Economic Analysis & Policy, Vol. 42 No.

3, december 2012

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities
Temesgen Kifle1 School of Economics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD 4072, Australia (Email: t.kifle@uq.edu.au) Isaac Hailemariam Desta Faculty of Commerce, Catholic University of Eastern Africa, P. O. Box 62157-00200, Nairobi, Kenya (E-mail: Isaac@cuea.edu)
Abstract: Based on data from a study of graduates from PhD programs at Australias Group of Eight (Go8) universities, a gender gap in job satisfaction domains is estimated using a Mann-Whitney U test. Findings from the aggregate model show significant gender differences in only 5 out of 17 domains of job satisfaction. Further, separate analyses by age, employment status and family type/living arrangement broadly support the absence of gender differences in domains of job satisfaction. For aspects of job satisfaction that show significant gender differential it is found that males are more satisfied than females with their hours worked, opportunity for career advancement and workload, whereas females are more satisfied than males with their relationship with co-workers and contribution to society. This implies that males are more satisfied with intrinsic dimensions of job satisfaction while females are more satisfied with extrinsic aspects of job satisfaction.

I. INTRODUCTION
A number of research findings on job satisfaction show that women are happier than men (Bender and Heywood 2006, Clark 1997, Kaiser 2007, Long 2005, Sanz de Galdeano 2002, Sloane and Williams 2000, Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza 2003, 2007) despite women receiving lower wages (Blau and Kahn 2006), and being either less likely to receive promotions (Booth,
1

Corresponding author

319

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Arulampalam, and Bryan 2005) or more likely to receive promotions with lower associated wage increases (Booth, Francesconi, and Frank 2003). They are also more likely to suffer a number of negative experiences within the workplace, such as sexual harassment and bullying (Welsh 1999). There are two potential explanations for gender differential in job satisfaction. One is that male and female employees have different personal and job characteristics, and another is the issue of selectivity bias (Sanz de Galdeano 2002). The argument for selectivity bias is that dissatisfied female employees find it easier to leave the job market place than equally dissatisfied male employees and thus the remaining female employees will have higher average job satisfaction. However, Clarks (1997) findings show that neither gender differences in personal and work related characteristics nor selectivity bias account for the gender job satisfaction gap. This is also supported by Sanz de Galdeano (2002) who has concluded that neither the presence of systematic difference in terms of personal and job characteristics nor a sample selection problem explain British female employees higher job satisfaction. The reason for womens higher job satisfaction, according to Clark (1997), is because women have lower expectations from work which result from the poorer position they hold in the labour market. A similar conclusion was also reached by Long (2005), Sloane and Williams (2000) and Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza (2003). An important finding by Clark (1997), through interacting the gender dummy variable with age and education dummy variables, is that gender gap in job satisfaction disappears for the young and the highly educated. Clark (1997) has computed a predicted wage generated from a wage equation and includes it in the job satisfaction regression to account for expectations. This procedure, however, has potential drawbacks, including exclusion restrictions (Clark et al. 2008), correlation between wages and unobserved determinants of job satisfaction (Ravallion and Lokshin 2001) and misspecification (Clark and Oswald 1996). The assumption that employees expectations about their own future income can be constructed from a wage equation doesnt make sense because it is entirely dependent on the econometricians computation (Garza et al. 2010). Prior to Clarks (1997) seminal findings, Smith and Plant (1982), in their study on gender differences in the job satisfaction of university professors, have concluded that either no significant gender differences in job satisfaction exist or that, if found, the differences are not psychologically meaningful. For accountants in Singapore, Goh, Koh and Low (1991) have noted that gender does not affect job satisfaction directly. Mason (1995) has revealed that US women and men in management do not differ from one another in their sources of satisfaction at work. Again, Ward and Sloane (2000) fail to reveal any significant differences between male and female faculty members in overall levels of job satisfaction. A less pronounced gender difference in job satisfaction among highly educated employees in Australia is also found by Long (2005). Taking a sample of young and highly educated individuals, Mora and Ferrer-iCarbonell (2009) have shown that after controlling for job characteristics women experience either a lower or the same satisfaction with five different measures of job satisfaction. Sabharwal and Corley (2009) have reported that the presence of job satisfaction gender gap among doctoral recipients disappears when several demographic, institutional and career-related characteristics are included in the model. To the contrary, Okpara, Squillace and Erondu (2005) have found that female college and university teachers are more satisfied with their work and co-workers than their male colleagues. 320

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

Similarly, Oshagbemi (1997, 2001) has noted that female academics at higher ranks are more satisfied with their jobs than male academics of comparable ranks. Even without considering academic ranks, Oshagbemi (2000) has revealed that female academics are more satisfied with their pay when compared with their male colleagues. Less satisfaction of female faculty members than male faculty members is documented by Fiorentino (1999) and Hagedorn (1996, 1998). Bender and Heywood (2006) have concluded that female academics report lower job satisfaction as compared to their male counterparts. Breaking down their sample by gender and age Ward and Sloane (2001) have found that males have higher job satisfaction levels than females for academics aged up to 36, whereas an opposite result is found for academics older than 36. There are relatively few studies exploring the gender job satisfaction gap among the young cohort. For young US workers Donohue and Heywood (2004) have found no gender job satisfaction gap. For Australia, Long (2005) has found that the discrepancy in gender job satisfaction gap is less evident for the young. But the empirical analysis by Mora and Ferrerii-Carbonell (2009) for young recent university graduates in Catalonia shows that a gender gap in favour of men remains even after controlling for a set of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Based on data from a longitudinal survey of a youth cohort, Dalton and Marcis (1987) have found gender differences in the determinants of job satisfaction. By and large, no consensus has been reached by previous studies on gender job satisfaction gap among the young and the highly educated. While many support Clarks (1997) findings, there are research outcomes that indicate the existence of gender job satisfaction gap in both directions. Research on job satisfaction is important because the issue is related to gains in efficiency at an organizational and an individual level. For an individual, job satisfaction is an important indicator of his/her attitude and behavior. Employers gain benefit from satisfied employees because these employees are less likely to quit their jobs and/or be absent from work. Further, it is generally accepted that higher job satisfaction is associated with greater productivity and job performance. The focus of this study is on highly educated employees because this group of workers has often been recognized as important sources of innovation and a key for technological advancement. As noted by Bender and Heywood (2006), the highly educated are generally known to be the drivers for innovation, creativity and development. Examining job satisfaction of this particular group (graduates from PhD programs) also has interesting features. The fact that we have a homogeneous sample in terms of level of education helps us to lower the potential bias from unobserved heterogeneity that determines job satisfaction. Again, by focusing exclusively on individuals who made a similar high investment in education, we can be able to avoid dealing with the relationship between education and job satisfaction, which is not always clear-cut. In this study, we examine gender differences in job satisfaction for the mostly highly educated, those who completed a PhD at Australias Group of Eight (Go8) universities.2 Unlike many studies, the dataset for this research contains responses to 17 questions on job satisfaction; hence very comprehensive. Breaking down the sample by age group, employment status and family type/living arrangement, this paper presents a more in-depth investigation
2

The Go8 is a coalition of leading Australian universities, intensive in research and comprehensive in general and professional education. The Go8 universities are The Australian National University, Monash University, The University of Adelaide, The University of Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, The University of Sydney, The University of Queensland and The University of Western Australia.

321

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

about gender differences in various aspects of job satisfaction. In this study the age variable is split at the median, which is 40 years. Given the data was collected in 2006 from the cohort of PhD graduates who were five to seven years out from graduation, a median age of 40 years is a reasonable split to see if there is any significant gender differences in job satisfaction between those who finished their PhD while young and those who were mature-age or older.3 To investigate the effect of employment status on gender differences in job satisfaction the sample is also split into permanent and non-permanent position and into full-time and parttime employment. To examine the impact of family type/living arrangement on gender job satisfaction, the sample is again split into respondents having children living with them and those not having children living with them. Following this introduction, the rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II explains the data and reports preliminary results. Section III outlines the methodology used to carry out the analysis. Section IV discusses the empirical results obtained and section V offers some conclusions.

II. DATA AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

In 2004, The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC), in conjunction with the Deans of Graduate Studies, The University of Queensland (UQ) and The University of Melbourne, was funded by the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) through a Higher Education Innovation Program (HEIP) grant, and the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund (CASR) undertook a study of graduates from the PhD programs at the Go8 universities. The main purpose of this survey was to determine the employment outcomes, job attributes and the quality of research training of those graduates. The survey was mainly administered by UQSRC and carried out in April to October 2006 through email and mail. For this survey the population was all PhD graduates from the Go8 universities who obtained their PhDs between 1999 and 2001. To recruit survey participants the Go8 universities provided to UQSRC a list of 5700 graduates where postal or email addresses were available.4 Out of the 5700 targeted graduates the average response rate for all the Go8 universities was only 35% (around 1996), including some missing data. The highest response rate was 42% (at the University of Queensland) and the lowest was 25% (at the University of Western Australia). The survey shows that 54% of the respondents were male, 85% were Australian citizens at the time of the survey, 86% were domestic students, 90% were in employment, 53% worked in education and training (followed by 22% in professional, scientific and technical services) and 82% worked as professionals (followed by 14% as managers and administrators). Among those working 63% were in permanent employment, 29% were in fixed term contract and the rest 8% were either casual or self-employed or employers. Most of the respondents (around
3

Actually, when deciding to categorise a continuous variable, it is not obvious how many groups to create and where to place the cutpoints (Altman 2005). In this paper, we dichotomised the age variable (which is rightskewed) via median split as it is the most popular method and it fairly divides our data into young and not young groups. We also tried categorising the age variable into three groups but this exercise did not change the results (more information on this is given in the findings section). During the survey, the number of targeted graduates (5700) was reduced to 5200 once those deceased, out of scope and those affected by return to sender mail and/or returned not received emails had been excluded.

322

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

82%) were working full-time. Respondents had a minimum age of 25 years and around 42% of the respondents were in their thirties. By marital status, approximately 77% of the respondents were either married or in a de-facto relationship. The survey shows gender differences in most of the socio-economic and demographic characteristics. There was a slight difference in marital status by gender. The percentage of men that were married or in a de-facto relationship was more by 5 percentage points than women with comparable marital status. At the time of the survey, 63% of the respondents had children. The survey shows that 4 in 10 women had no children whereas the percentage of men without children was 34%. Of those working, the percentage of men living with children was higher by 7 percentage points than that of female (57% for males and 50% for females). By employment status around 36% of women were in fixed-term or casual employment, whereas the share of men having such an employment status was only 29%. Comparatively, a higher proportion of men were working full-time (35 hours or more per week) and the share of women working part-time (less than 35 hours a week) was relatively higher. Of those not working, a relatively higher proportion of women were looking after the home or family. By level of earnings, 29% of the respondents had annual salaries of less than $60,000, 55% between $60,000 and $99,999, and 16% were earning $100,000 or more. The percentage of women in the lower salary levels was higher than that for men, and the percentage of men in the higher salary levels was higher than that for women. In this paper gender differences in job satisfaction are examined based on the section of the questionnaire that dealt with nature of current/most recent work offered information on 16 job satisfaction domains, and, in addition, a measure of overall job satisfaction (see Table 1). Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction by choosing whether they were either very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. In this paper, all domains of job satisfaction are rated on 1-5 scale, where 1 represents very dissatisfied and 5 very satisfied. The sample size for this study is reduced to 1861 graduates (1012 males and 849 females) after removing respondents with incomplete answers.5 Proportion of gender in the sample does not show much difference to that of DEST figures (42% female and 58% male) and thus there is no significant gender difference in the dropped sample. From Table 1 we observe that the average job satisfaction scores are relatively large for satisfaction with intellectual challenge and small for satisfaction with opportunity for career advancement. Average scores above 4 (clearly in the satisfied category) were recorded for satisfaction with intellectual challenge, satisfaction with degree of independence and satisfaction with relationship with co-workers. By gender, we note that average job satisfaction scores are higher for males except for satisfaction with level of responsibility, satisfaction with degree of independence, satisfaction with contribution to society and satisfaction with relationship with co-workers. The female subgroup has large variability in almost all domains of job satisfaction scores (see the standard deviation values in Table 1). The magnitude of gender differences in the mean scores is for satisfaction with workload, satisfaction with opportunities for career advancement, satisfaction with hours worked and satisfaction with flexibility to balance work and life. For these domains of job satisfaction the mean scores for males are higher than that of females by more than 0.10.
5

Sample size can be reduced slightly when data are broken down by age, employment status and family type.

323

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Table 1: Average Job Satisfaction Score

Job satisfaction domains Salary Employment benefits Job security Hours worked Physical work conditions Opportunity for career advancement Intellectual challenge Level of responsibility Degree of independence Opportunities for creativity Contribution to society Relationship with co-workers Flexibility to balance work and life Access to support and infrastructure Workload Provision of training Overall job satisfaction Sample size Total 3.64 (1.03) 3.79 (0.91) 3.48 (1.25) 3.53 (1.04) 3.80 (0.95) 3.23 (1.16) 4.09 (0.95) 3.93 (0.95) 4.13 (0.92) 3.82 (1.01) 3.91 (0.92) 4.08 (0.82) 3.61 (1.11) 3.46 (1.00) 3.28 (1.05) 3.30 (0.96) 3.94 (0.93) 1861 Male 3.66 (1.02) 3.80 (0.88) 3.52 (1.22) 3.59 (0.99) 3.84 (0.93) 3.30 (1.15) 4.11 (0.91) 3.92 (0.92) 4.12 (0.91) 3.84 (0.97) 3.87 (0.93) 4.05 (0.80) 3.66 (1.04) 3.50 (0.96) 3.35 (1.01) 3.31 (0.95) 3.94 (0.91) 1012 Female 3.62 (1.03) 3.79 (0.95) 3.44 (1.29) 3.46 (1.09) 3.76 (0.98) 3.15 (1.17) 4.07 (1.00) 3.93 (0.99) 4.13 (0.94) 3.80 (1.05) 3.96 (0.92) 4.13 (0.85) 3.55 (1.18) 3.43 (1.05) 3.20 (1.09) 3.30 (0.98) 3.94 (0.96) 849

Note: numbers in brackets give the standard deviation.

As can be seen from Table 2, gender differences for the category above the median age are similar to the (aggregate) one presented in Table 1 except that for domains of job satisfaction such as hours worked, flexibility to balance work and life, and relationship with co-workers the magnitude of gender differences in average satisfaction scores becomes larger and for some aspects such as workload and opportunity for career advancement it lowers. For those in the category below the median age, gender differences in average satisfaction scores are different from figures presented in Table 1. For aspects of job satisfaction, such as workload, hours worked, provision of training and access to support and infrastructure, females average satisfaction scores are greater than those of males. Irrespective of gender, the average job satisfaction scores of those below the median age are greater than those above the median age except for satisfaction with job security and satisfaction with contribution to society To see if gender job satisfaction scores differ by employment status, the sample is divided by full-time and part-time employment. As can be seen from Table 3, the average satisfaction scores of male full-time employees are greater than those of females except for satisfaction with contribution to society and satisfaction with relationship with co-workers. In all job domains (except for satisfaction with job security) female part-time employees are more satisfied than their male counterparts. 324

Table 2: Average Job Satisfaction Scores by Median Age Split

Below the age of 41 Total 3.68 (1.01) 3.84 (0.91) 3.42 (1.30) 3.64 (0.99) 3.86 (0.93) 3.29 (1.16) 4.14 (0.94) 3.96 (0.97) 4.19 (0.91) 3.85 (1.01) 3.84 (0.97) 4.12 (0.84) 3.73 (1.08) 3.55 (1.00) 3.40 (1.00) 3.34 (0.96) 4.00 (0.92) 939 513 3.38 (1.00) 3.30 (0.98) 4.00 (0.91) 3.54 (0.97) 3.74 (1.04) 4.08 (0.81) 3.79 (0.98) 3.90 (0.96) 4.16 (0.87) 3.71 (1.14) 3.56 (1.03) 3.42 (1.02) 3.39 (0.94) 4.00 (0.94) 426 3.88 (0.97) 3.82 (1.06) 4.20 (0.89) 4.19 (0.93) 3.97 (0.94) 3.95 (1.01) 3.89 (0.94) 4.05 (0.94) 3.79 (1.01) 3.99 (0.87) 4.05 (0.80) 3.50 (1.12) 3.38 (1.00) 3.17 (1.09) 3.26 (0.97) 3.89 (0.95) 911 4.16 (0.92) 4.12 (0.96) 4.04 (0.96) 3.37 (1.14) 3.20 (1.18) 3.17 (1.15) 3.88 (0.93) 3.84 (0.93) 3.75 (0.96) 3.63 (1.00) 3.65 (0.97) 3.43 (1.08) 3.56 (0.98) 3.80 (0.92) 3.22 (1.15) 4.06 (0.91) 3.88 (0.89) 4.04 (0.93) 3.80 (0.98) 3.94 (0.86) 4.01 (0.78) 3.59 (1.04) 3.46 (0.95) 3.33 (1.03) 3.31 (0.93) 3.89 (0.92) 493 3.47 (1.27) 3.36 (1.34) 3.55 (1.20) 3.58 (1.17) 3.83 (0.87) 3.85 (0.95) 3.75 (0.92) 3.76 (0.89) 3.69 (1.02) 3.66 (1.01) 3.60 (1.04) 3.62 (1.02) 3.59 (1.06) 3.72 (0.95) 3.52 (1.24) 3.28 (1.17) 3.69 (1.01) 3.11 (1.15) 4.03 (1.03) 3.90 (0.98) 4.07 (0.95) 3.78 (1.05) 4.03 (0.87) 4.10 (0.83) 3.40 (1.20) 3.28 (1.04) 2.98 (1.12) 3.21 (1.01) 3.90 (0.98) 418 Male Female Total Male Female Above the age of 40

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

Relationship with co-workers

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Sample size

325

Note: numbers in brackets give the standard deviation.

Table 3: Average Job Satisfaction Scores by Employment Status

Full-time employment Total 3.65 (1.02) 3.81 (0.90) 3.49 (1.25) 3.51 (1.04) 3.79 (0.95) 3.23 (1.16) 4.10 (0.95) 3.92 (0.96) 4.12 (0.93) 3.83 (1.01) 3.90 (0.93) 4.08 (0.82) 3.58 (1.11) 3.47 (0.99) 3.27 (1.05) 3.30 (0.96) 3.94 (0.93) 1666 944 3.35 (1.01) 3.31 (0.95) 3.95 (0.89) 3.50 (0.95) 3.65 (1.04) 4.05 (0.79) 4.12 (0.85) 3.49 (1.19) 3.42 (1.04) 3.16 (1.09) 3.29 (0.98) 3.93 (0.98) 722 3.88 (0.93) 3.94 (0.93) 3.86 (0.97) 3.79 (1.05) 4.13 (0.90) 4.11 (0.96) 3.93 (0.92) 3.90 (1.00) 3.99 (0.92) 4.17 (0.89) 3.77 (1.05) 3.97 (0.90) 4.07 (0.83) 3.86 (1.07) 3.45 (1.06) 3.40 (1.06) 3.30 (1.01) 3.99 (0.94) 195 4.12 (0.96) 4.07 (0.99) 4.02 (1.00) 3.31 (1.14) 3.14 (1.18) 3.22 (1.12) 3.84 (0.92) 3.73 (0.98) 3.88 (0.97) 3.79 (1.04) 3.21 (1.18) 3.93 (0.89) 3.88 (0.92) 4.00 (0.96) 3.63 (1.04) 3.72 (0.96) 3.93 (0.87) 3.82 (1.06) 3.44 (1.06) 3.40 (1.02) 3.25 (1.04) 3.88 (1.40) 68 3.58 (1.00) 3.41 (1.09) 3.72 (1.01) 3.65 (0.94) 3.52(1.22) 3.44 (1.28) 3.46 (1.28) 3.53 (1.18) 3.81 (0.88) 3.81 (0.93) 3.66 (1.00) 3.62 (0.88) 3.67 (1.02) 3.63 (1.02) 3.54 (1.08) 3.43 (1.06) 3.61 (1.10) 3.68 (1.06) 3.42 (1.33) 3.76 (1.05) 3.92 (0.92) 3.23 (1.09) 4.06 (1.05) 4.05 (0.92) 4.27 (0.83) 3.84 (1.05) 4.11 (0.85) 4.15 (0.81) 3.87 (1.08) 3.45 (1.06) 3.40 (1.08) 3.33 (0.99) 4.06 (0.81) 127 Male Female Total Male Female Part-time employment

326

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Sample size

Note: numbers in brackets give the standard deviation.

Table 4: Average Job Satisfaction Scores by Employment Position

Permanent Total 3.70 (0.98) 3.83 (0.87) 3.81 (1.07) 3.46 (1.06) 3.78 (0.97) 3.31 (1.12) 4.01 (0.96) 3.86 (0.96) 4.04 (0.94) 3.71 (0.97) 3.86 (0.98) 4.04 (0.85) 3.51 (1.12) 3.43 (1.00) 3.17 (1.05) 3.25 (0.95) 3.95 (0.90) 738 3.49 (0.96) 3.29 (1.00) 3.27 (0.93) 3.98 (0.83) 428 3.60 (1.04) 4.03 (0.80) 3.84 (0.97) 3.87 (0.99) 4.05 (0.90) 3.39 (1.21) 3.34 (1.04) 2.99 (1.10) 3.23 (0.97) 3.90 (0.99) 310 3.76 (0.94) 3.70 (1.01) 4.03 (0.92) 4.05 (0.97) 3.86 (0.92) 3.85 (1.03) 4.04 (0.91) 3.97 (1.03) 4.21 (0.92) 3.99 (0.94) 4.21 (0.90) 3.92 (1.02) 3.93 (0.89) 4.11 (0.83) 3.69 (1.09) 3.52 (1.01) 3.40 (1.04) 3.32 (0.98) 3.97 (0.93) 772 3.35 (1.11) 3.25 (1.13) 3.18 (1.18) 3.80 (0.94) 3.74 (1.01) 3.82 (0.96) 3.55 (0.98) 3.34 (1.15) 3.59 (1.01) 3.62 (1.00) 3.85 (0.94) 3.28 (1.17) 4.25 (0.88) 4.02 (0.89) 4.24 (0.87) 3.97 (0.98) 3.87 (0.90) 4.06 (0.82) 3.73 (1.03) 3.54 (0.96) 3.41 (1.03) 3.34 (0.99) 3.94 (0.97) 397 3.75(1.07) 3.87 (1.06) 3.09 (1.33) 3.17 (1.31) 3.82 (0.85) 3.85 (0.91) 3.81 (0.93) 3.83 (0.89) 3.72 (0.98) 3.66 (0.97) 3.63 (1.05) 3.63 (1.04) Male Female Total Male Female 3.62 (1.06) 3.78 (0.97) 3.01 (1.35) 3.55 (1.02) 3.78 (0.97) 3.08 (1.19) 4.16 (0.97) 3.97 (0.99) 4.19 (0.92) 3.86 (1.05) 3.98 (0.88) 4.17 (0.85) 3.66 (1.15) 3.50 (1.05) 3.38 (1.05) 3.31 (0.98) 4.01 (0.89) 375 Non-permanent

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Sample size

327

Note: numbers in brackets give the standard deviation.

Table 5: Average Job Satisfaction Scores by Respondents with or without any Children living with them
Total 3.64 (1.02) 3.82 (0.91) 3.54 (1.24) 3.61 (1.02) 3.84 (0.94) 3.28 (1.16) 4.15 (0.89) 3.99 (0.92) 4.19 (0.87) 3.90 (0.97) 3.98 (0.91) 4.13 (0.78) 3.68 (1.09) 3.50 (1.00) 3.32 (1.04) 3.34 (0.96) 3.99 (0.86) 1015 3.36 (1.01) 3.35 (0.96) 3.99 (0.84) 585 3.54 (0.97) 3.72 (1.01) 4.09 (0.77) 4.19 (0.80) 3.63 (1.20) 3.45 (1.04) 3.27 (1.09) 3.32 (0.96) 4.00 (0.90) 430 3.93 (0.91) 4.04 (0.90) 3.92 (0.91) 3.88 (1.03) 4.19 (0.85) 4.19 (0.91) 3.98 (0.89) 4.00 (0.96) 3.84 (0.99) 4.03 (0.98) 3.73 (1.06) 3.83 (0.94) 4.02 (0.86) 3.52 (1.11) 3.41 (1.00) 3.24 (1.07) 3.26 (0.98) 3.88 (1.01) 779 4.17 (0.84) 4.13 (0.96) 4.02 (1.03) 3.33 (1.16) 3.21 (1.17) 3.15 (1.14) 3.88 (0.90) 3.78 (0.99) 3.75 (0.98) 3.77 (0.98) 3.23 (1.14) 4.02 (1.01) 3.83 (0.96) 4.01 (0.98) 3.74 (1.05) 3.77 (0.97) 3.96 (0.84) 3.59 (1.08) 3.43 (0.95) 3.34 (1.02) 3.23 (0.94) 3.87 (1.02) 399 3.63 (0.98) 3.59 (1.08) 3.42 (1.06) 3.53 (1.01) 3.59(1.20) 3.48 (1.30) 3.39 (1.27) 3.41 (1.26) 3.82 (0.86) 3.81 (0.98) 3.75 (0.92) 3.75 (0.93) 3.64 (1.01) 3.64 (1.04) 3.65 (1.03) 3.67 (1.05) 3.62 (1.01) 3.76 (0.92) 3.36 (1.29) 3.32 (1.10) 3.72 (0.99) 3.07 (1.14) 4.02 (1.04) 3.84 (1.02) 4.06 (0.97) 3.72 (1.07) 3.89 (0.92) 4.07 (0.90) 3.44 (1.15) 3.39 (1.05) 3.13 (1.10) 3.28 (1.01) 3.89 (1.01) 380 With children living with them Male Female Total Male Female Without children living with them

328

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Sample size

Note: numbers in brackets give the standard deviation.

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

When the sample is split by employment position, gender differences with different domains of job satisfaction are similar to those presented in Table 1 except that female permanent employees are relatively more satisfied with their employment benefits and job security and male permanent employees are relatively more satisfied with their overall job and level of responsibility (see Table 4). Overall, non-permanent male employees are more satisfied than their female counterparts except for satisfaction with contribution to society, satisfaction with relationship with co-workers and satisfaction with overall job (see Table 4). Gender differences in job satisfaction by family type/living arrangement are similar to those presented in Table 1. For most of the domains of job satisfaction males are more satisfied than females irrespective of whether or not any children are living with them (see Table 5). Generally, respondents with children living with them are more satisfied than those without. Taken as a whole, the descriptive statistics presented in Tables 1-5 show that (i) males are more satisfied than females with most aspects of job satisfaction, (ii) females are more satisfied than males with respect to satisfaction with contribution to society and satisfaction with relationship with co-workers, and (iii) female part-time employees are more satisfied than male counterparts except for satisfaction with job security. While these descriptive statistics provide simple summaries about the sample, they by no means provide evidence that the observed gender difference in mean scores is a dependable one or one that might have happened by chance in this study. Thus, it is important to make an assessment of whether any gender differences we see are meaningful, or they are likely just due to chance.

III. METHODOLOGY
Since the data on job satisfaction domains are ordinal, the spacing between intervals (between the five-point Likert scales) cannot be equal. There is no way to ensure that respondents view the difference between satisfied and very satisfied the same as they might view the difference between satisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The values of the satisfaction scores can be ordered hierarchically against each other and this ranking can be used as a way of quantification. This implies that a null hypothesis of no gender difference in the level of job satisfaction can only be analyzed using a nonparametric test such as the Mann-Whitney U test (alternatively called the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test). The Mann-Whitney U test is a nonparametric version of the t-test for comparing two independent samples by taking the difference between mean ranks of the two samples. It works by looking at differences in the ranked positions of scores of domains of job satisfaction in male and female subgroups to determine whether there are gender differences. Though a Mann-Whitney U test it is less powerful than a t-test, it is less likely to find a significant result when there is no real difference between groups. In this study, a two-sample t-test cannot be used because a t-test assumes that the level of measurement should at least be interval. There is a possibility to apply a t-test by summing together the responses of the 17 domains of job satisfaction. However, the result does only tell us if there is a significant gender difference in all aspects of job satisfaction taken together. To apply the Mann-Whitney U test, observations on male and female must first be combined and then ranked, with the average rank assigned in the case of ties. The ranks assigned to each 329

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

sample are summed to get the sum ranks for male and female and these sums are then used to calculate U values for the two samples. Finally, the smaller of the two values becomes the Mann-Whitney test statistic U. For large sample sizes, the Mann-Whitney U statistic is approximately normally distributed and thus its graph resembles a bell shape. Using an average expected U value for groups and a standard deviation of Us allows computation of a Z score for the U value. The probability of yielding a Z score of this magnitude, given no difference between the groups, is computed and finally a decision is made whether to reject the null hypothesis. A Z value is calculated as the difference between the test value (the Mann-Whitney U statistic) and the mean is divided by the standard deviation (see Appendix A for statistical procedures). It is important to calculate effect sizes for the Mann-Whitney U test results to give an indication of the magnitude of the gender differences in domains of job satisfaction. In this paper, Hedgess g, which is a measure of the standardized difference between groups and a more accurate version of Cohens d, is used to estimate how different sample mean ranks are (for statistical procedures see Appendix A, equation (1) ). It is necessary to apply a correction factor to adjust for unequal sample sizes in the male and female groups in our sample. The correction factor is needed to adjust the loss of efficiency due to unequal sample sizes; otherwise the standard g formula will tend to underestimate the actual g (Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubin, 2000). The formula that accounted for unequal sample size is presented in Appendix A, equation (2). Hedgess g effect sizes range 0 to 1 in absolute term, 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect and 0.8 a large effect (Cohen 1988).

IV. FINDINGS
Results for the Mann-Whitney U test largely confirm Clarks (1997) findings that gender differences in job satisfaction disappear for the highly educated. As can be seen from Table 6, column (1), only 5 out of 17 domains of job satisfaction are able to support significant gender differences. Of these 5 domains, females are more satisfied than males with their contribution to society and relationship with co-workers, whereas males are more satisfied than females with their hours worked, opportunity for career advancement and workload.6 For the rest of the job satisfaction domains the average ranks for male and female are quite close and thus there is no statistically significant difference between the distribution of the scores of males and the scores of females. Results do not change much when a test is done by splitting the sample by age, employment status and family type/living arrangement (see Table 6). Just 1 out of the 17 domains of job satisfaction shows significant gender differences for the subgroup of employees working parttime. Only 2 out of the 17 domains show significant gender differences for the subgroup of respondents below the age of 41, those in non-permanent employment and those living with children. Only 3 out of the 17 domains reveal significant gender differences for the subgroup of employees in permanent employment. 4 out of the 17 domains show significant gender
6

In this study, gender is coded 0 for female and 1 for male. Thus, a negative Z values indicates that the sum of male ranks is higher than the sum of the female ranks, implying that males have higher job satisfaction scores than females.

330

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

differences for the subgroup of respondents not having children living with them and 5 out of the 17 domains reveal significant gender differences for respondents over the age of 40 and those working full-time. As a robustness check, we categorized the age variable into three arbitrary groups, namely below the age of 36 years, between the age of 36 and 44 years, and above the age of 44 years and then a separate analysis was done for each age group to examine gender differences in domains of job satisfaction. The Mann-Whitney U test results for the three age categories do not differ from the ones obtained using a median age split except that the domain satisfaction with access to support and infrastructure turns out to be insignificant in all the three age groups.7 This indicates that results are not distorted due to median split. Overall, for most of the domains of job satisfaction, the study finds no significant gender differences. For the few aspects of job satisfaction showing significant gender differences, males are more satisfied than females with their hours worked, opportunity for career advancement and workload, whereas females are more satisfied than males with their relationship with coworkers and contribution to society. From this one can conclude that, for domains showing significant gender differences, males are more satisfied with intrinsic aspects of job satisfaction, whereas female are more satisfied with extrinsic features of job satisfaction. To validate the overall findings that indicate no significant gender job satisfaction gap, a two-sample t-test is performed by adding together all the 17 domains of job satisfaction (so as to convert the Likert-scale into a form of interval-scaled data) and the results show no significant gender differences even when accounting for age, employment status and family type/living arrangement. The only statistically significant gender difference (in favour of males) is found for the subgroup of full-time employees. Given that the findings in this paper show that females are significantly more satisfied with only 2 domains of job satisfaction (satisfaction with relationship with co-workers and satisfaction with contribution to society), there is no basis to suspect a sample selection bias problem, which arises from the assumption that dissatisfied men are working while unsatisfied women exit the labour market (leaving only satisfied women in the labour market). However, a simple test is performed by looking at both tails of the distribution and found in almost all of the domains of job satisfaction there are no significant gender differences with regard to those answering very dissatisfied or very satisfied. Finally, to quantify the size of the difference between two groups, the Hedges g effect size is calculated and the results, especially for statistically significant domains of job satisfactions, show a small to medium effect size which ranges from 0.118 (for satisfaction with hours worked) to 0.496 (for satisfaction with contribution to society) (see Table 7).

Due to space limitations the results of Mann-Whitney U test for the three age groups are not included in this paper.

331

Table 6: Results of Mann-Whitney U Test of Job Satisfaction Domains by Gender

Aggregate (1) -0.689 (0.491) 0.020 (0.984) -1.115 (0.265) -2.096 (0.036)* -1.366 (0.172) -2.729 (0.006)** -0.097 (0.923) 0.788 (0.431) 0.840 (0.401) -0.416 (0.677) 2.537 (0.011)* 2.991 (0.003)** -1.484 (0.138) -1.034 (0.301) -3.026 (0.002)** 0.149 (0.881) 0.502 (0.616) 1861 939 0.755 (0.450) 1.579 (0.114) 0.233 (0.816) 0.702 (0.483) -0.022 (0.982) 2.179 (0.029)* 1.863 (0.063) -0.603 (0.547) 0.196 (0.845) 1.170 (0.087) 2.080 (0.038)* -2.142 (0.032)* -2.299 (0.022)* -4.922 (0.000)*** -1.533 (0.125) 0.575 (0.565) 911 0.291 (0.771) 1.023 (0.307) 0.147 (0.883) 1.117 (0.264) -0.391 (0.696) 0.410 (0.682) -2.243 (0.025)* -1.467 (0.143) -0.609 (0.543) -1.220 (0.223) -1.887 (0.059) -2.796 (0.005)** -0.507 (0.612) 0.260 (0.795) 0.155 (0.877) -0.848 (0.396) 1.616 (0.106) 2.631 (0.009)** -2.234 (0.026)* -1.045 (0.296) -3.469 (0.001)*** 0.165 (0.869) 0.223 (0.824) 1666 0.397 (0.692) -3.330 (0.001)*** -3.029 (0.003)** -1.070 (0.285) -0.585 (0.558) -1.031 (0.301) 0.636 (0.525) -0.479 (0.632) 0.033 (0.974) -0.460 (0.646) -0.378 (0.705) -1.036 (0.300) 1.361 (0.174) 0.740 (0.460) -0.374 (0.709) 1.210 (0.226) 0.660 (0.509) -0.139 (0.889) 1.645 (0.100) 1.339 (0.181) 1.957 (0.050) 1.483 (0.138) 2.843 (0.050)* 1.743 (0.081) 0.384 (0.701) -0.082 (0.935) 0.034 (0.973) -0.0180 (0.985) 0.491 (0.624) 195 Below the age of 41 (2) Full-time (4) Part-time (5) Above the age of 40 (3)

332

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Sample size

Note: Probability values are given in brackets. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. A negative Z score indicates that the male group has higher rank relative to the female group.

Table 6: Results of Mann-Whitney U Test of Job Satisfaction Domains by Gender (continued)

Permanent (6) -0.911 (0.362) 0.804 (0.422) 1.757 (0.079) -2.132 (0.033)* -0.614 (0.539) -1.176 (0.240) -0.380 (0.704) 0.451 (0.652) 0.704 (0.481) -0.681 (0.496) 0.577 (0.578) 0.930 (0.353) -2.014 (0.044)* -1.661 (0.097) -3.719 (0.000)*** -0.207 (0.836) -0.346 (0.729) 738 -0.355 (0.723) -0.110 (0.912) -0.126 (0.900) -0.259 (0.796) 0.704 (0.481) 772 2.303 (0.021)* 1.914 (0.056) -1.262 (0.207) -0.416 (0.678) -0.276 (0.782) 0.922 (0.356) 0.521 (0.602) 0.027 (0.979) 2.158 (0.031)* 2.442 (0.015)* -0.429 (0.668) -1.050 (0.294) -1.222 (0222) -0.549 (0.583) 0.936 (0.349) 1015 -0.910 (0.363) 0.092 (0.927) -2.327 (0.020)* -1.682 (0.093) -0.773 (0.440) -1.261 (0.207) -0.969 (0.333) 0.033 (0.974) -1.636 (0.102) -0.956 (0.339) -0.411 (0.681) 0.272 (0.786) 0.022 (0.982) -0.391 (0.696) -2.645 (0.008)** -0.716 (0.474) -1.973 (0.049)* 0.245 (0.806) 0.597 (0.551) 0.900 (0.368) -0.101 (0.920) 1.862 (0.063) 2.262 (0.024)* -1.749 (0.080) -0.156 (0.876) -2.496 (0.013)* 1.397 (0.162) 0.259 (0.795) 779 -0.131 (0.896) 0.158 (0.874) -0.944 (0.345) Non-permanent (7) With children (8) Without children (9)

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Sample size

333

Note: Probability values are given in brackets. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. A negative Z score indicates that the male group has higher rank relative to the female group.

Table 7: Hedgess g Effect Size for the Mann-Whitney U Test

(1) (2) 0.037 0.052 0.087 0.032 0.050 0.183 0.121 0.034 0.092 0.084 0.016 0.097 0.172 0.177 0.190 0.406 0.127 0.047 911 0.065 0.215 0.010 0.014 1666 0.138 0.163 0.304 0.067 0.014 0.006 0.003 0.086 195 0.100 0.496 0.052 0.259 0.010 0.342 0.066 0.064 0.054 0.087 0.189 0.156 0.349 0.019 0.032 738 0.016 0.234 0.042 0.031 0.287 0.036 0.081 0.024 0.037 0.112 0.170 0.204 0.031 0.010 0.011 0.023 0.062 772 0.024 0.110 0.032 0.012 0.024 0.049 0.152 0.178 0.002 0.057 0.062 0.129 0.019 939 0.173 0.206 0.101 0.117 0.115 0.058 0.068 0.275 0.211 0.086 0.187 0.200 0.003 0.101 0.134 0.007 0.074 0.042 0.002 0.172 0.195 0.034 0.084 0.097 0.044 0.075 1015 0.048 0.064 0.065 0.165 0.145 0.076 0.040 0.002 0.129 0.075 0.036 0.022 0.002 0.034 0.233 0.063 0.174 0.022 0.053 0.079 0.009 0.164 0.200 0.154 0.014 0.220 0.123 0.023 779 0.031 0.064 0.238 0.085 0.012 0.013 0.083 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 0.039 0.001 0.063 0.118 0.077 0.153 0.005 0.044 0.047 0.023 0.142 0.168 0.083 0.058 0.185 0.008 0.023 1861

334

Job satisfaction domains

Salary

Employment benefits

Job security

Hours worked

Physical work conditions

Opportunity for career advancement

Intellectual challenge

Level of responsibility

Degree of independence

Opportunities for creativity

Contribution to society

Relationship with co-workers

Flexibility to balance work and life

Access to support and infrastructure

Workload

Provision of training

Overall job satisfaction

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Sample size

Note: figures in bold are effect size for the statistically significant domains of job satisfaction. An effect size of 0.2 is a small effect, an effect size of 0.5 is a medium effect, and an effect size of 0.8 is large effect.

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

V. CONCLUSION
Despite a large body of literature no consensus has been reached on gender differences in job satisfaction. Clarks (1997) seminal study of job satisfaction and gender reveals that gender differences in job satisfaction disappear for the young and the highly educated. Since then a number of papers on gender job satisfaction have been published, however, the findings from these papers are inconclusive. While many papers support Clarks (1997) findings, others reveal the existence of gender job satisfaction gap in both directions. This paper attempts to investigate gender differences in job satisfaction using data from a survey study of graduates from the PhD programs at Australias Go8 universities. The dataset contains 17 aspects of job satisfaction that cover intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Because the level of measurement of job satisfaction is ordinal (and the spacing between intervals is not equal) and gender is a nominal variable, the most appropriate nonparametric test is the MannWhitney U test. Results for the Mann-Whitney U test largely confirm Clarks (1997) findings. For most of the models presented in Table 6 a significant gender gap in job satisfaction is found in 5 or less of the 17 domains of job satisfaction. It is interesting to note that the effect size of domains of job satisfaction that predict significant gender gap is small or medium. Overall, the findings indicate that most job satisfaction domains are gender neutral even after accounting for age, employment status and family type/living arrangement. For those with significant gender differences, males are more satisfied than females with intrinsic domains of job satisfaction that comprise satisfaction with hours worked, satisfaction with opportunity for career advancement and satisfaction with workload. Females are more satisfied than males with extrinsic aspects of job satisfaction that include satisfaction with contribution to society and satisfaction with relationship with co-workers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank UQs Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) for providing the data used in this paper. We also thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions.

