Content uploaded by Louis Tay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Louis Tay on Nov 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: GENDER DIFFERENCES 1
2017 Ed Diener. Copyright Creative Commons: Attribution, noncommercial, no derivatives
.
e-Handbook of Subjective Well-Being (2017)
E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay, Editors
Publisher: NobaScholar
Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being
Cassondra Batz and Louis Tay
Purdue University
Corresponding Author:
Cassondra L. Batz
Psychological Science Building
703 3rd Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907
cbatz@purdue.edu
GENDER DIFFERENCES 2
Abstract
Results regarding whether men and women differ in terms of their well-being levels has been highly
inconsistent. To more conclusive understand the past research regarding on the relationship between gender
and subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect), we summarize the
current body of the literature on the subject including both large scale, nationally representative empirical
papers as well as past meta-analyses on the subject. Next, we review past explanations behind the presence
of gender differences in subjective well-being as well as explanations behind the lack of gender differences
in subjective well-being. We conclude by addressing current limitations of the present research and
important future directions to further disentangle the remaining questions regarding gender differences in
subjective well-being
Keywords: gender differences, sex differences, subjective well-being, affect
GENDER DIFFERENCES 3
Pundits, policy-makers, and lay people alike are captivated by differences between men
and women. Questions of gender differences inundate both the popular press and academic
journals: how, are men and women different, and why? It is not uncommon to see gender
comparisons as a main emphasis in research on different psychological characteristics, or drawn
on as a moderator of interest. The role of gender and gender differences in well-being has also
been of longstanding interest. Intriguingly, well-being differences in gender have often been
inconsistent. While at times research fails to find a significant difference between men and
women’s well-being (e.g., Okun & George, 1984), others demonstrate significant differences
between the genders in opposing directions (e.g., Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009; Haring, Stock, &
Okun, 1984; Fujita et al., 1991). Complicating matters, there are different aspects of well-being
that one can make comparisons on and different sub-populations within which gender
comparisons are made (e.g., age, nation) (e.g., Shmotkin, 1990). Given an ongoing interest in
gender differences in well-being, and inconsistent results found in the past, there is a need to
synthesize the well-being literature and provide conceptual grounding for when we might see
gender differences in well-being and why.
In this chapter, we summarize the present state of research on gender differences in well-
being. Specifically, we focus on subjective well-being (SWB) among the different possible
conceptualizations of well-being. We will begin by reviewing past research on gender
differences on the three components of SWB (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative
affect). Next, we will discuss the findings of several large-scale meta-analyses and samples on
the different SWB components. After which, we will present the conceptual underpinnings that
have been proposed as to why we would, or would not, expect to find differences in well-being
between men and women. Drawing on the above, we will conclude with future research
directions to help address the remaining unanswered questions.
Past Research on Gender Differences in Subjective Well-being
Subjective Well-being
Given widespread interest in gender and well-being, gender differences in SWB has been
repeatedly examined over time. In a landmark review of the SWB literature, Wilson (1967)
concluded that one’s sex was not associated with happiness – though this conclusion was based
on only two studies. One study was commissioned by the US congress to examine the mental
health of 2,460 American adults 21 years old and older (Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960), and the
second was a study that included data from 450 households from various social-economic
statuses (Bradburn & Caplovitz, 1965). Since, more research has been conducted on this issue,
re-examining the initial conclusion of a lack of gender differences in SWB.
Across broader and larger samples, there have been mixed findings on whether there are
gender differences in SWB. Whereas some research has found that men have significantly higher
levels of SWB (e.g., Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009; Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984), other studies
shown that women have significantly higher levels of SWB (e.g., Fujita et al., 1991).
Complicating matters further, many studies have found no significant differences (Okun &
George, 1984), particularly after controlling for other relevant demographic factors (e.g., age,
marital status) (e.g., White, 1992; Inglehart, 1990; Shmotkin, 1990; Warr & Payne, 1982;
Larson, 1978). The inconsistent findings that women and men generally do not differ in overall
SWB appears to be inconsistent with findings showing that, within the clinical domain, women
GENDER DIFFERENCES 4
experience greater levels of depression, anxiety, and mood disorders than men (Eaton et al.,
2012; Grant & Weissman, 2007).
It has been proposed that these inconsistent and conflicting reports are in part due to
SWB being comprised of three main components: (1) positive affect, (2) negative affect, and (3)
life satisfaction (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002; Diener, 1984). The magnitude and direction of
the gender differences diverge for each component and conflating them in the analysis may
reduce any observed differences – or it may lead to empirical confusion when not distinguished
conceptually (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Parker & Brotchie, 2010). The idea that there
are differences within these components has been supported by several studies that have
examined the components of SWB independently. For instance, a large-scale international study
by Lucas and Gohm (2000) found that in most of the nations examined, women experienced
more negative affect than men. Other studies have reported similar findings that negative affect
is more prevalent among women (Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 2003). Furthering the support of
this explanation is the fact that women are also reported to experience higher levels of positive
affect, or happiness, than men (Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989; Lee, Seccombe, & Shehan,
1991). Therefore, it is likely that the inconsistent findings may be in part attributable to
conflating different dimensions of SWB – such as positive and negative affect. To avoid this
potential pitfall, we will review past research on life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative
affect separately.
Additionally, apart from conflating the different components of SWB, there may also be
sampling variability leading to differences in observed gender SWB differences. To minimize
this potential, we focus our review drawing on large-scale nationally representative studies and
previous meta-analyses.
Life Satisfaction. Broadly, large-scale, nationally representative studies on life
satisfaction have found somewhat mixed results on gender differences in life satisfaction. An
early study by Clemente and Sauer (1976) found no significant differences between men and
women on life satisfaction in representative sample of over 1,000 individuals from the United
States. A study by Inglehart (2002) in using data from the World Values Survey that spanned
more than 60 nations found that the direction of the gender difference was dependent upon on the
age group, whereas younger (e.g., 18-44) women had higher levels life satisfaction than younger
men, but older women (e.g., 44-65+) had lower levels of levels of life satisfaction than older
men. A later study by Blanchflower and Oswald (2004) that compared over 20,000 individuals
from both the United States and Great Britain, cited a small effect with women reporting higher
levels of life satisfaction than men in both Great Britain and the United States. The most recent
study by Tay, Ng, Kuykendall, and Diener (2014) used the Gallup dataset to examine this
question for full-time workers across the United States and over 150 other countries. For the
United States, they found very small effect size differences, but found larger differences across
other included nations in which full-time working women had higher life satisfaction than full-
time working men (Tay et al., 2014).
GENDER DIFFERENCES 5
Table 1.
Summary of Large Scale, Nationally Representative Studies on Life Satisfaction
Study
Sample Characteristics
(Number of Nations)
Sample Size
Findings
Clemente & Sauer (1976)
US representative sample
(1)
1,347
No significant gender
difference in life
satisfaction
Inglehart (2002)
International representative
sample (65)
~150,000
Young women have
higher levels of life
satisfaction than young
men; Older women have
lower levels of life
satisfaction than older
men.
Blanchflower & Oswald
(2004)
US and UK representative
samples (2)
94,574
Women have higher
levels of life satisfaction
than men.
Tay, Ng, Kuykendall, &
Diener (2014)
International representative
sample (156)
172,949
Women have higher
levels of life satisfaction
than men.
Notes. US= United States; UK = United Kingdom; ~ = approximate as reported by author
Consistent with large-scale representative samples, past meta-analyses have also been
conducted on the question of gender differences in life satisfaction and have resulted in mixed
findings as well. One of the first large scale reviews conducted on the subject was done by
Haring, Stock, and Okun in 1984. Haring and colleagues (1984) looked at empirical studies from
the US that examined gender and social class as predictors of subjective well-being. The studies
included were conducted prior to 1980 and had to include “life satisfaction, happiness, morale,
quality of life, and subjective well-being” as keywords. Based on the studies that met the above
criteria, their results showed that men had slightly higher levels of subjective well-being broadly,
which included life satisfaction, than women, but the magnitude of this difference was small (r =
.03; d = .06).
A few years later, Wood, Rhodes, and Whelan (1989) conducted another meta-analysis
on sex differences in positive well-being with attention paid to marital status and emotional style.
They drew upon 85 studies from both US and international samples that provided a comparison
between men and women on measures of life satisfaction, happiness, morale, positive affect, or
general well-being. In terms of life satisfaction, it was found that men had lower levels of life
satisfaction than women (d = - .03).
Another meta-analysis conducted by Pinquart and Sörensen (2000) investigated
differences between men and women over the age of 55 in psychological well-being. They
included 174 studies from the developmental and gerontological literature that looked at gender
differences in life satisfaction. They found that older men, as compared to older women, reported
slightly higher levels of life satisfaction (g = .08; d = .08 ).
Most recently, Batz, Tay, Kuykendall, and Cheung (in press) conducted a meta-analysis
that examines gender differences in life satisfaction and the influence of gender inequality on the
GENDER DIFFERENCES 6
size of this difference. Across the 281 included samples, which included over a million
individuals, Batz and colleagues (in press) found that, after accounting for publication bias, men
and women significantly differed in their levels of life satisfaction such that men report higher
levels of life satisfaction than women satisfaction (d = .03).
Table 2.
Summary of Meta-Analyses on Gender Differences in Life Satisfaction
Meta-Analysis
Sample
Characteristics
Sample Size
Findings
Effect Size**
Haring, Stock, &
Okun (1984)
US samples
(k=146)
52
Men have higher
levels of life
satisfaction.
.06
Wood, Rhodes, &
Whelan (1989)
US and
international
samples (k= 85)
1,505*
Women have
higher levels of
life satisfaction
than men.
-.03
Pinquart and
Sörensen (2000)
US sample; Over
age 55 (k= 174)
27,186
Men have higher
levels of life
satisfaction.
.08
Batz, Tay,
Kuykendall, &
Cheung (in press)
US and
international
samples (k= 281)
1,001,802
Men have higher
levels of life
satisfaction.
.03
Notes. US = United States; k = number of samples; a positive effect size indicates men having
greater life satisfaction; * = median number of participants among all included studies, total was
not reported; **All effect sizes converted to Cohen’s d for easy interpretation
Taken together, the majority of the results from meta-analyses on this subject favor the
conclusion that men and women do significantly differ in life satisfaction, such that men have
higher levels of life satisfaction than women, though the size of the difference is small.
Positive Affect. Across large, nationally representative samples, the discrete emotion of
‘happy’ or ‘happiness’ is often the operationalization of positive affect. An example of this is
first seen in Inglehart’s (2002) examination of the World Values Survey of individual from over
60 nations. Inglehart (2002) found that gender differences in happiness levels were dependent
upon age, whereas young (18-44) women are happier than young men, middle aged (45-54)
women and men do not differ in terms of happiness, but older (55+) women are less happy than
older men. Another example of this is research by Easterlin (2003) who looked at gender
differences in happiness using the internationally representative sample from the General Social
Survey. Easterlin’s results (2003) mirrored that of Ingleart (2002), finding that younger women
are happier than younger men, while older women are less happy than older men. A more recent
study Zuckerman, Li, and Diener (2017) examined gender differences in positive affect,
measured by using a range of positive emotions beyond just happiness, using data from the
Gallup World Poll, a globally representative data set of over 150 countries. Their results
indicated that men and women did not statistically differ in terms of positive affect.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 7
Table 3.
Summary of Large Scale, Nationally Representative Studies on Positive Affect
Study
Sample
Characteristics
(Number of Nations)
Sample Size
Findings
Inglehart (2002)
International
representative sample
(65)
~150,000
Young women have higher
levels of happiness than
young men; Middle aged
women and men do not
significantly differ in
levels of happiness; Older
women have lower levels
of happiness than older
men.
Easterlin (2003)
International
representative sample
(Not reported)
Not Reported
Young women have higher
levels of happiness than
young men; Older women
have lower levels of
happiness than older men.
Zuckerman, Li, &
Diener (2017)
International
representative sample
(162)
455,104*
No significant difference
between men and women.
Notes. US= United States; ~ = approximate as reported by author; * = total sample size for
study overall
Meta-analyses have strived to summarize the rather large body of empirical studies that
focus on both happiness and positive affect more broadly. For example, Wood, Rhodes, and
Whelan (1989) conducted a meta-analysis based on 96 studies from both US and international
samples. They found that women reported higher levels of happiness (d = -0.07), but that when
examined more broadly, there was not a non-significant gender difference for positive affect
overall. Another meta-analysis conducted by Pinquart and Sörensen (2000) used 58 studies to
investigated differences between men and women over the age of 55 in happiness. They found
that older women, as compared to older men, reported slightly lower levels of happiness (g = .06;
d = .06).
GENDER DIFFERENCES 8
Table 4.
Summary of Meta-Analyses on Gender Differences in Positive Affect
Meta-Analysis
Sample
Characteristics
Sample Size
Findings
Effect Size**
Wood, Rhodes, &
Whelan (1989)
International
samples (k= 85)
1,505*
Women have
higher levels of
happiness than
men; No gender
difference in
positive affect
overall.
-.07; n.s.
Pinquart and
Sörensen (2000)
US sample; Over
age 55 (k= 58)
53,197
Men have higher
levels of
happiness.
.06
Notes. US = United States; k = number of samples; a positive effect size indicates men having
greater life satisfaction; * = median number of participants among all included studies, total
was not reported; **All effect sizes converted to Cohen’s d for easy interpretation
Collectively, the results from meta-analyses on this subject come to different conclusions,
whereas one finds that women report higher levels of happiness than men and the other finds the
opposite to be true. One reason for this variation may be two very important differences in the
studies themselves: the inclusion of international samples (Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan, 1989) and
the inclusion of samples only over the age of 55 years old (Pinquart and Sorensen, 2000).
Additionally, the analyses were done over a decade apart. As such, one may conclude that the
samples are so different that it is unfair to deem these results inconsistent with one another and
instead addressing the question of gender differences in positive affect for different subsets of the
population. Future work should examine this question further.
Negative Affect. Very few researchers have examined gender differences in negative
affect on a large-scale or meta-analytically. This is likely due to the overwhelming interest in
gender differences in mental health, particularly the experience of depression. Which, while
related to negative affectivity, is viewed as a distinct concept from negative affect in the context
of subjective well-being (Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012). However, one large-scale
study by Zuckerman, Li, and Diener (2017) did examine gender differences in negative affect
using data from the Gallup World Poll, a globally representative data set of over 150 countries.
Their results indicated that men and women did significantly differ in negative affect, such that
women had higher levels of negative affect than men.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 9
Table 5.
Summary of Large Scale, Nationally Representative Studies on Negative Affect
Study
Sample
Characteristics
(Number of Nations)
Sample Size
Findings
Zuckerman, Li, &
Diener (2017)
International
representative sample
(154)
455,104
Women have higher
levels of negative
affect than men.
Notes. * = total sample size for study overall
This large analysis conducted by Zuckerman and colleagues (2017) suggests that men
and women significantly differ in negative affect, such that women have report higher levels of
negative affect than men. While this study provides a baseline in which examine this question
using a large and representative sample, one must avoid viewing this finding as conclusive. One
must keep in mind that future work must be done to examine this question further – including
future meta-analyses that seek to examine this question across more samples to provide greater
confidence in these results.
Reasons for Gender Differences in Overall Well-being
When attempting to explain gender differences in well-being, there are several themes that
emerge from the literature, including structural factors (i.e., differences in institutional
arrangements and opportunities between men and women), socio-cultural factors (i.e., differences
in societal expectations and norms for men versus women), and biological differences (i.e.,
physical and physiological differences) (e.g., Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009; Wood et al., 1989;
Tesch-Römer et al., 2008; Landers, 1988; Fujita et al., 1991; Russo & Green, 1993). These
differences are summarized in Table 6. We recognize that there are likely complex interactions
between these factors, but we seek to discuss them as main effects for parsimony.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 10
Table 6.
Explanations for Gender Differences in Subjective Well-being
Category
Psychological/Physiological
Mechanisms
Posited Outcome
Structural factors:
Access to educational,
economic, political, and
social resources,
opportunities, and power
structures
Need fulfillment
Women have lowered SWB due to
limited opportunities to fulfill basic
and psychological needs from
current structural inequalities
between men and women
Social factors:
Societal expectations and
norms
Gender role fulfillment
(prescription & description)
Violations of gender roles lead to
lowered SWB where women
seeking to move into the workplace
or traditionally male-dominated
industries have lower SWB.
Emotional expressiveness is more
acceptable for women rather than
men meaning they are more willing
to display and report higher levels
of positive affect and negative affect
than men.
Biological factors:
Physiological
Hormones
Genetics
Hormonal differences, both in the
type and fluctuation, between men
and women lead to variations in the
experiences of both positive and
negative emotions
Genetic differences between men
and women may led women to
develop personality types that make
them more susceptible to the
experience of positive and negative
affect.
Structural Factors: Gender Inequalities & Need Fulfillment
One potential key to undersanding gender differences in SWB is Need Fulfillment theory.
This has often been implicitly, or explicitly, invoked in the examination of gender differences
particularly for the evaluative components of SWB (e.g., Diener & Lucas, 2000; Tay & Diener,
2011). Substantively, this theory posits that SWB levels are dependent on the extent an
individual’s physical and psychological needs (e.g., autonomy, competence, relatedness) are
fulfilled (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Maslow, 1943). This theory considers not
GENDER DIFFERENCES 11
only external, objective structural realities that influence the ability to meet one’s needs, but also
personal perceptions that physical and psychological needs are being met.
Based on this theory, gender differences in SWB may be understood in terms of the
variation in men and women’s experiences of global inequality within economic, educational,
political, and social structures. More specifically, differences in the access to opportunity
structures (e.g., access to education), resources (e.g., income differences), and power systems
(e.g., representation in government) for men and women would lead to difference in their
respective perceptions of their ability to meet their needs, such that women would not only be
less able, but also feel less enabled to meet their needs as compared to men. Subsequently this
would result in gender differences in SWB, but the size of this difference likely would be
dependent upon the degree of inequality within these societal structures. Specifically, in nations
and communities where there is great equality within these structures (i.e., opportunity, resource,
power) there will likely little to no difference in gender SWB but where inequality is high there
will likely be greater differences between the sexes.
A substantial amount of research has shown support for the idea that a greater provision
of human rights (e.g., civil, political) and greater equality (e.g., education, income) is related to
higher levels of SWB (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Oishi, Kesebir, & Diener, 2011; Oishi &
Diener, 2014). Similarly, it has been found that in societies with greater gender equality,
individuals have higher levels of overall happiness (e.g., Bjørnskov et al., 2007; Inglehart &
Welzel, 2005; Inglehart et al., 2008; Jorm & Ryan, 2014; Ruth & Napier, 2014; Schyns, 1998).
This prior work is supportive of the proposition that variations in the experiences of inequality
may improve well-being for women and so enhance overall well-being nationally.
More direct evidence has been found in an empirical study that examined whether gender
differences in life satisfaction were explained by variability in the experiences of gender
inequality. The study, conducted by Tesch-Römer and colleagues (2008), examined the influence
in differences of cultural inequality on the magnitude of gender differences in SWB in over 50
countries. They found that the greater societal gender inequality, the greater the difference
between men and women on levels of SWB, but only in countries that valued gender equality.
However, some studies have found the opposite to be true to some degree. A study using
data from over 90 countries by Meisenberg and Woodley (2015) found that although some
indicators of gender equality and female status are related to higher life satisfaction for women,
some indicators, including women’s involvement in gainful employment and prolonged
schooling, are negatively related to women’s well-being. This may be explained by the fact that
along with increases in opportunities and rights, women’s aspirations and responsibilities have
also increased, particularly in the workforce (Patten & Parker, 2012; Regan & Roland, 1982).
These shifting standards and increased demands may cause gender differences in SWB to persist
despite equality. The expansion of opportunities may have come at a cost for women, and ended
up benefiting men more than women (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009). This idea is consistent with
work by Blanchflower & Oswald (2004) who found that women’s happiness decreased over time
in the United States and Britain despite women’s rise in resources, opportunities, and power.
Therefore, policies aimed at equality may have had an inadvertent negative impact on women’s
levels of SWB. Also, as women have taken on additional roles that were once reserved for only
men, their comparison group may have expanded, and thus their perception of their relative
success possesses a more negative connotation (Stevenson & Wolfers, 2009). Thus, the
relationship between culture, equality, and need fulfillment may be complex and will require
GENDER DIFFERENCES 12
future research to disentangle why we do not see vastly different effects despite these sometimes
large disparities between men and women in terms of opportunities and resources
Social Factors: Societal Expectations and Norms
Social factors may also help explain gender differences in SWB via the differences in the
norms and expectations for men and women, referred to in the literature as ‘gender roles.’
Gender roles are socially held, descriptive and/or prescriptive stereotypes regarding the
characteristics of each sex as well as the subsequent acceptable, expected, behaviors for men and
women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). These expectations and norms in gender roles influence the
perceptions regarding the appropriate occupations for men and women, the type of traits men and
women should possess, and even the type of emotions that are acceptable to experience and
demonstrate for men and women. Researchers have explored the consequences of violating
gender role expectations and find that men and women who engage in behaviors counter to these
expectations often face backlash from others, which can subsequently have a negative impact on
both their successes and well-being (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Blazina & Watkins, 1996; Good
& Wood, 1995). For instance, research has shown that women experience backlash that impacts
their job satisfaction when they take on roles in organizations that are not traditionally feminine
or require them to behave in traditionally masculine ways (Garcia-Retamero & López-Zafra,
2006). A significant part of gender role expectations is that it is more acceptable for women to
be more emotionally expressive than men, which may also help explain why women report
experiencing both positive and negative affect more often than men (e.g., Simon & Nath, 2004;
Plant, Hyde, Keltner, Devine, 2000). These expectations can influence gender differences in
SWB. For one, men are more reluctant than women to report the degree to which they feel
specific positive and negative emotions, which may influence the self-report based findings on
gender differences in positive and negative affect (Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 1999).
Moreover, the impact of these expectations on the degree to which men and women allow
themselves to actually feel and express these emotions (Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 1999).
Research by Grossman and Wood (1993) has supported this idea, finding that women
report more extreme emotions than men without being prompted one way or another. However,
when emotional responses were manipulated for a person to be either more, or less, emotionally
expressive, no sex differences were obtained, which may be indicative of initial conformity to
gender role expectations. Other research has examined this question and found that women
engage in more non-verbal expressions of positive emotions (e.g., smiling, laughing) than men
particularly when gender was made more salient (LaFrance, Hecht, & Paluck, 2003). Similarly, a
study by Fujita, Diener, and Sandvik (1991) examined the case for emotional intensity further,
finding that gender alone accounted for less than 1% in the variance in the valence dimension of
happiness-sadness, whereas gender accounted for approximately 13% of the variance on the
emotional intensity dimension. This suggests that women are more open to intense emotional
experiences than men.
Biological Factors: Hormones and Genetics
There has also been research done regarding biological factors, such as hormonal or
genetic differences between men and women, that may contribute to men and women’s differing
GENDER DIFFERENCES 13
levels of the affective components of SWB more specifically (e.g., Hyde, Mezulis, Abramson,
2008; McRae et al., 2008).
First, this idea has been supported by studies that have looked at relationships between
genetics and well-being. For example, a study by Weiss, Bates, and Luciano (2008) cited
substantial evidence for a genetic component to well-being and happiness. Roysamb and
colleagues (2002) conducted further exploration to test the hereditability of happiness. In this
exploration, they used a classic twin-studies design with over 5,000 individuals, and results
indicated a significant gender difference in the heritability of happiness. Specifically, they found
that women have a greater genetic determination in their happiness level as compared to men.
Additionally, results revealed that there might be different sets of genes that influence to a
woman’s happiness as compared to a man’s happiness. Research has attempted to dive further
into this by identifying specific genes, such as the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene that is
involved in mood regulation. Researchers postulate that the presence of this gene, via its impact
on mood regulation, lead women to experience moods more intensely and lead to more frequent
mood shifts than women with low expression of this gene, while the gene has no impact on men,
which may lend some insight as to why women report greater levels of both positive and
negative affect than men for instance (e.g., Chen et al., 2013). However, when examined meta-
analytically the results remain unclear as to whether or not there are gender differences in the
genetic architecture of well-being (Bartels, 2015).
There is also some evidence that women’s hormones, including estrogen and
progesterone, may be tied to women’s fluctuations in positive and negative affect, particularly
around times which those hormones also fluctuate greatly such as their premenstrual period
(Nolen-Hoeksema & Rusting, 2003). However, other studies have reported that these shifts in
hormones around a woman’s menstruation influence on negative affect levels is inconclusive
(Golub & Harrington, 1981), though substantial work has shown that most women report mood
shifts prior to menstruation (Johnson, 1987). Other work has looked at the influence of these
gonadal hormone fluctuations across a woman’s lifespan influence on their neurochemistry and
their neuroendocrine system, which has a large impact on one’s moods and mood regulation
(Steiner, Dunn, & Born, 2003). The evidence from these studies support that gender differences
in mood disorders, such as depression, are not as prevalent pre-puberty as they are post-puberty
when these hormonal shifts are occurring and may lead to these affective differences in men and
women (Kessler & Walters, 1998).
Additional work has looked at gender differences in the influence that well-being,
including both affective and psychological, has on the physical and hormonal health outcomes of
men and women. This line of works has found that there may be distinctive patterns of health-
related outcomes from well-being in men and women, such that well-being leads to different
outcomes in the male body versus female body (Steptoe, Demakakos, de Oliveira, & Wardle,
2012). For example, for men, well-being is associated with a smaller waist circumference, and
women it led to fewer inflammatory markers in their body, yet both men and women had
improved lung function (Steptoe et al., 2012).
Broadly, researchers conclude that while there is substantial evidence that men and
women’s anatomy and physiology differ, the implications of this on the experience well-being is
not well-established (Savic-Berglund, 2010). So, while biological differences are commonly
believed to be a contributing factor, more work needs to be done to provide greater supporting
evidence.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 14
Reasons for Lack of Gender Differences in Overall Well-being
We note that it is important to explain why we might not expect gender differences in SWB
due to the number of large-scaled studies we reported with null effects. There is a line of research
that proposes why we should not expect many, if any, differences between men and women based
on the gender similarity hypothesis proposed by Hyde (2005). This hypothesis proposes that many
gender differences are extremely small, if not totally non-existent. Hyde (2005) proposes than men
and women are more similar than they are different. She bases this conclusion on a review of many
meta-analyses on gender differences across a wide array of outcomes and characteristics. In this
review, she finds that most mean difference effect sizes are small, if not non-significant, on the
outcomes of interest. She states that these overly endorsed claims harm men and women by
propagating expectations in differences that can have detrimental impact on the lives of men and
women, and as such people should be wary of making these conclusions (Hyde, 2005). We propose
that it may not necessary be the case that these effects are inherently small, but rather are
potentially minimized by other psychological processes that contribute to a rather static baseline
of well-being and influence the evaluations one makes in determining their well-being levels.
These psychological processes are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7.
Explanations for Lack of Gender Differences in Subjective Well-being
Category
Psychological/Physiological
Mechanisms
Posited Outcome
Return to Baseline
Adaptation
Habituation
Men and women adapt to their
respective surroundings leading to
little gender differences in well-
being overall.
Men and women are not impacted
as greatly by aspects of life that
become habitual in nature (e.g.,
inequality or stereotypes) leading to
little gender differences in well-
being overall.
Basis of Evaluation
In-Group Social Comparisons
Values
Men and women may not consider
one another part of their in-group
and compare they life to others of
their same sex leading to little
gender differences in well-being
overall.
Men and women may value
different aspects of life such leading
to little gender differences in well-
being overall.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 15
Return to Baseline
Adaptation. Adaptation is another phenomenon difficult to address in our measurement
of SWB that may contribute to seemingly null effects. Adaptation, also labeled the hedonic
treadmill (Brickman & Campbell, 1971), is the theorized reason behind the lack of large, long-
lasting influences of major life events (e.g., loss of a job, marriage, winning the lottery) on a
person’s levels of well-being (Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012; Brickman & Campbell,
1971). More specifically, researchers have found that despite major life events that intuitively
one would suspect would have large, long-lasting impacts on one’s well-being levels, it appears
instead that individuals tend to adapt to their new-found situations and return to their original
baseline levels of well-being (Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012; Brickman & Campbell,
1971). If men and women are not biologically predisposed to experience vastly different levels
of SWB, this idea may be one reason behind why we do not see consistent or persistent
differences in SWB between men and women in all samples we study. While in the moment
stereotypes or restricted resources may impact women more negatively, decreasing their levels of
SWB, relatively quickly – due to adaptation – women return to their baseline which may not be
much different, if at all, from men’s baseline levels of well-being.
Habituation. Habituation proposes that constant stimuli begin to fade into the
background due to an evolutionary benefit of protecting our limited cognitive resources (Helson,
1948; 1964). This applies to the idea of well-being too, such that well-being is less dependent
upon the desirability of the constant, ever-present circumstances (e.g., stereotypes, inequalities),
but are more so reflective of changes in the important circumstances of life (Carver & Scheier,
1990). As such, once women become accustomed to life circumstances, such as inequalities,
these circumstances may end up having less of an influence on their well-being levels potentially
diminishing differences between men and women in SWB that would have been present had this
state not become habitual in nature.
Basis of Evaluation
In-group Social Comparison. Another challenge of self-reported well-being measures is
the inability to determine the extent to which in-group versus out-group comparisons are being
made. While some samples may find no difference between men and women, this may be due to
women’s in-group comparisons being comprised of only other women. Thus, it may be likely
that they do not perceive themselves to be any worse off that other women, leading to relatively
high levels of well-being. However, in some samples (e.g., working samples) where we do see
gender differences in SWB, women’s in-group social comparison may include men too, and then
comparatively, due to inequalities or social expectations, they may have decreased levels of well-
being from making this comparison. Unfortunately, currently measures of SWB do not include a
way for people to report when these sort of in-group comparisons are being made and how they
go about defining their in-group members.
Values. Another critical issue that also needs to be considered in comparing the levels of
SWB between men and women is that they may derive happiness from different sources. There
has been substantial work on differences in what men and women value most in life and their
GENDER DIFFERENCES 16
sources of happiness. Past research has suggested that men and women’s values differ (e.g.,
Beutel & Marini, 1995), which may influence the degree to which different aspects of life impact
their respective levels of SWB. Work by Beutel and Marini (1995) found that women reported
valuing the well-being of others and finding purpose and meaning in life more than men and
value materialism and competition less than men. More specifically, some research has explored
differences in perceived sources of happiness for men and women, reporting some differences
among the sexes. While men reported sports, sexual activity, being liked, and having a quality
social life significantly more influential on their happiness than women did. Women reported
helping others, being close to family, and being loved as significantly more influential on their
happiness levels than men (Crossley & Langdridge, 2005).
Some work has looked directly to differences between the sexes in terms of the influence
of life factors have on their subsequent happiness. For example, in a meta-analysis by Pinquart
and Sorenson (2000) found that income, education, and SES were more impactful on men’s well-
being levels as compared to women’s, and that social networks were more impactful on women’s
well-being levels as compared to men’s. Subsequently, women and men may go about basing
their responses on SWB measures on different value structures, subsequently nullifying
differences. If instead measures left less up for interpretation on what aspects of life one should
be rating, or considering, in this evaluation, we may see greater gender differences in SWB.
Future Directions
While work addressing the question of gender differences in well-being is not rare, there
are several limitations in current research that can be addressed by future work on this subject.
As is true in most areas of research, there is a concern that the literature is inundated with only
results that are significant, and those that are not significant are relegated to a “file-drawer”
either literally or metaphorically (Rosenthal, 1979). While this is by no means a new problem, or
an issue only relevant to the study of gender differences in well-being, it is an issue that should
be paid particular attention to in an area of research most interested in differences by the very
nature of the question being asked. Results that do not find significant differences should be
equally valued if we are to have a balanced and complete perspective on this issue and
significant results should be replicated in order to increase confidence in these findings (Pashler
& Harris, 2012; Hyde, 2007).
Along these same lines, there is a need for further empirical work on specific theoretical
reasons proposed for why gender differences exist rather than simply relying on secondary
analyses to answer this question. Theory is critical in providing a foundation for research
questions, and it is critical to then test the theory in an empirical manner to further develop an
understanding of gender differences in well-being. This may include pinning two theoretical
perspectives against one another in an attempt to empirically validate one over the other as has
been done some previously (e.g., Mason, 1995). Additionally, research that is more causal in
nature may be beneficial to further understand why and when environmental factors, such as
inequality, contribute to gender differences in well-being. This may be done by manipulating
situations of perceived inequality in a laboratory setting to provide some additional evidence of a
cause and effect relationship rather than relying exclusively on correlational-based theory.
Other methods may also be beneficial to incorporate further to develop our understanding
of well-being differences among the sexes such as longitudinal investigations. While presently
there is work that compares gender differences across age groups (e.g., Pinquart & Sorenson,
GENDER DIFFERENCES 17
2000; Diener, & Eunkook Suh, 1997), variations in the magnitude of gender differences in well-
being in these studies may be reflective of generational differences rather than differences across
the lifespan. Past research has also suggested that longitudinal work may help to distinguish
between the frequency by which men and women experience positive and negative emotions
versus the intensity that these emotions are experience by men and women respectively (Diener,
Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985). There may be differences in well-being patterns overtime dependent
upon whether one is interested in the frequency the emotions are experienced versus the intensity
by which they respond to the same or similar emotional stimuli. As such, understanding the
fluctuation across both the short-term and long-term using methods such as experience sampling
method will provide additional insights that are critical to further understand well-being across
time and help untangle the question of gender differences in well-being over time in ecological
settings (Tay, Chan, & Diener, 2014).
Additionally, integrating both person-centered (e.g., looking at differences among
clusters of individuals on outcomes) and variable-centered approaches in research on this subject
may be beneficial to provide further insight as to why there are gender differences in well-being
for some samples and not others. As integrating the adaption of a person-centric perspective on
well-being will help to preserve the integrity of the person overall in order to understand the way
that they shape, feel about, and understand their own well-being (Weiss & Rupp, 2011). This
focus would emphasize the experience of the subjective states and experiences at both a
momentary level (e.g, positive and negative affect) as well as more cumulative evaluations (e.g.,
life satisfaction). This would requires relying more heavily on both quantitative and qualitative
methods such as gathering the histories and narratives individuals create about their lives.
In adopting these methods, we will likely have an increased understanding of gender’s
relationship to well-being and develop ways to enhance SWB for both men and women.
Lyubomirsky (2001) proposed that the greater understanding of why some people, or sexes in
this case, are happier may provide the foundation for interventions to increase happiness of the
less happy group by drawing on the developable traits, behaviors, and environmental factors of
the happier group. Because happiness has been shown to relate to and precede numerous
important life outcomes (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005), the ability to do this could
subsequently improve the long-term success of both men and women in numerous areas of life.
Beyond understanding the causes of gender differences in well-being levels, it is also
important to further explore the subsequent repercussions of these differences. Substantial
amounts of research have examined the numerous positive outcomes that are believed to be a
result of high SWB, but research has failed to examine if these outcomes differ for men and
women. This would be important for understanding further the impact differences in well-being
has on the lives of men and women. As such, we believe that exploring the differential validities
of SWB for the outcomes of men and women separately may be beneficial to having a more
complete picture of the impact of these differences in SWB.
Concluding Remarks
Despite the question’s popularity in research and the work that has already been done,
there is still substantial work that can, and should, continue the subject in an effort to further our
understanding of gender and well-being. While the question of whether men and women differ in
levels of well-being is a seemingly straight-forward question, there are numerous complexities
involved in answering it. First, it is important to consider the different types, and components, of
GENDER DIFFERENCES 18
well-being as a construct. Second, it is important to understand that depending on numerous
biological, individual, and environmental factors the difference in SWB may be apparent. Third,
one must consider the present limitations in the research and act on the necessary future
directions to provide further clarity and understanding. Thus, we hope that taken together these
considerations paint a vivid picture of the complex nature of a seemingly simple question. Do
men and women differ in levels of SWB? As cliché as it sounds, the answer appears to be at least
for now, “it depends.”
GENDER DIFFERENCES 19
References
Bartels, M. (2015). Genetics of wellbeing and its components satisfaction with life, happiness,
and quality of life: A review and meta-analysis of heritability studies. Behavior
genetics, 45(2), 137-156.
Batz, Tay, Kuykendall, & Cheung (in preparation). The Role of Gender Inequality in Explaining
Gender Differences in Subjective Well-Being.
Beutel, A. M., & Marini, M. M. (1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review,
60(3), 436-448.
Bjørnskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. (2007). On gender inequality and life satisfaction:
Does discrimination matter? (No. 657). SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics
and Finance.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the
USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7), 1359-1386.
Blazina, C., & Watkins Jr, C. E. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effects on college men's
psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and attitudes towards help-
seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(4), 461-465.
Bradburn, N. M. & Caplovitz, D. (1965) Reports on happiness. Chicago: Aldine, 1965.
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In
M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York:
Academic Press.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A
control process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35.
Chen, H., Pine, D. S., Ernst, M., Gorodetsky, E., Kasen, S., Gordon, K., ... & Cohen, P. (2013).
GENDER DIFFERENCES 20
The MAOA gene predicts happiness in women. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology
and Biological Psychiatry, 40, 122-125.
Clemente, F., & Sauer, W. (1976). Life satisfaction in the United States. Social Forces, 54(3),
621-631.
Crossley, A., & Langdridge, D. (2005). Perceived sources of happiness: A network-
analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6(2), 107-135.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864.
Diener, E., & Eunkook Suh, M. (1997). Subjective well-being and age: An international
analysis. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 17, 304-324.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness:
Relative standards, need fulfillment, culture, and evaluation theory. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 1(1), 41-78.
Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and
life satisfaction. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology
(pp. 63-73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for emotional intensity.
Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 542.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three
decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 21
Easterlin, R. (2003). Happiness of Women and Men in Later Life: Nature, Determinants, and
Prospects. In M. J. Sirgy, D. R. Rahtz, A. Coskun-Samli (Eds.) Advances in Quality-of-
Life Theory and Research (pp. 13-26). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Eaton, N. R., Keyes, K. M., Krueger, R. F., Balsis, S., Skodol, A. E., Markon, K. E., ... & Hasin,
D. S. (2012). An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental
disorder prevalence: evidence from a national sample. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 121(1), 282.
Fujita, F., Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in negative affect and well-
being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(3), 427.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial
environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55(1-2), 51-
61.
Golub, S., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Premenstrual and menstrual mood changes in adolescent
women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 961.
Good, G. E. & Wood, P. K. (1995). Male gender role conflict, depression, and help seeking: Do
college men face double jeopardy? Journal of Counseling and Development, 74(1), 70.
Grant B.F. & Weissman M.M. (2007) Gender and the prevalence of psychiatric disorders. In
N.E. Narrow, M.B. First, P.J. Sirovatka PJ, D.A. Regier (Eds). Age and gender
considerations in psychiatric diagnosis: A research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 31–46).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans view their mental health. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Survey Research Center.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 22
Haring, M., Stock, W., & Okun, M. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and social class as
correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37(8), 645–657.
Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference.
Psychological Review, 55, 297–313.
Helson, H. (1964). Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist,
19, 26 –38.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581.
Hyde, J. S. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 259-263.
Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs of depression: Integrating
affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender
difference in depression. Psychological review, 115(2), 291-313.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Inglehart, R. (2002). Gender, aging, and subjective well-being. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology, 43(3-5), 391-408.
Ingelhart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development. freedom, and rising
happiness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264-85.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human
development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, S. R. (1987). The epidemiology and social impact of premenstrual symptoms. Clinical
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 30(2), 367-376.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 23
Jorm, A. F., & Ryan, S. M. (2014). Cross-national and historical differences in subjective well-
being. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 330-340.
Kessler, R.C. &Walters E.E. (1998). Epidemiology of DSM-III-R major depression and minor
depression among adolescents and young adults in the National Comorbidity Survey.
Depression Anxiety, 7, 3–14
LaFrance, M., Hecht, M. A., & Paluck, E. L. (2003). The contingent smile: A meta-analysis of
sex differences in smiling. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 305-334.
Landers, S. (1988). Facts confound myths of women, depression. APA Monitor, 5.
Larson, R. (1978). Thirty years of research on the subjective well-being of older Americans.
Journal of Gerontology, 33, 109-125.
Lee, G. R., Seccombe, K., & Shehan, C. L. (1991). Marital status and personal happiness: An
analysis of trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 839-844.
Lucas, R. E., & Gohm, C. L. (2000). Age and sex differences in subjective well-being across
cultures. Culture and Subjective Well-being, 3(2), 91-317.
Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas R. E. (2012) Subjective well-being and adaptation to
life events: A meta-analysis on differences between cognitive and affective well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592-615.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and
motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56(3), 239.
Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–55
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 24
Mason, E. S. (1995). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 135(2), 143-151.
McRae, K., Ochsner, K. N., Mauss, I. B., Gabrieli, J. J. D., & Gross, J. J. (2008). Gender
differences in emotion regulation: An fMRI study of cognitive reappraisal. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 143-162.
Meisenberg, G., & Woodley, M. A. (2015). Gender differences in subjective well-being and their
relationships with gender equality. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(6), 1539-1555.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Rusting, C. L. (2003). Gender Differences in Well-Being. In D.
Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Schwarz. Well-being:Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.
330- 352) New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy Insights from
the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 195-203.
Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological
Science, 22(9), 1095-1100.
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(5), 533-539.
Parker, G., & Brotchie, H. (2010). Gender differences in depression. International Review of
Psychiatry, 22(5), 429-436.
Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments
examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531-536.
Patten, E., & Parker, K. (2012). A gender reversal on career aspirations. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/04/19/a-gender-reversal-on-career-aspirations/
GENDER DIFFERENCES 25
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well-
being in old age a meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(4), 195-213.
Plant, E. A., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of
emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 81-92.
Regan, M. C., & Roland, H. E.. (1982). University students: A change in expectations and
aspirations over the decade. Sociology of Education, 55(4), 223–228.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological
Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641.
Røysamb, E., Harris, J. R., Magnus, P., Vittersø, J., & Tambs, K. (2002). Subjective well-being.
Sex-specific effects of genetic and environmental factors. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32(2), 211-223.
Ruth, L., & Napier, J. (2014). Gender inequality and subjective well-being. In Encyclopedia of
Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 2446-2451). Netherlands: Springer
Netherlands.
Russo, N. F., & Green, B. L. (1993). Women and mental health. In F.L. Denmakr & M. A.
Paludi (Eds.) Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 379-436).
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.
Savic-Berglund, I. (2010). Sex differences in the human brain, their underpinnings and
GENDER DIFFERENCES 26
implications (Vol. 186). Elsevier.
Schyns, P. (1998). Cross-national differences in happiness: Economic and cultural factors
explored. Social Indicators Research, 43, 3– 26.
Shmotkin, D. (1990). Subjective well-being as a function of age and gender: A multivariate look
for differentiated trends. Social Indicators Research, 23, 201-230.
Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. (2004). Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and
women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal
of Sociology, 109(5), 1137-1176.
Steiner, M., Dunn, E., & Born, L. (2003). Hormones and mood: from menarche to menopause
and beyond. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74(1), 67-83.
Steptoe, A., Demakakos, P., de Oliveira, C., & Wardle, J. (2012). Distinctive biological
correlates of positive psychological well-being in older men and women. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 74(5), 501-508.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2009). The paradox of declining female happiness (No. w14969).
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Tay, L., Chan, D., & Diener, E. (2014). The metrics of societal happiness. Social Indicators
Research, 117(2), 577-600.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354.
Tay, L., Ng, V., Kuykendall, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Demographic Factors and Worker Well-
being: An Empirical Review Using Representative Data from the United States and
across the World. In The Role of Demographics in Occupational Stress and Well
Being (pp. 235-283). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
GENDER DIFFERENCES 27
Tesch-Römer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., & Tomasik, M. J. (2008). Gender differences in
subjective well-being: Comparing societies with respect to gender equality. Social
Indicators Research, 85(2), 329-349.
Warr, P., & Payne, R. (1982). Experience of strain and pleasure among British adults. Social
Science and Medicine, 16, 1691-1697.
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing Work: An Essay on a Person‐Centric Work
Psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 83-97.
Weiss, A., Bates, T. C., & Luciano, M. (2008). Happiness is a personal (ity) thing: The genetics
of personality and well-being in a representative sample. Psychological Science, 19(3),
205-210.
White, J. M. (1992). Marital status and well-being in Canada. Journal of Family Issues, 13,390-
409.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294-306.
Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A
consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 249
Zuckerman, M., Li, C., & Diener, E. F. (2017). Societal Conditions and the Gender Difference in
Well-Being: Testing a Three-Stage Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
43(3), 329 – 336.
