Nder Differences in Subjective Well Being-Comparing Societies Wih Respect To Gender Equality

Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being: Comparing Societies with Respect to Gender
Equality
Author(s): Clemens Tesch-Rmer, Andreas Motel-Klingebiel and Martin J. Tomasik
Source: Social Indicators Research, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Jan., 2008), pp. 329-349
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27734585
Accessed: 01-05-2015 18:14 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Indicators Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 202.43.95.117 on Fri, 01 May 2015 18:14:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Soc
DOI
Indie Res (2008) 85:329-349

10.1007/sl 1205-007-9133-3
Differences in Subjective Weil-Being:

Societies with Respect to Gender
Comparing
Gender
Clemens
Tesch-R?mer
Andreas
Received:
?
Martin
Motel-Klingebiel
31 August 2006 /Accepted: 25 April 2007 /Published

Media B.V. 2007
Springer Science+Business
Abstract
J. Tomasik
online: 22 May
2007
These
the relationship
between
and sub
analyses
explore
gender
inequality
was
The hypothesis
tested as to whether
societal
is
well-being.
gender
inequality
to the size of gender
in subjective
differences
in various
societies.
well-being
come
from comparative
data sets (World Values
57 countries;
Survey,
involving
and
The
size of
involving
project,
Norway,
Israel).
England,
Germany,
Spain
jective
related
Results
OASIS
differences
gender
attitudes
regarding
like education
and
ences.
Equality
Gender
specific
varied
income
differences
access
to goal
Gender
Keywords
the extent of societal

and the cultural
gender
inequality
in different countries.
resources
individual
equality
Including
in the analyses
reduced
the size of gender
and country differ
in subjective
could
therefore be related
to gender
well-being
with
gender
relevant
resources.
Well-being
of
Quality
life
Welfare-state
comparisons
1 Introduction
Are
women
women?
gender
Cross-cultural
of
than men?
unhappier
Are
differences
analyses
this paper.
negative
of gender
data
Empirical
affect and subjective
and
depression
some
In
1993).
poorer
studies,
are
What
the factors
men
than
happier
in different
cultures?
make
similar
well-being
in subjective
(SWB)
well-being
consistent
of women
disadvantage
differences
show
health:
Women
have
health
than men
subjective
life satisfaction
and positive
C. Tesch-R?mer
A. Motel-Klingebiel
(El)
German Centre of Gerontology, Manfred-von-Richthofen-Strasse
e-mail: tesch-roemer@dza.de
M.
which
in subjective
higher
rates
of negative
Russo
2004;
(Nydegger
affect are also
lower
are the focus

in respect
affect
and
for women
to
and
Green
(e.g.
2, 12101 Berlin, Germany
J. Tomasik
Friedrich-Schiller-University,
Jena, Germany
4y Springer
C. Tesch-R?mer
330
In this paper we analyse

the relevance
of societal
1990).
a cross-cultural
data
in SWB.
gender differences
Using
explaining
across
differences
in SWB
varies
countries
ther the size of gender
and
Shmotkin
we will discuss
In the introduction,
gender
inequality.
account
for
these
consider
factors which
differences,
might
and formulate
research,
hypotheses.
comparative
cultural
set, we
and
in
factors
examine
how
et al.
whe
it is tied
to
in SWB,
gender differences
of
discuss
the perspective
societal
2 Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being

men
from empirical
reliable
differences
between
research,
gender
to well-being
have been found for longevity, morbidity,
and mental
at the results
Looking
and women
in relation
health (Maccoby 1998). This line of research has been aptly summarized by Sen (1996):
to mental
die".
In relation
get sick and men
for a higher prevalence
of mental
illness for women
to major
1987;
(Nolen-Hoeksema
regard
depression
"women
in the normal
differences
women
studies,
range
of SWB
report more
consistently
show
negative
health
and
to men,
compared
Russo
and
somewhat
Green
different
than men
emotions
there
SWB,
as
is evidence
in
especially
1993). Gender
In most
picture.
et
al.
2001;
(Costa
Feingold 1994; Hansson et al. 2005; Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting 1999; Smith and Reise
can also be found in aging
difference
and S?rensen
dif
Gender
2001).
Pinquart
to subjective
in literature in relation
ferences have also been reported consistently
health, a
rate their subjective
of life satisfaction. Women
health
lower than
domain
specific aspect
men
et
al.
Wurm
and
affect and
Tesch-R?mer
Results
for
1999;
(Baltes
2006).
positive
and Wurm
Tesch-R?mer
1998;
old women
and
and men
2006).
(Baltes
This
et al.
gender
1999;
some studies
are mixed,
life satisfaction
affect and
however:
show higher positive
general
some
no
et
in
life satisfaction
in women
al.
studies
differences
show
1991),
(Fujita
gender
at all (Okun
these aspects
of SWB
and George
and some
studies
show varying
1984),
across
differences
gender
the life course
(Shmotkin
of studies analysing
gender
though, that the majority
come
from the United
States
and Western
European
It should
1990).
differences
be
borne
in subjective
in mind,
well-being
countries.
3 Factors Accounting forGender Differences in Subjective Weil-Being

Given
there
described
the gender differences
above, which
two different perspectives
for explaining
are
factors
gender
account
differences
for them? Basically,

in SWB.
Firstly,
gender differences in SWB could be explained by universal sex differences (Lippa 2005).
Women's
greater
progesterone
partum
production
However,
period).
to depression
and
linked to estrogen
and anxiety has been
over
the
and
in
the
menstrual
post
cycle,
during
(e.g.
puberty,
are not well
for women's
lower SWB
explanations
biological
vulnerability
supported empirically (Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting 1999; Nydegger 2004).
to the different
of women
and men might
factors related
Secondly,
living conditions
account
in SWB.
in under
for gender
differences
Some
authors
that
advances
argue
the
differences
in
and
mental
health
"appreciating
standing
gender
well-being
require
access
resources
to
and
lack
of
that
women's
lives"
violence,
pervade
powerlessness,
(Russo
and Green
unequally
distributed
2002;
Programme
1993).
is indeed
the average
living situation of women
are
structures and action resources
Opportunity
in
societies
Nations
(United
many
genders
Development
on a societal
et al. 1990). Gender
(or inequality)
equality
In many
as compared
disadvantaged
between
cf. Harvey
societies
to that of men.
Springer
in a Comparative
Gender Differences
level
331
Perspective
a variety
has
of facets and includes?among

in labour market
gender differences
or power
differences
in average
income),
structures
gender
others?gender
specific
opportunity
access
to resources
(like
participation),
structures
in
differences
(like gender
in opportunity
structures
gender differences
(like
These
representation).
action resources
parliamentary
and individual
average
be responsible
for the average
in
gender differences
women
this
of
line
it
be
stated
that
could
reasoning,
Following
are unhappier
to men
and less satisfied as compared
if they are disadvantaged
in terms of
resources.
structures and action
opportunity
as described
SWB
above.
Perspectives on Gender Differences in Subjective Weil-Being
4 Cross-Cultural
Cross-cultural
and
cross-societal
gender differences
to general
aspects
societal
differences
of
factors
Ouwenell,
(see
might
in SWB.
of
research
Yet
SWB.
For
in the levels
SWB
influencing
1995). Yet
for an exception
there
Costa
could
cross-cultural
light on
on SWB
shed
research
researchers
instance,
have
the factors
for
accounting
been mainly
devoted
the cultural
and
analyzed
has
et al. 1995) or the cultural

(e.g., Diener
specificity
et al. 2000;
Diener
Suh et al. 1998; Veenhoven
and
of SWB
(e.g.,
is, little cross-cultural
et al. 2001).
The
on gender differences
in SWB
to
aims
fill
this
research
gap.
study
research
present
If thehypothesis of universal gender differences (gender differences rooted inbiological
sex differences)
across
cultures
would
is assumed,
and
SWB
societies.
differences
In
differences
predict
varying
gender
women
are treated more
and men
countries,
influence
the gender
of gender
well-being,
of the degree
function
should
be
opportunity
sets permit
differences
It should
smaller
equally
in average
SWB
gap
men
Differences
inequality.
and women
of
societal
cultures
than
and
in others.
should
between
should
gender
societies.
If societal
across
vary
women
be
equal
inequality
In some
factors
as
societies
and men
in SWB
in
as compared
countries"
to countries
where
,,equal opportunity
are more
structures
for women.
data
cross-cultural
Hence,
disadvantageous
the analysis
of the question
of whether
societal
and gender
gender
inequality
in SWB
correlate.
be borne
in mind,
(e.g. labour market

participation,
in this context, but also cultural
been
between
the hypothesis
across
in SWB
contrast,
shown
that
that not only
however,
income,
factors
the cross-cultural
structural
parliamentary
(e.g.
variation
attitudes,
characteristics
representation)
gender
in attitudes
of a society
play a role
might
it has
stereotypes).
Although
are
towards women
and men
connected with societal gender inequality (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004), culture
be important
in its own right. For instance,
the magnitude
might
the "Big Five"
traits
differs
between
cultures
personality
(Costa
of gender
et al. 2001).
differences
in
These
gender
be relevant
to
are smaller
in personality
in traditional
societies.
itmight
Hence,
at the interaction
between
structural gender
and
the
cultural
of
inequality
acceptance
of women
and men
could
affect
gender
inequality.
Unequal
living conditions
possibly
female
and male
more
SWB
in societies
where
societal
attitudes
strongly
predominant
differences
look
demand
gender
equality.
5 Transmitting Societal Gender
Inequality to Subjective Weil-Being
it seems necessary
to explain
Finally,
to individual
transmitted
well-being
how
on
on the societal macro

gender
inequality
the micro-level.
Individual
SWB
depends
level
on
is
the
4y Springer
332
C. Tesch-R?mer
et al.
are able
to reach goals
and Rother
and ambitions
(Brandtst?dter
people
and happiness
of a
increases
satisfaction
Reaching
important personal
goals
and Biswas-Diener
if this might be moderated
(Diener
by individual motives
to which
extent
mund
2002).
even
person,
2002; Diener and Fujita 1995; Srivastava et al. 2001), control beliefs (Lachman and
Weaver
or
1998),
Individual
2003).
labour
market
assumed
like accomodation
and Rothermund
(Brandtst?dter
strategies
coping
like
like education
and income, as well as opportunities,
action resources,
can
are
for
of
It
be
the
successful
necessary
goals.
participation,
pursuit
with more
people
As
resources
and opportunities
are, on average,
are thus unhappier
and
less satisfied
goals?and
resources
and opportunities.
that people
with fewer
in reaching
personal
successful
women
action
have
fewer
action
resources
action
that they are less successful

and less satisfied
unhappier
assumed
average
less
than
than men,
it can be
and societal
opportunities
on
in reaching
and, consequently,
important
goals
than men.
In terms of cross-cultural
this
research,
could be tested by separating

societal
and individual
Hence,
assumption
gender
inequality.
a
women
could
be made
between
and men
in different
societies
who
have
comparison
to action resources
similar access
and opportunities
control would
be for action
(statistical
resources
and
when
countries
which
differ in societal
opportunities
gender
comparing
are
can
If
the
above
it
in
be
that gender differences
true,
inequality).
assumptions
expected
to gender differences
SWB
become
smaller and country effects relating
in SWB
decrease
a result would
resources
when
for individual
action
and opportunities.
Such
controlling
indicate
resources
that action
macro-structures
societal
and
(gender
opportunities
and
inequality)
form
connects
which
the mechanism
individual
micro-structure
(subjective
well-being).
6 Hypotheses
on
Based
test
these
arguments,
a macro-level
and
inequality
average
ences in SWB
we
will
hypothesis
First we will
hypotheses.
between
societal
gender
relationship
in SWB.
"The
size of average
differ
gender
test macro-
gender
and micro-level
the
concerning
differences
is positively correlated with indicators of societal gender inequality (in
countries
with
societies
(or countries)
higher
there are larger gender differences)".

inequality
are the unit of analysis
(we will use aggregated
In this hypothesis,
for 57 countries
data
from theWorld Values Survey; Inglehart et al. 2004).
to analyse
the link between
the societal macro-level
and the individual micro
test the assumption
for individual
that controlling
action resources
leads to a
decrease
of gender differences
in SWB.
This analysis will be done with a comparative
data
set involving micro-level
in societies
data on individuals
nested
OASIS,
(Research
project
In order
level, we will
Age
and Autonomy:
Solidarity";
"Old
Motel-Klingebiel
The
Role
of Service
et al. 2005).
For
and Intergenerational
Systems
to be systematic,
country
analyses
Family
effects in
SWB gender differences need to be established (which is somewhat redundant to the first
"Countries
in the extent of societal
show diverse
hypothesis).
varying
gender
inequality
next
in
the
differences
SWB".
When
this
has
been
established,
gender
hypotheses
predict
resources.
the effects of controlling
for individual
action
"Gender
differences
decrease
after
effects
and
controlling
in gender
level
for
individual
differences
resources
decrease
after
(income
and
controlling
level
of
education)".
resources
for individual
of education)".
4y Springer
"Country
(income
in a Comparative
Gender Differences
333
Perspective
7 Method
In the following, two data sets are described, (a) The World Values Survey (WVS)
worldwide
of
investigation
and
socio-cultural
political
and
change
focuses
is a
on
mainly
political, gender, and economic attitudes (Inglehart et al. 2004). (b) The project OASIS
on quality
five European
countries
and focused
of life and on the relevance
of
are
and family
in
adulthood.
details
described
support
Methodological
involved
service
systems
elsewhere (Motel-Klingebiel et al. 2003).
7.1
Data
Aggregated
from
the World
Values
Survey
In order to testHypothesis 1 (size of gender differences in SWB is positively correlated

with
indicators
of gender
we
inequality),
analyzed
data
aggregated
of 57
countries
from
the fourthwave of theWorld Values Survey (European Values Study Group andWorld
Values
Association
Since
interviews
have
out with
been
carried
1981,
2006).
Survey
from more
than 80
societies.
Two
nationally
representative
samples
methodological
caveats
as a unit of analysis.
should
be mentioned
in introducing
First, we
"country"
a precise
use
definition
and will
the concepts
and "society"
forego
synon
"country"
in the present
context
aside
the complex
relations
and interactions
of
ymously
(leaving
country,
and
society,
countries
in
(e.g.
to
respect
to heterogeneity
comparison
macro-indicators
only.
In the current analyses,
on Relative
Female
were
used:
assume
between
countries.
data
aggregated
that
the
or
states,
describe
were
countries
used
your
state of health
("All
Life
Satisfaction
these days?",
a whole
your
things
answer
where
how
considered,
on
range
options
low
the countries
available
from the UN Human
Activity was
the case
see appendix).
for 57 countries,
Three
General
life as
with
is
communities)
regions,
we will
Hence,
from
within
heterogeneity
Economic
(this was
2002
Report
WVS
we
Secondly,
autonomous
culture).
in
by
information
Development
items from the
satisfied
ten point
are you
scale
from
1= dissatisfied to 10 = satisfied), Subjective Health ("All in all, how would you describe
Gender
these
Norms
Equality
answer
than women",
and
Satisfaction
options:
are
jobs
options:
Subjective
not available with
answer
days?",
("When
agree,
neither,
was
selected
Health
the WVS.
answer
values
category.
from
female
average
have
values,
women
lower
Gender
mean
values
differences
per
life satisfaction
on average
have
mean
were
were
country
and
higher
(in
data
are
are
available
more
calculated
the case
subjective
life satisfaction
for 28
by
subtracting
of negative
than men;
and.
subjective
with
disagreeing
data
countries.
of
for general
from the relative
calculated
the percentage
of persons
norms,
gender
equality
used. For life satisfaction
norms
and gender
equality
health
subjective
selected
57 countries
good,
have
levels
health
For
for
fair, and
and
poor),
right to a job
and disagree).
The
items General
Life
was
because
the instrument WHOQOL
very good,
men
should
the online analysis module
Using
(www.worldvaluessurvey.com/services/index.htm),
tion and subjective
health
for both genders
per
scarce,
are
In
available
the WVS
life satisfac
frequencies
mean
male
values,
women
in case
of positive
than men).
health
the statement
for 57
the appendix,
on
was
countries,
data
for
the
listed.
4y Springer
334
et al.
C. Tesch-R?mer
7.2 Individual Level Data From theOASIS

In order
differences
from theOASIS
7.2.1
to 4
to test Hypotheses
in SWB
and
country
Project
resources
for individual
(controlling
in SWB
effects
differences),
gender
decreases
we
analysed
gender
data
project.
Countries
OASIS
in the OASIS
considered
countries
England,
Germany,
project?Norway,
Spain,
different
types of welfare
types of gender
Israel?represent
regimes with different
on a societal
level (see Kondratowitz
the Scandina
2003).
represents
inequality
Norway
to
vian social-democratic
welfare
the
liberal
and
model,
regime, England
Germany
belongs
states
the conservadve-corporatist
of
welfare
1990,
1999).
group
(Esping-Andersen
Spain
The
five
and
has
been
described
as
Israel
as a mixed
and
1996),
Most
an
or Mediterranean
of the 'Southern
model'
(Ferrara
example
cannot be attributed
to any of the regimes
which
model
alone.
context
in the present
relevant
is the dimension
of societal
gender
inequality
as
defined by theUnited Nations (United Nations Development Programme 2002): avail

economic
and political
power.
ability of income,
activity,
ment Programme
has introduced
three respective
indicators
Female
(Table
1). A first indicator, Relative
empirically
female
to male
income
earned
earned
income
(if the value
on unequal
is equal).
A second
indicator offers information
Relative
is
the
of
the female
Female
Economic
share
Activity
The
United
Nations
to represent
Income,
refers
is 100, female
access
Develop
these dimensions
to the ratio
and male
of
income
to the labour market:
15 and above
aged
population
for the production
of goods
and services
(a
to supply,
labour
supply, or are available
A third indicator relates
of 100 shows equal
economic
activity rates of both genders).
to gender
terms
in
of
The
of
Seats Held
power.
Parliamentary
by
proportion
equality
Women
indicates
the distribution
of power between
of 50 shows an equal
(a value
genders
who
value
seats for women

of parliamentary
and men).
The
on gender
has combined
indicators
inequality
and
income
into one
economic
sentation,
participation,
share
United
Programme
repre
regarding
parliamentary
Empowerment
single Gender
which
Measure,
is also
1 Macro-indices
Table
included
in Table
for the five OASIS
countries
empowerment measure
Relative
female
Relative
female economic
income
activity
seats held by women
Parliamentary
Gross
domestic product per capitaa

for distribution of equivalised
income (new OECD
scale)b
disposable
Gini-coefficient
household
Development
1.
Norway
Gender
Nations
.837
% 64
% 84
England
.684
61
74
Germany
.765
50
69
Israel
.596
52
67
Spain
.702
43
56
36.4
17.1
31.0
13.3
26.6
27.700
22.800
23.400
18.900
18.000
.38
.33
.26
.33
.28
2000 with purchasing power parity. Source: CIA?Central

Intelligence Agency (2001); information for
England isUK data
b
for Economic Co-Operation
and Development
2000, Germany: 2001. Source: OECD?Organisation
(2005), p. 55; information for England isUK data. Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics Israel (2005), p. 235.
Spain: Eurostat (2005)
<? Springer
in a Comparative
Gender Differences
335
Perspective
we have
two indicators measuring
societal
wealth
and
selected
general
Additionally,
of all goods
is the value
The Gross Domestic
Product
societal
(GDP)
general
inequality.
shows the
within a country in a given year, while
the GDP
and services produced
per capita
The GDP
is an
divided
of the respective
GDP
per capita
country.
by the population
of a country's
indicator
power
purchasing
of the distribution
parity
of a society's
The
resources.
in case
be zero, while
the index would
Gini
7.2.2
OASIS
The
Coefficient
If income
of perfect
(Atkinson 1970, 1983; Gini 1955).
of the OASIS
project
sample
of
the urban population
sample
countries.
the participating
were
included.
were
the Gini
inequality,
was
urban
and
drawn
coefficient
be
would
aged
Israel
areas
with
Germany
as a representative,
disproportionally
living in private households
in
25 and older
and
In Norway
In Spain
all
in England
while
searched,
as
is an
sample
survey
stratified
on a
here
is adjusted
applied
indicator of the overall
inequality
distributed with perfect equality,
on GDPs
Information
wealth.
basis.
all three existing urban units

respectively,
re
were
and more
inhabitants
100,000
selection
of
such
areas
urban
was
made
were
120 wards
which
considered
six major
repre
regions with
(England:
of
sentative
of the English
urban
random
selection
31 urban
areas; Germany:
regions
to participants
in the partici
within
16 states).
differed
Sampling
strategies with respect
to
to
countries
in
order
national
best
the
pating
optimize
sampling
procedure
according
selection
practice
of
and
(Spain
Israel:
sufficient
overall
sample
mixture
samples.
size was N = 6.106
total sample
place between September 2000 andMay 2001.

7.2.3
OASIS
The
Germany:
route and
random
sampling
register
stratified
sampling;
was disproportionally
sample
for the oldest old. Table
2 gives an overview
sizes
The
route procedure;
of random
random
municipality
registries; Norway:
use of electoral
The
registers).
(age
by age
of the national
to 102 years).
25
on
based
England:
for
allowing
and
Interviews
the
took
Instruments
examinations
presented
here
will
focus
on
the
short
version
of
the WHOQOL
(Hawthorne et al. 2006; Lowenstein et al. 2002; WHOQOL Group 1994) which was used
in theOASIS project. Quality of life is seen here as the individual's interpretationof the
current
living
compared
situation
with
The WHOQOL
and
social
age,
Health
under
expectations,
covers
instrument
as four major
status, and other
relationships
occupational
scale comprises
2 Overview
Table
the condition
their goals,
Age
Proportion
and
of the OASIS
culture,
norms
and
values
interests.
health, psychological
health,
physical
to assessment
life domains
accessible
socio-demographical
items on activities
of daily
living,
status
energy
variables.
and
environment,
of
irrespective
The Physical
fatigue,
dependence
sample
Norway
Female
of their respective
standards
56
England
Germany
63
58
799
398
798
Israel
Spain
58
56
816
385
839
369
Structure
25-74
790
75+
413
1,203
Sample
Size
1,197
499
1,297
1,208
1,201
4y Springer
336
C. Tesch-R?mer
on medicinal
substances
on work
and
appearance,
religion,
and medical
aids, mobility,
Health
The
prevalence
as well
as thinking,
living conditions
health
and social
and
pain
scale
Psychological
of positive
and
capacity.
sleep and
the bodily
image
discomfort,
depicts
items on financial
rest,
and
and
spirituality
Scale
aims at
self-esteem,
negative
feelings,
and concentration.
The Environment
learning
and includes
et al.
safety and
in and
environment,
security,
transportation,
participation
for
recreation
leisure
and
and
the
activities,
opportunities
ecological
learning opportunities
environment.
The
scale on Social
Relations
items on personal
comprises
relationships,
social
The
scales
show low to moderate
correlations
with each other
support and sexuality.
et al. 2006,
inter-correlations
between
.37 and
.64).
(e.g. Hawthorne
report scale
measuring
care,
resources,
were
the scores on the four subscales
analyses,
models
that allow
the estimation
of measurement
In the current
measurement
feature
of
errors,
thus
physical
home
obtained
by latent variable
errors. Another
important
this approach
is the option
for modelling
structures between
covariance
these
shared method
variance
of items. This became
taking into account
necessary
because
of the heterogeneous
format of the WHOQOL
items. To
arrive at a
response
of country
invariance
between
all five
effects, measurement
meaningful
interpretation
countries was
into all models.
Both
the reliability
coefficients
and relevant fit
incorporated
indices of the four measurement
models?as
in Table
3?indicate
summarized
satisfactory
measurement
of
the
scales
Most
properties
employed.
importantly,
configurai
equivalence
1992) is given for all countries on the four variables. Although the
(Horn and McArdle
scale measuring
social
instrument
b).
is very
relationships
short,
its reliability
coefficient
is acceptable.
Group offers a detailed discussion of the psychometric properties of the
The WHOQOL
a special
with
on cross-cultural
emphasis
research
(WHOQOL
1998a8,
Group
The testingof Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 requires variables measuring the indi
vidual
endowment
with
and vocational
schooling
tional level was
associated
levels
respondent's
household
To
measure
training. Three
with primary
we
Education
levels
of education
size
and
used
were
was
The
income
Table
composition.
adjustment
by
et al. 1992; Figini
1998, 2000).
(e.g., Coulter
of missing
data in the OASIS
data set?with
the exception
income
and
satisfaction
with
very rare. Missing
sexuality?was
Psychometric
properties of theWHOQOL
Physical
health
Discrepancy
.80b.77c
= 462 20
RMSEA
.03
.98CFI
Number
of Items
health
8
3
of the items
data
were
Environment
Social
relationships
.65d
= 441 52
educa
scales
Psychological
.87a
Reliability
low
for
adjusted
new OECD
per capita
the so called
done
scale
equivalent
The occurrence
measuring
on both
information
defined.
of schooling
with no vocational
training. An
level schooling
plus vocational
training or
levels were defined as higher education.
The
level
level was
indicated
by primary
of schooling
without. All higher
Income
position was measured
by a household
intermediate
higher
resources.
.03
.03
.05
.96
.95
.92
590 91
19g 72
Note: Reliability coefficients computed with list-wise deletion of cases with missing values, latent variable
model fit indices computed with FIML missing data handling procedure;
aN = 5.856; bN = 5.841;
CN= 5.785; dN = 4.970
4y Springer
Gender Differences
in a Comparative
337
Perspective
handled with theFull InformationMaximum Likelihood estimation procedure (Arbuckle

1994, 1996) provided by theAMOS software (Arbuckle 2003).
8 Results
results
Again,
sets are
two data
from
results
(a) Firstly,
reported,
are
which
reported
are
based on theWorld Values Survey (WVS). The analyses of theWVS data are devoted to
testing the hypothesis that the extent of societal gender inequality is correlated with the
size of gender differences in SWB (Hypothesis 1). (b) Secondly, we reportanalyses from
the project
The
OASIS.
of
analyses
the OASIS
data
on
focus
the mechanism
which
transmitssocietal gender inequality to individual SWB (Hypotheses 2 to 4).
8.1 Aggregated Data from theWorld Values Survey

8.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Extent of Societal Gender Inequality
In
the first step,
it was
differences
gender
examined
and
indices
is a relationship
For
these
inequality.
there
whether
of gender
the extent
between
data
analyses,
from
of
the
Survey (WVS) was used. In order to testHypothesis 1 (societal gender
World Values
to size
of gender
inequality
related
calculated
for all 57 countries.

r - ?.01).
Health
differences
in SWB),
the correlation
between
Relative
Female Economic Activity Rate with General Life Satisfaction and Subjective Health were
Subjective
are
correlations
at societal
Looking
low
(General
gender
Life
equality
Satisfaction
alone
does
not
r=?.10,
confirm
1.
Hypothesis
it could
However,
the cultural
structural
Both
attitudes
variable
gender
inequality),
and men
equally.
be
that the effects
about
Relative
the idea
Female
we
considered
For
this purpose,
on a societal
of gender
on
level depend
inequality
of "gender
itself. Hence,
in addition
to the
equality"
Economic
the societal
of
Activity
aspect
(indicating
the attitudes
we
took
shared
into
in a culture
account
about
the country
treating women
specific
Gender
Equality Norms which reflect the cultural aspect of gender inequality.Agreeing with the
statement
shows
"When
acceptance
countries
where
countries,
less
should have more

jobs are scarce, men
of inequality.
were
The
57 countries
on the labour market
gender
inequality
than 50%
where
of the total population

gender
inequality
and more
of the total population
disagreed
with
disagreed
is widely
right
to a job
divided
into
categories:
is widely
(in these
accepted
with this statement)
and countries
50%
(in these countries,
rejected
this statement).
For instance,
inMorocco
only 7.9% of the total population disagreed with the statement,while

proportion
than women"
two
in Iceland the
was
of people
94.3%.
disagreeing
at the two groups of countries,
a different
(see
pattern of correlations
emerged
is widely
there
gender
inequality
accepted,
a negative
correlation
between
the indicator of societal
and the two indicators
inequality
=
r = ?.28;
of SWB
r
Health:
In
in countries
(Life Satisfaction:
contrast,
?.40).
Subjective
where
was
a
cor
is widely
there
gender
inequality
rejected,
positive
relation between
the indicator
of societal
and the two indicators
of SWB
(Life
inequality
r = + .24;
r = + .43). The effect sizes of these correlations
Satisfaction:
Health:
Subjective
=
=.
none of the coefficients
between
.06
and
are significant
18.
R2
R2
range
(due to
Although
Fig.
was
Looking
1). In countries
where
4y Springer
C. Tesch-R?mer
338
Countries ACCEPTING
-0,4
20
Gender
I.1
60
40
40
2060
Economic
Countries REJECTING Gender
Inequality
80
-0,4 1.A.I
20
100
0,3 t-1
0,3 -j
100
20
80
Activity Rate
et al.
Inequality
40
60
80
40
60 100
80
100
Economic Activity Rate
Fig. 1 Correlations between economic activity rate and gender differences in life satisfaction and subjective
health for countries where gender inequality on the labour market is widely accepted or rejected
the small
between
the negative
are
1.86, p <
.05, subjective
size), the differences

sample
z =
(life satisfaction:
significant
countries
characterized
by acceptance
labour market
countries
leads
is related
where
to higher
gender
feelings
on the
of gender
actual gender
inequality,
equality
to lower feelings of SWB
as compared
tomen. However,
inwomen
in
on
is
actual
the
labour
market
inequality
rejected,
gender equality
as compared
tomen.
of SWB
in women
8.2 Individual Level Data from theOASIS

Data
from
these
which
the OASIS
are
data
relate
involve
used
societal
three
steps:
and positive pairs of correlations

health:
z - 1.97, p < .05). In
Project
come
from countries
Hence,
project
rejecting
gender
inequality.
in the second
set of analyses.
The
focus here
is on the mechanisms
to individual
The
gender
inequality
subjective
analyses
well-being.
we
test
if
the
OASIS
countries
which
in the extent of
First,
vary
societal gender inequality show diverse gender differences in SWB (Hypothesis 2). Then
we
for
control
individual
resources
(income
and
level
of education)
and
test
if gender
differences decline (Hypothesis 3) and if country effects in gender differences decline

(Hypothesis 4).
to test the hypotheses,
were
four multi-group
For
regression models
computed.
are presented
of clarity, models
to the hypotheses
and their relationship
4
in Table
were
models
used
for the analyses
of the hypotheses
2 to 4 and
(multi-group
regression
In order
the sake
were based on individual level data from the OASIS project). Although hierarchical
regression models (cf. Bryk and Raudenbush 1992) would conceptually better fit the
structure
of the data,
the countries
(Maas
was
this type of analysis
cf. Bowers
2005;
and Hox
abandoned
due
and Drake
2005).
to the small
size of
sample
The measurement
models
Springer
Gender Differences
in a Comparative
Table
of the latent variable models
4 Overview
Model
339
Perspective
and corresponding
hypotheses
effect estimated for each country separately; income and education effect fixed to zero
Gender
across countries;
fixed to zero
Model
Equal
Model
Gender
Model
1 values (i.e., without income and education

Gender effect fixed for each countries to itsModel
as covariates); income and education considered as covariates
Model
Equal
gender effect assumed
income and education
effect estimated for each country separately;

covariates
across countries;
gender effect assumed
considered
as
as covariates
considered
Hypothesis
Countries varying in the extent of societal gender inequality show diverse gender differences in
2 SWB: Comparing Model
2 with Model
1
Hypothesis
Gender
Hypothesis
4
Country effects in gender differences disappear after controlling for income and level of
education: Comparing Model
5 with Model
3
3Model
above
after controlling for income and level of education: Comparing
differences decline
4 with Model
3
were
for the dependent

variables.
Note
that the following
employed
one analysis).
four times (for each dependent
variable
there was
repeated
was
a
to
Model
1
to
and
extent
establish
baseline
estimate
the
of gender
Firstly,
computed
was
effect in the five countries
to
Model
1
also
used
confirm
the
fact
that
there are
separately.
presented
were
analyses
as suggested
indeed gender effects in SWB
effects were calculated
by the literature. Gender
of a standardized
coefficient
5 (respective
by means
regression
(?). As can be seen in Table
'
rows denoted by
'Model
1"), there are significant gender effects on all four scales measuring
in the first row of Fig. 2). In
(these effects are graphically
subjective
well-being
depicted
men
women
not
and
do
different
for the scales
however,
Norway,
report
subjective well-being
Health
Psychological
Social
Relationships.
In all other
subjective
This
8.2.1
well-being.
2:
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
ences.
To
countries,
finding
Societal
the same
Relationships;
findings
replicates
Gender
to England
for the scale
applies
women
lower
reported
significantly
in the literature.
reported
however,
Inequality
that there are significant

in respect
country effects
this Hypothesis,
Model
2 with fixed gender
differences
with Model
were
differences
1, where
compared
gender
countries.
and Bonnet
Social
stated
test
was
countries
across
and
1980)
the two models
Since
was
applicable.
The
are nested,
chi-squared
chi-squared
to vary
allowed
difference
values
discrepancy
to gender
differ
across
the five
test (Bentler
for Models
1 and
and the difference between them are displayed in Table 6 (row denoted by "Model
Model
for a chi-squared
difference with four degrees
there is a significant
effect for the
Consequently,
of gender
differences
for the scales Physical
Health,
1 [Hypothesis
1]"). The critical
is 9.49 at the 5%-error-level.
of freedom
OASIS
countries
Psychological
of the gender
women
8.2.2
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
the effects
education
value
the size
regarding
Health
and Social Relationships,
but not for the scale Environment.
differences
described
above
varies between
countries.
Differences
and men
in SWB
3:
are
Individual
3 focused
of gender
as covariates
on
smaller
in Norway
Resources
the relevance
and
and
Gender
of individual
In Model
inequality.
in the calculations.
3,
As
larger
and
size
between
Israel.
Differences
resources
therefore,
can
in Spain
The
be
we
see
as
compensating
have
included
in the lower
rows
factors
income
of Table
for
and
5
4y Springer
340
Table
C. Tesch-R?mer
gender effect by country both before

income and level of education
5 Estimated
individual
Model
Gender
(Model
3) controlling for
effect3
Norway
England
Model
1
-.13***
-.08*
Model
-.08**
-.04
(N= 1203) (N = 1197)
Physical Health
1) and after (Model
et al.
Germany
(N = 1297)
Israel
-.11***
.
Spain
(N= 1208) (N = 1201)
j3 ***
-.06*
-.20***
_
ii***
3
Psychological
Health
Environment
Model
1
.00
-.08*
Model
3
.04
-.05
Model
1
-.09**
Model
-.04
j2***
?.13***
-.07 **
-.07 **
-.06
-.10**
. 13***
-.04
-.05
-.06*
-.07*
.08
-.06
-.15***
-.10**
-.10**
.10
-.04
-.10***
-.04
-.03
io***
**
i5***
3
Social Relationships
Model
1
Model
3
tests computed
Significance
gender on subjective well-being
Note:
Nor.Eng Ger Spa
Isr
one-tailed:
p <
Nor Eng Ger Spa
Fig. 2 Estimated gender effects by country before

individual income and level of education
.05,
1er
**
p <
.01,
***
p <
Nor Eng Ger Spa
.001; aBeta weight
1er
(?) of
Nor Eng Ger Spa
(upper row) and after (lower row) controlling
I
for
(denoted by ''Model 3"), gender differences decrease after controlling for individual
resources, but do not disappear completely.With the exception of England, thereare still
significantgender differences aftercontrolling for income and education. This result is not
surprising,given the fact that thereare various other factors, like gender stereotypes, that
might be connected to gender differences in SWB, but were not considered here. We
thereforetestedwhether thegender effect is significantlysmaller if individual resources are
included. This was, technically speaking, tested by comparingModel 3 with Model 4, a
model inwhich the effect of covariates was considered but the gender effect coefficients
?} Springer
in a Comparative
Gender Differences
fit comparisons
6 Nested model
Table
health
Physical
=
#168
=
x?72
=
A?
Model
Model
2-Model
Model
health
Psychological
1631.01
Xm
1641.76
Xw
10.75*
A?
761.55
?29
Social
Environment
1427.35
?23
1439.07
?7
1946.89
x?2
1949.43
xle
11.72*
A?
887-22
X213
2.53
relationships
=748-30
=
772-86
A?
24.56*
2)
(Hypothesis
Model
Model
Model
4-Model
?58=
z263
A^
3)
(Hypothesis
Model
Model
341
Perspective
774 00
12.45*
^
A^
=766-82
XL
5-Model
Aj?
?13
5.27
Axj
1090.47
110i.93
??
11.46*
Axj
1091.46
xle
897M
10.21a
A^
897-20
10.05*
=
X217
=
A?
?2
.99
349-l7
356 61
=
=
A?
7.44
367-24
18.07*
(Hypothesis 4)
Atote: ap <
.10,
p <
.05
to their original
fixed
1. The
from Model
values
tests can be found
difference
chi-square
in
themiddle of Table 6 (row denoted by "Model 4-Model 3 [Hypothesis 3]"). The critical
effects are indeed
is 11.07. Gender
of freedom
degrees
Health
for
the
scales
Health,
smaller)
Physical
Psychological
for this test with
value
different
nificantly
Environment
cantly
(i.e.
after
for
change
five
and
for income
accounting
the scale
Social
education.
They
was
which
Relationships,
do
not, however,
the scale
signifi
the
with
sig
and
largest
gender differences. This effect is graphically depicted in Fig. 2 (for the scales Physical
Health,
Psychological
greater
significantly
is controlled
8.2.3
the gender
effects
in the lower row, where
effects
education
and
are
income
for).
4:
Hypothesis
Individual
and
Resources
Country
Differences
4 stated
Hypothesis
To
would
decrease.
after
row
in the upper
and Environment
Health,
than the gender
and education,
that after controlling
for income
test this hypothesis,
Model
5, that assumed
equal
was
set up. This model
for income
and education,
controlling
3, which
the country
effect
differences
gender
was
to
compared
test was
This
countries.
across
does not assume
equal
gender differences
for the scales where
in gender
effects were
differences
found,
initially
only significant
and
The critical value
i.e. Physical
Health
Social
for
Health,
Relationships.
Psychological
at the 5%-error
test with
of freedom
is 9.49
this chi-squared
four degrees
difference
Model
level.
As
can
[Hypothesis
Health
logical
However,
be
4]"),
for
and
the
seen
in
gender
Social
the
last
row
differences
Relationships
scale
Health,
Physical
If individual
endowment
longer present:
no longer gender
differences
of gender
inequality.
of Table
between
in Physical
5-Model
3
by "Model
for the scales
Psycho
income.
for education
and
(denoted
countries
remain
after controlling
in gender
differences
effects
country
resources
with
is taken into account,
Health
between
countries
with
are
no
there
are
different
levels
9 Discussion
The
focus
structures
of this study was gender differences

on a societal
level. This focus called
in SWB
that result
for a comparative
from unequal
approach
opportunity
and, consequently,
4y Springer
et al.
C. Tesch-R?mer
342
a selection
of countries
which
level. The
countries
Values
Survey,
the OASIS
data
in the OASIS
selected
Two
data sets were
inequality.
a large
The WVS
project).
provides
on the individual
set allows
detailed
analyses
are representative
of different types of
project
in the extent
differ
for the analyses

(World
sample of countries, whereas
used
of gender
OASIS
of the results
1990, 1999) and thus allow a generalization
regimes
(Esping-Andersen
vis ? vis other comparable
countries.
the
of
best
Furthermore,
application
practice
sampling
and well-defined
the external validity of the OASIS
enhance
data.
populations
welfare
In
we
the WVS,
on
inequality
found
the country
in a society,
inequality
of the OASIS
data also
evidence
level
for
and
gender
correlation
between
differences
indicators
in SWB:
The
of
gender
larger the gender

1). The analysis
in SWB
the larger gender differences
(Hypothesis
to moderate?disadvantage
shows a consistent?low
of women
in
respect to SWB (Hypothesis 2). However, the original Hypothesis 1 has to be modified.
a culture of gender
in countries
is there a positive
Only
favouring
equality
relationship
between
extent
societal
and
of
in indicators
of SWB.
differences
gender
inequality
gender
on the labour market,
If the majority
of a population
rejects
gender
gender
inequality
on the labour
in SWB
differences
with
decrease
for both genders
equality
increasing
market
is related to small gender differences
in SWB).
(higher gender equality
Conversely,
in countries

gender
inequality
increase with higher equality
of women
structures and
the interplay between
societal
where
differences
is widely
on
in SWB
the data
show
demand
for gender
associated
has a cultural
equality
levels of SWB.
equal
with
data we
In the OASIS
base
cultural
which
belief.
treatment
is the equal
the mechanisms
explored
the gender
accepted,
the labour market.
Hence,
transmit
the
Only where
of men
and women
gender
on the
inequality
societal level to SWB on the individual level. This was done by controlling for individual
resources
(education,
resources
like competencies
goal attainment
successful
The
income).
(i.e.
assumption
education)
behind
in turn influences
which
these analyses
and finances
income)
three of
the four
scales
Hypothesis
scale
(Physical
one
considered
3). However,
Health)
supported
by the
in
effects
gender
Health
and Environ
is partially
reduces
Health,
(Physical
Psychological
in gender
effects
differences
country
when
that action
are
SWB.
access
to unequal
to action
differences
resources,
crease when
for these resources.
This
controlling
interpretation
of OASIS
data. Controlling
for income
and education
analyses
ment;
is the idea
for
prerequisites
are due
If gender effects in SWB
women
and men
de
between
should
(i.e.
for
and
income
only
decreased
for
education
4).
controlling
(Hypothesis
the analyses
of the OASIS
data hint at the importance
of gender
in
differences
action resources
in SWB. However,
for explaining
(education,
income)
gender differences
to goal attainment which were
not
there might be other resources
that are more
proximal
in the data sets used for these analyses.
measured
it
be
that
other
might
possible
Finally,
Hence,
factors
are
relevant
for gender
differences
in SWB,
like negative
stereotypes (Glick et al. 2004).
9.1 Methodological
The
these
results
should
be
the basic
discussed
at their theoretical
looking
the
association
between
concerning
on a large sample of countries,
there
before
although
implications.
Firstly,
analyses
were based
and gender differences
gender
inequality
as in the OASIS
in the macro-micro-linkage,
is a major
drawback
are
involved.
The
problem
of
sample
representative
gender
Considerations
of
validity
or ambivalent
of generalization,
countries
or/and
however,
can
restricting
the
study only five countries

a
controlled
by selecting
to
those
of
inference
range
be
4y Springer
in a Comparative
Gender Differences
for which
countries
the
is representative.
The
countries
selected
sample
states. Of course
of European
welfare
it could be
are representative
on a national
aggregation
project
lower
level
however,
343
Perspective
level
not
does
take intra-national
in the OASIS
that an
argued
into account
and that a
variation
a more fine-graded
provide
not tested here.
of aggregation
would
(e.g., counties)
is an open empirical
and was
question
picture.
This,
as mentioned
there are complex
relations
the
between
Secondly,
already,
conceptual
constructs
and
to
"culture".
in
effects
"country",
"society",
respect
Country
gender
were
to a specific
differences
attributed
of society
However,
aspect
(gender
inequality).
not mean
this does
that cultural
factors are insignificant
in this context:
The
attitudes
toward
"gender
and
inequality
vary
depending
the analyses
Thirdly,
on
For
the level
were
norm moderated
in
differences
gender
were not tested here.
dimensions
might
as a societal
equality"
SWB.
on
interactions
the extent
instance,
of societal
based
the association
Moreover,
and
impact
between
gender
societal
between
of societal
inequality
wealth.
two
studies
which
defined
subjective
well-being
While theWVS used single item indicators for two aspects of SWB
(SWB) differently.
(life satisfaction, subjective health), theOASIS project used a an established SWB scale
short form,with the four scales Physical Health, Psychological Health,
(WHOQOL
Social
Environment,
are
there
four
WVS,
Relations).
commonalities
scales
in the OASIS
was
health
subjective
measured
Health in theOASIS
also
emotional
SWB
(Diener
showed
between
the heterogeneous
and instruments,
definitions
Despite
the two studies.
Satisfaction
with
life (single
item in
was
central
in
both
studies.
construct
The
of
project)
in both
as well
studies
(single
item
inWVS,
scale
Physical
project), which is not only an indicatorof somatic health, but reflects

Hence,
well-being.
were
2000)
one
represented
could
that cognitive
studies. Moreover,
argue
in both
and
emotional
of
aspects
the fact that both studies
results
instrument
the argument.
despite
heterogeneous
strengthens
the
some
has
advan
problems,
comparative
approach
definitely
significant
were
to study the effects of macro-structural
able
on individual
characteristics
convergent
these
Despite
tages. We
outcome
variables.
a sample
This
is not possible
from a single population.
In
by drawing
that gender effects vary as a function of
structures on a societal
opportunity
is also required on the macro
level. It was also possible
to show that similar
level, variation
access
to action relevant
mechanisms
resources
like education
are related
and income
to show
order
to SWB
gender
societies
might
differences
be due
in various
to cultural
societies.
or societal
mechanisms (Daatland andMotel-Klingebiel
9.2
Theoretical
The
Hence,
differences
environments,
which
between
operate
cultures
with
and
universal
2006).
Implications
results
here show that the size of gender differences

in subjective
presented
well-being
societal
and cultural norms
This
gender
inequality
regarding
gender
equality.
that gender effects in well-being
evidence
an ubiquitous
study provides
go beyond
gender
factor. If biology were
the sole cause for a gender effect in well-being,
this effect would
not
across
countries.
vary
varies
with
Firstly,
cultural
the results
beliefs
other. Although
and
of
norms
this
on
it is necessary
the complex
study show
the one hand, and societal
to monitor
national
and
and
interactions
relationships
on
structures and institutions
regional
in gender
development
equality and to analyse the influence of policies on gender equality (Di Noia
Michalos
background
of
the
2002;
seems necessary
and Straus
it also
to take the cultural
1988),
Sugarman
into account.
at our analyses,
not lead to small
Looking
gender equality would
2000;
4y Springer
344
C. Tesch-R?mer
et al.
differences in SWB in all countries (with theirdifferentcultural bases). It could be that in

cultures
the role identity of women

is in conflict with
gender
inequalities,
in the labour market)
and leads to gender
roles (e.g. participating
et al. 2001). On the other
for women
lower mean
levels of SWB
(cf. Costa
which
certain
accept
non-traditional
differences
with
in countries
which
accept, welcome
of genders
has a positive
effect: Under
gender differences
hand,
the results of the present

Secondly,
women
as well
to SWB?for
relevant
on the European
policies
in the context
of access
ferences
between
equality
between
of
availability
to the
encourage
cultural
level
to disappear.
access
that individual
are aimed
market
conditions,
equality
equality
seem
in SWB
study show
as for men.
labour
societal
equality,
with
increasing
gender
In European
at improving
(Gerhards
to resources
countries
are
in particular,
gender equality, mainly

there are dif
Although
to
in
their
attitudes
homogeneous
2005).
they are relatively

countries
where
is highly
the
genders.
gender
regarded,
equality
resources
to goal-directed
relevant
behaviour
be
the
between
link
might
countries,
European
In
on the macro-level
on the micro-level.
in SWB
and gender differences
inequality
results have
for gender
differences
and theoretical
models
of SWB.
implications
are linked to societal
these results show that gender differences
in SWB
inequality
gender
These
Hence,
and national
and
these
thereby indicating equity problems in relation to gender equality (Sen 2004).

a debate
on whether
or bottom-up
is regulated
SWB
by top-down
theorists
have
that
1991).
(e.g. Headey
tempera
Personality
emphasized
a powerful
ment
and individual
traits have
effect on SWB.
of the top-down
Proponents
'
some individuals
seem to be happy
have argued,
that
perspective
'despite circumstances,
some
et al. 1981, p. 79). On
the other hand,
from a
(Costa
people,
people"
unhappy
there has been
Finally,
et al.
processes
bottom-up
(Diener
et al.
has
1996).
shown
the SWB
Hence,
and,
1992)
that "traits can be powerful,

but are not enough"
argued
of a person
is influenced
(Kozma
by daily up-and-downs
life events
extent, by critical
(Krause
1991). The present
study
it has been
perspective
to a greater
that societal
are part of these bottom-up
conditions
processes
affecting
SWB.
9.3 Outlook
Core
results
of this study
are
(a)
that societal
gender
inequality
is connected
with
gender
differences in SWB and (b) that gender differences in SWB are influencedby unequal
access
resources
more
individual
of macro
and?even
indicators
significant?by
are disadvantaged
or excluded
to which women
the degree
settings that describe
or
resources
on a
structures. Detailed
from societal
and opportunity
research
longitudinal
are
to
international
how
basis
is
needed
structural
comparative
analyze
opportunities
to
structural
into well-being
in individual
life as a multilevel
every-day
phenomenon.
the results of this study already
for social
inter
consequences
suggest
policy
on gender
to this argument,
vention
in modern
societies.
focusing
equality
According
access
to social
in women's
interventions
should
address
restrictions
within
positions
translated
However,
labour markets
to society
are
Acknowledgments
or to
political
rewarded.
and
influence
the ways
in which
female
contributions
The OASIS
Intergenerational Family
European Commission
(NOVA), Keele, United
Haifa, Israel (University
4?
power
project (Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems' and
Solidarity) was funded within the 5th Framework Program ?Quality of Life' of the
and involves five research teams from Oslo, Norway
(QLK6-CT-1999-02182)
(Keele University), Bilbao, Spain (University of the Basque Country),
Kingdom
of Haifa) and Berlin, Germany (German Centre of Gerontology).
Springer
Gender Differences
Appendix
in a Comparative
Aggregated
WVS
Norms
Data
345
Perspective
from the Fourth Wave
99-04
on
WVS
99-04
Gender
gender
inequality
of theWorld
general
WVS
in
differences
Bangladesh
Bosnia-
-0.035
Survey
HDR
differences
subjective health
is widely
31.5-0.138
16.5
99-04
Gender
life satisfaction
Countries where gender inequality on the labour market

Albania
Values
2002
in
Relative female
economic activity
accepted
-0.079
73
-0.015
76
47.7-0.065
-0.199
60
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
45.1 -0.306
China
Indonesia
40.2
0.086
Iran
22.7
0.408
Japan
20.80.116
Korea
27.1
0.119
Kyrgyzstan
Macedonia
39.4
-0.144
35.2
Malta
Moldova
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Slovakia
Uganda
Viet Nam
-0.12086
0.022
67
-0.01870
-0.199
-0.173
44.2 0.044
n.a.
-0.177
84
29.9 0.109
15.5
0.112
47.8 0.123
47.4
8.6
0.002
0.096
45.2
0.083
0.039
n.a.
n.a.
0.018
n.a.
47.7 0.528
45.2 -0.074
61.0
0.012
n.a.
Belgium
69.6
n.a.
Chile
51.60.183
27
84
91
is widely
-0.111
n.a.
0.096
80
76
-0.01288
54.4 -0.053
78.50.158
61
-0.215
63.8 -0.224
Canada
56
-0.032
Belarus
Czech
72
37
-0.276
52
Austria
Croatia
84
7.90.165
Countries where gender inequality on the labour market

Argentina
67
0.052
37
38.9 -0.059
Nigeria
Philippines
86
-0.097
0.285
Morocco
Poland
n.a.
43.0
0.060
rejected
46
65
82
66
-0.07282
-0.122
49
63.2 0.185
n.a.
73
65.9 0.041
n.a.
83
Republic
Denmark
89.4 -0.007
n.a.
Estonia
75.5 0.006
n.a.
Finland
83.2 0.176
n.a.
84
82
86
France
68.3 -0.105
n.a.
76
Germany
(West)
55.7
n.a.
69
0.149
Springer
346
C. Tesch-R?mer
Appendix
Aggregated
Data
WVS
99-04
Norms on
from the Fourth Wave

WVS
gender
inequality
Great
Britain
of theWorld
Values
WVS
99-04
99-04
differences in
general life satisfaction
Gender
Gender
Survey
differences
subjective health
HDR
in
-0.153
Greece
72.6
-0.152
n.a.
58
Hungary
66.7
-0.039
n.a.
71
Iceland
94.3
0.064
n.a.
83
Ireland
76.9
0.074
0.022
52
74
n.a.
58
Italy
56.8
Latvia
69.5
Lithuania
63.3
-0.038
Luxembourg
64.0
-0.167
n.a.
57
Mexico
55.8
0.064
-0.152
47
0.102
2002
Relative female
economic activity
68.6
-0.155
et al.
n.a.
80
n.a.
80
Netherlands
83.8
0.030
n.a.
66
Peru
67.1
0.086
-0.111
43
Portugal
59.8
-0.235
n.a.
71
Singapore
54.4
0.080
n.a.
64
Slovenia
67.8
0.172
n.a.
80
South Africa
56.3
-0.391
-0.222
59
Spain
68.0
0.013
-0.131
56
Sweden
93.4
0.005
n.a.
89
Tanzania
56.7
0.523
0.022
93
Ukraine
60.0
-0.158
n.a.
80
United
81.9
0.011
-0.104
81
52.6
-0.213
-0.251
53
States
Venezuela
Note:
n.a. data were not available
forwhich therewere data available both from the fourth wave of theWorld Values
2006) and the
(European Values Study Group and World Values Survey Association
Development
Report 2002 (United Nations Development
Programme 2002). Second column:
"Norms on Gender Inequality'1: percent of the total population disagreeing with unequal treatment of men
and women on the labour market based on theWorld Values Survey 1999-2004
(WVS 99-04). Third
column: Mean
level gender differences for general life satisfaction based on WVS
99-04. Fourth column:
First column: Countries

Survey
Human
1999-2004
level gender differences for subjective health based on WVS

99-04. Fifth column: Relative
economic activity rate per country based on the Human Development Report (2002)
Mean
female
References
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.
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.
Arbuckle,
J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0. Chicago,

IL: SPSS.
Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On themeasurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244-263.
Atkinson, A. B. (1983). The economics of inequality (2 ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
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.
Arbuckle,
4y Springer
Gender Differences
in a Comparative
Perspective
347
Bentier, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bowers, J.,& Drake, K. W. (2005). EDA for HEM: Visualization when probabilistic
inference fails. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Brandtst?dter, J.,& Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment:
A two-process framework. Developmental

Review, 22, 117-150.
Brandtst?dter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2003). Intentionality and time in human development and aging.
context. In U. M. Staudinger & U.
und goal adjustment in changing developmental
Compensation
Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development (pp. 105-124). Boston: Springer.
S. W.
linear models for social and behavioral research:
(1992). Hierarchical
Bryk, A., & Raudenbush,
Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury

Central Bureau of Statistics Israel. (2005). Households
Park, CA: Sage.

and Families-5.30.
from http://wwwl.cbs.gov.il/
shnaton56/st05_30.pdf.
CIA ?Central
Intelligence Agency.
(2001). The World Factbook 2001. (Central Intelligence Agency

12, 2005), Washington).
(http://www2.cia.gov/2001/factbook_2001.zip-December
Costa, P. T. J., et al. (1981). Personal adjustment to aging: Longitudinal prediction from neuroticism and
extraversion'. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 78-85.
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.

scale relativities and the extent of inequality and poverty. The
Coulter, F. A. E., et al. (1992). Equivalence
Economic Journal, 102, 1067-1082.
A. (2006). Separating the local and the general in cross-cultural aging
Daatland, S. O., & Motel-Klingebiel,
research. In H.-W. Wahl et al. (Eds.), New dynamics in old age: individual, environmental and societal
perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Di Noia, J. (2002). Indicators of gender equality for American
states and regions: An update. Social
Indicators Research, 59, 35-11.
Diener, E. (1996). Traits can be powerful, but are not enough: Lessons from subjective well-being'. Journal
in Personality, 30, 389-399.

of Research
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.
R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being?.
Social Indicators
Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener,
Research, 57, 119-169.
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.
Diener, E., et al. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 419^36.
Diener, E., et al. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why
Indicators Research, 34, 7-32.
Esping-Andersen,
Esping-Andersen,
Press.
do they occur?. Social
G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University
(2006). European and World Values

European Values Study Group and World Values Survey Association.
Surveys Four-Wave Integrated Data File, 1981-2004, v.20060423. Aggregate File Producers: An?lisis
Econ?micos
y Pol?ticos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tilburg Univer
Sociol?gicos
Econ?micos
sity, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Data Files Suppliers: Analisis Sociol?gicos
y Pol?ticos
(ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg University, Tillburg, The Netherlands/ Zen
tralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung

(ZA), Cologne, Germany: Aggregate File Distributors:
An?lisis Sociol?gicos
Econ?micos
y Pol?ticos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg
fur Empirische Sozialforschung
(ZA) Cologne,
University, Tilburg, The Netherlands/Zentralarchiv
Germany.
Eurostat. (2005). The social situation in the European Union 2004. Brussels: Eurostat.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429
456.
Ferrara, M. (1996). The

6, 17-37.
'southern model'
of welfare
in Southern Europe. Journal of European
Social Policy,
Figini, P. (1998). Inequality measures, equivalence scales und adjustment for household size and compo
sition. Ireland, Dublin: Dept. of Economics, Trinity College.
Income
Figini, P. (2000). Measuring
inequality: On the correlation between indices (No. Luxembourg
Study, Working Paper No. 229). (Luxembourg Income Study: Luxembourg).
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.
4y Springer
348 C. Tesch-R?mer
et al.
in der Europ?ischen
VS Verlag f?r Soz
Union. Wiesbaden:
Gerhards, J. (2005). Kulturelle Unterschiede
ialwissenschaften.
statistica. In E. Pizetti & T.
Gini, C. (1955). Variabilit? e mutabilit?. Reprinted inMemorie di metodol?gica
Salvemini (Eds.), (Librer?a Eredi Virgilio Veschi (first published in 1912), Rom).
Glick, P., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cul
Glick,
tures'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.

P., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728.

in an adult Swedish population. Social
Hansson, A., et al. (2005). Well-being
predict gender
inequality
Indicators Research,
in 16
74, 313?
325.
Harvey, E. B., et al. (1990). Toward an index of gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 22, 299-317.
et al. (2006). Interpreting theWHOQOL-Br?f:
Hawthorne, G,
Preliminary population norms and effect
sizes'. Social Indicators Research, 77, 37-59.
Headey, B., et al. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective well-being. Social Indicators
Research, 24, 81-100.
J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide tomeasurement
Horn, J. L., & McArdle,
research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144.
Inglehart, R., et al. (Eds.) (2004). Human beliefs and values. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
invariance in aging
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.
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.
Krause, N. F. (1991). Stressful events and life satisfaction among elderly men and women. Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences, 46, S84-S92.
Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in
Kondratowitz,
health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763-773.
Lippa, R. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology:
Maas,
European Journal of Research Methods fort he Behavioral Social Sciences, 1, 85-91.

E. E. (1998). The two sexes. Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Maccoby,
University Press.
Michalos, A. C. (2000). Evaluation of equality policies for the status of women inCanada. Social Indicators
Research, 49, 241-277.
states do not crowd out the family: Evidence
for mixed
A., et al. (2005). Welfare
Motel-Klingebiel,
responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 863-882.
A., et al. (2003). The quantitative survey. In A. Lowenstein & J.Ogg (Eds.), Old age and
Motel-Klingebiel,
autonomy: The role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity (pp. 63-101). Haifa:
Haifa University.
S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory. Psychological
Nolen-Hoeksema,
Bulletin, 101, 259-282.
In D. Kahneman,
et al.
S., & Rusting, C. L. (1999). Gender differences in well-being.
Nolen-Hoeksema,
(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 330-350). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
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.
OECD ?Organisation
and Development.
(2005). Society at a glance: OECD
social indicators 2005 edition. Paris: OECD?Organisation
and Devel
opment.
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.
Pinquart, M., & S?rensen, 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.
and mental health. In F. L. Denmakr & M. A. Paludi (Eds.),

Russo, N. F., & Green, B. L. (1993). Women
Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 379-436). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
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).
?)Sp:
Amityville, NY:
Baywood.
ringer
Gender Differences
in a Comparative
Sen, K. (1996). Gender.

London: BMJ.
Perspective
349
In S. Ebrahim, & A. Kalache
(Eds.), Epidemiology
in old age
(pp. 210-220).
as a function of age and gender: A multi vari ate look for

Shmotkin, D. (1990). Subjective well-being
differentiated trends. Social Indicators Research, 23, 201-230.
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.

Srivastava, A., et al. (2001). Money and subjective well-being: It's not themoney, it's themotives. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959-971.
Sugarman, D. B., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Indicators of gender equality for American states and regions.
Social Indicators Research, 20, 229-270.
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.
in der zweiten Leb

Tesch-R?mer, C, & Wurm, S. (2006). Ver?nderung des subjektiven Wohlbefindens
et al. (Eds.), Altwerden inDeutschland.
ensh?lfte. In: C. Tesch-Roemer
Sozialer Wandel und indi
viduelle Entwicklung in der zweiten Lebensh?lfte (pp. 385^146). Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag.
United Nations Development
Programme. (2002). Human Development Report 2002. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Veenhoven, R., & Ouwenell,
P. (1995). Livability of thewelfare-state. Social Indicators Research, 36, 1-39.

of theWHOQOL:
Rationale
and current status. International
WHOQOL
Group. (1994). Development
Journal ofMental Health, 23, 24-56.
of theWorld Health
WHOQOL
Group. (1998a). Development
life assessment. Psychological Medicine,
28, 551-558.
WHOQOL
Group. (1998b). The World Health Organization
and general psychometric properties. Social
Development
Wurm, S., & Tesch-R?mer, C. (2006). Gesundheit, Hilfebedarf
(Eds.), Altwerden
Lebensh?lfte
in Deutschland.
Sozialer Wandel
VS Verlag.
(pp. 329-383). Wiesbaden:
quality of
Organization WHOQOL-BREF
Quality of Life Assessment

(WHOQOL):
Science and Medicine,
46, 1569-1585.
und Versorgung'.
In C Tesch-R?mer
et al.
und individuelle Entwicklung
in der zweiten
Springer

Nder Differences in Subjective Well Being-Comparing Societies Wih Respect To Gender Equality

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Nder Differences in Subjective Well Being-Comparing Societies Wih Respect To Gender Equality

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Indie Res (2008) 85:329-349

Differences in Subjective Weil-Being:

31 August 2006 /Accepted: 25 April 2007 /Published

the extent of societal

are the focus

2, 12101 Berlin, Germany

In this paper we analyse

2 Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being

the life course

3 Factors Accounting forGender Differences in Subjective Weil-Being

for them? Basically,

supported empirically (Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting 1999; Nydegger 2004).

of facets and includes?among

Perspectives on Gender Differences in Subjective Weil-Being

et al. 1995) or the cultural

If thehypothesis of universal gender differences (gender differences rooted inbiological

(e.g. labour market

that not only

5 Transmitting Societal Gender

Inequality to Subjective Weil-Being

on the societal macro

that they are less successful

could be tested by separating

is positively correlated with indicators of societal gender inequality (in

there are larger gender differences)".

from theWorld Values Survey; Inglehart et al. 2004).

elsewhere (Motel-Klingebiel et al. 2003).

In order to testHypothesis 1 (size of gender differences in SWB is positively correlated

not available with

the online analysis module

7.2 Individual Level Data From theOASIS

defined by theUnited Nations (United Nations Development Programme 2002): avail

(if the value

to the labour market:

seats for women

for the five OASIS

seats held by women

domestic product per capitaa

2000 with purchasing power parity. Source: CIA?Central

the index would

(Atkinson 1970, 1983; Gini 1955).

all three existing urban units

size was N = 6.106

place between September 2000 andMay 2001.

(Horn and McArdle

Group offers a detailed discussion of the psychometric properties of the

handled with theFull InformationMaximum Likelihood estimation procedure (Arbuckle

transmitssocietal gender inequality to individual SWB (Hypotheses 2 to 4).

8.1 Aggregated Data from theWorld Values Survey

the first step,

Survey (WVS) was used. In order to testHypothesis 1 (societal gender

for all 57 countries.

that the effects

should have more

of the total population

only 7.9% of the total population disagreed with the statement,while

Countries REJECTING Gender

Economic Activity Rate

size), the differences

8.2 Individual Level Data from theOASIS

and positive pairs of correlations

differences decline (Hypothesis 3) and if country effects in gender differences decline