335

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

APPENDIX A: MATHEMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Mathematically, the Mann-Whitney U statistic can be expressed as:

Z=

U - (n1n 2 / 2) (n 1n 2 )(n 1 + n 2 + 1)/12

where U is the calculated Mann-Whitney U statistic (the smaller of the two possible calculated values), n1 is the sample size of the smaller group and n2 is the size of the largest group. The Hedgess g equation to the case of two groups of unequal sample can be written mathematically as follows:

(1)

g=

2Z N

in this expression, n = N 2 is the average sample size per group, and n h is the harmonic mean sample size defined by:

n , nh

(2)

nh =

1 , 1 1 0.5( + ) n1 n 2

(3)

always less than n , the ratio n h n indexes the loss of power in the unequal design Since n h is relative to the equal n design. The loss of relative efficiency due to unequal sample sizes in two groups can be calculated as follows:

where n 1 and n 2 are the sample sizes within each group.

1- (

nh ) n

(4)

336

Temesgen Kifle and Isaac Hailemariam Desta

REFERENCES Altman, D.G. (2005). Categorizing Continuous Variables, in: P. Armitage and T. Colton (eds.), Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, 1st Edition. Chichester: Whiley: 563-567. Bender, K.A. and J. S. Heywood (2006). Job Satisfaction of the Highly Educated: The Role of Gender, Academic Tenure and Earnings, Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 53: 253-279. Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn (2006). The U.S. Gender Pay Gap in the 90s: Slowing Convergence, Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 60: 45-66. Booth, A.L., M. Francesconi, and J. Frank (2003). A Sticky Floors Model of Promotion, Pay and Gender, European Economic Review. 47: 295-322. Booth, A.L., W. Arulampalam, and M.L. Bryan (2005). Is There a Glass Ceiling Over Europe? Exploring the Gender Wage Gap Across the Wage Distribution, ISER Working Paper 2005-25, University of Essex, Colchester. Clark, A. E. and A. J. Oswald (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income, Journal of Public Economics. 61: 35981. Clark, A. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction and Gender: Why are Women So Happy in Work?, Labour Economics. 4: 341-372. Clark, A.E., P. Frijters, and M.A. Shields (2008). Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles, Journal of Economic Literature. 46: 95-144. Cohen, J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Dalton, A.H, and J.G. Marcis (1987). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction Among Young Adults, Journal of Behavioral Economics. 16: 21-32. Donohue, S.M. and J.S. Heywood (2004). Job Satisfaction, Comparison Income and Gender: Evidence from the NLSY, International Journal of Manpower. 25: 211-234. Fiorentino, L.M (1999). Job Satisfaction Among Faculty in Higher Education. (Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60: 138. Garza, A. de la, G. Mastrobuoni , A. Sannabe, and K. Yamanda (2010). The relative utility hypothesis with and without self-reported reference wages, ISER Discussion Paper No. 798. Goh, C., H.C. Koh, and C.K. Low (1991). Gender Effects on the Job Satisfaction of Accountants in Singapore, Work and Stress. 5: 341-348. Hagedorn, L.S (1996). Wage Equity and Female Job Satisfaction: The Role of Wage Differentials in a Job Satisfaction Causal Model, Research in Higher Education. 37: 569-598. Hagedorn, L.S (1998). Implications to Postsecondary Faculty of Alternative Calculation Methods of Gender-based Wage Differentials, Research in Higher Education. 39: 143-162. Kaiser, L.C. (2007). Gender Job Satisfaction Differences Across Europe: An Indicator for Labor Market Modernization, International Journal of Manpower. 28: 75-94. Long, A. (2005). Happily Ever After? A Study of Job Satisfaction in Australia, The Economic Record. 81: 303-321. Mason, S. E. (1995). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction, The Journal of Social Psychology. 135: 143-151. Mora, T. and A. Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2009). The Job Satisfaction Gender Gap Among Young Recent University Graduates: Evidence from Catalonia, The Journal of Socio-Economics. 38 (4): 581-589. Okpara, J. O., M. Squillace, and E.A. Erondu (2005). Gender Differences and Job Satisfaction: A Study of University Teachers in The United States, Women in Management Review. 20: 177-190. Oshagbemi, T. (1997). The Influence of Rank on the Job Satisfaction of Organizational Members, Journal of Managerial Psychology. 12: 511-519. Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Correlates of Pay Satisfaction in Higher Education, The International Journal of Educational Management. 14: 31-39. Oshagbemi, T. (2001). Gender Differences in the Job Satisfaction of University Teachers, Women in Management Review. 15: 343-331.

337

Gender Differences in Domains of Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Doctoral Graduates from Australian Universities

Ravallion, M. and M. Lokshin (2001). Identifying welfare effects from subjective questions, Economica. 68: 335-357. Rosnow, R., R. Rosenthal, and D. Rubin (2000). Contrasts and Correlates in Effect Size Estimation, Psychological Science. 11: 446-453. Sanz de Galdeano, A. (2002). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction and Labour Market Participation: UK Evidence from Propensity Score Estimates. Mimeo; European University Institute, Florence. Sabharwal, M. and E.A. Corley (2009). Faculty Job Satisfaction Across Gender and Discipline, Social Science Journal. 46: 539-556. Sloane, P.J. and H. Williams (2000). Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings and Gender, Labour. 14: 473-502. Smith, D.B. and W.T. Plant (1982). Sex Differences in the Job Satisfaction of University Professors, Journal of Applied Psychology. 67: 249-251. Sousa-Poza, A. and A.A. Sousa-Poza (2003). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction Great Britain, 1991-2000: Permanent or Transitory?, Applied Economic Letters. 10: 691-694. Sousa-Poza, A. and A.A. Sousa-Poza (2007). The Effect of Job Satisfaction on Labor Turnover by Gender: An Analysis for Switzerland, The Journal of Socio-Economics. 36: 895-913. Ward, M.E. and P.J. Sloane (2000). Non-pecuniary Advantages Versus Pecuniary Disadvantages: Job Satisfaction Among Male and Female Academics in Scottish Universities, Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 47: 273-303. Ward, M.E. and P.J. Sloane (2001). Cohort Effects and Job Satisfaction of Academics, Applied Economics Letters. 8: 787791. Welsh, S. (1999). Gender and Sexual Harassment, Annual Review of Sociology. 25: 169-190.

338