. scholarship by the Foundation of the German Economy is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ahem, M. M., & Hendryx, M. (2008). Community participation and the emergence of late-life depressive symptoms: Differences between women and men. Journal of Women’s Health, 17(9), 1463–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social capital and happiness in the United States. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjørnskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. V. (2008). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Social Choice and Welfare, 30(1), 119–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium fuer Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend) (2005). Freiwilliges Engagement in Deutschland 19992004 [Voluntary engagement in Germany 19992004]. Berlin: BMFSFJ.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crittenden, A. (2001). The price of motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
  10. Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Young, E., & Shear, M. K. (2000). Adolescent onset of the gender difference in lifetime rates of major depression—A theoretical model. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(1), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dahrendorf, R. (1973). Homo sociologicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Denton, M., Prus, S., & Walters, V. (2004). Gender differences in health: A Canadian study of the psychosocial, structural and behavioural determinants of health. Social Science and Medicine, 58(12), 2585–2600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denton, M., & Walters, V. (1999). Gender differences in structural and behavioral determinants of health: An analysis of the social production of health. Social Science and Medicine, 48(9), 1221–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolan, P., Peasegood, T., & White, M. (2006). Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and application to policy making. London: DEFRA.Google Scholar
  16. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duesenberry, J. (1960). Comment on ‘An economic analysis of fertility’. In N. B. ER (Ed.), Demographic and economic change in developed countries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Durkheim, E. (1997 [1897]). Suicide. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Erickson, B. H. (2004). Distribution of gendered social capital in Canada. In H. Flap & B. Volker (Eds.), Creation and returns of social capital. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallicchio, L., Hoffman, S. C., & Helzlsouer, K. J. (2007). The relationship between gender, social support, and health-related quality of life in a community-based study in Washington County, Maryland. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 777–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gidengil, E., & O’Neill, B. (2006). Removing rose colored glasses: Examining theories of social capital through a gendered lens. In E. Gidengil & B. O’Neill (Eds.), Gender and social capital. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haines, V. A., Beggs, J. J., & Hurlbert, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing health outcomes: Do effects of network structure differ for women and men? Sex Roles, 59(3–4), 164–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20(2), 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hindin, M. (2007). Role theory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology online. Retrieved February 02, 2009, from
  29. Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Jeon, G. S., Jang, S. N., Rhee, S. J., Kawachi, I., & Cho, S. I. (2007). Gender differences in correlates of mental health among elderly Koreans. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(5), S323–S329.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kavanagh, A. M., Bentley, R., Turrell, G., Broom, D. H., & Subramanian, S. V. (2006). Does gender modify associations between self rated health and the social and economic characteristics of local environments? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(6), 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(3), 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Khawaja, M., Tewtel-Salem, M., Obeid, M., & Saliba, M. (2006). Civic engagement, gender and self-rated health in poor communities: Evidence from Jordan’s refugee camps. Health Sociology Review, 15(2), 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krause, N., Ellison, C. G., & Marcum, J. P. (2002). The effects of church-based emotional support on health: Do they vary by gender? Sociology of Religion, 63(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kroll, C. (2008). Social capital and the happiness of nations. The importance of trust and networks for life satisfaction in a cross-national perspective. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Kroll, C. (2010). Social capital and subjective well-being from a life course perspective. Paper presented at the XVII International Sociological Association World Congress.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, H. Y., Jang, S. N., Lee, S., Cho, S. I., & Park, E. O. (2008). The relationship between social participation and self-rated health by sex and age: A cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(7), 1042–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lin, N. (2001a). Building a network theory of social capital. In L. Nan, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital—Theory and research (pp. 3–30). New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Lin, N. (2001b). Social capital—A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lindstrom, M., & Mohseni, M. (2009). Social capital, political trust and self-reported psychological health: A population-based study. Social Science and Medicine, 68(3), 436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lowndes, V. (2006). It’s not what you’ve got, but what you do with it: Women, social capital, and political participation. In E. Gidengil & B. O’Neill (Eds.), Gender and social capital. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica, 75(297), 39–59.Google Scholar
  45. Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Morrow-Howell, N., Hong, S. I., & Tang, F. Y. (2009). Who benefits from volunteering? Variations in perceived benefits. Gerontologist, 49(1), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Myers, D. G. (1999). Close relationships and quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 374–391). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  48. Newton, J. (2007). Wellbeing research: Synthesis report. London: DEFRA.Google Scholar
  49. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2006). Gendering social capital: Bowling in women’s leagues? In E. Gidengil & B. O’Neill (Eds.), Gender and social capital. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Verbrugge, L. M. (1999). Subjective well-being and social production functions. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osborne, K., Baum, F., & Ziersch, A. (2009). Negative consequences of community group participation for women’s mental health and well-being: Implications for gender aware social capital building. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 212–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
  53. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  55. Reeves, R. (2009). Introduction: The new utilitarianism. In Social Market Foundation (Ed.), Well-being—How to lead the good life and what government should do to help (pp. 10–25). London: SMF.Google Scholar
  56. Schwartz, C. E., Keyl, P. M., Marcum, J. P., & Bode, R. (2009). Helping others shows differential benefits on health and well-being for male and female teens. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sundeen, R. A. (1990). Family-life course status and volunteer behavior—Implications for the single parent. Sociological Perspectives, 33(4), 483–500.Google Scholar
  58. Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner, R. H. (2001). Role theory. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turner, H. A., & Turner, R. J. (1999). Gender, social status, and emotional reliance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(4), 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Umberson, D., Chen, M. C. D., House, J. S., Hopkins, K., & Slaten, E. (1996). The effect of social relationships on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review, 61(5), 837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Staveren, I. (2002). Social capital: What is in it for feminist economics? Working Paper no. 368. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.Google Scholar
  64. Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(5), S308–S318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1997). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–250.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Saguaro Seminar, John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations