Aging & Mental Health, September 2006; 10(5): 485–496
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Kin keepers and good providers: Influence of gender socialization on well-being among USA birth cohorts
S. SALARI & W. ZHANG Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
(Received 8 June 2005; accepted 6 January 2006) Abstract Previous research has suggested happiness and distress differ for men and women over the life course, but little attention has focused on whether the predictors of well-being vary for each group. The second wave of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH2) data was used to study whether hypothesized differential exposure to traditional gender socialization has influenced perceptions of life achievement, global happiness and depression for adult men and women in distinct USA birth cohorts. Numerous findings illustrated similarity among cohort and gender groups in predictors of well-being. There was also evidence of a change in USA gender socialization, and determinants of the dependent variables varied according to these shifts by sex and cohort membership. For example, in the earliest born cohort, women’s happiness was related to frequency of contact with relatives, consistent with the kin keeper role. Assets and income predicted depression and global happiness for older men, suggesting a link between well-being and the good provider role. In the latest born cohorts, not just androgynous, but opposite influences predominated as men and women demonstrated less evidence of traditional socialization shaping their satisfaction with achievements and psychological well-being.
Introduction Poor psychological well-being is detrimental to individuals and can have a negative effect on the larger society. Women reportedly have greater internal distress in the form of depression, and lower psychological well-being, compared to men across the life course (Mirowsky & Ross, 1995). Factors predicting psychological distress are thought to vary by sex, age, and cohort, but these differences have been neglected in the literature (Davies, 1999; Hooyman, Brown, Ray, & Richardson, 2002). Reasons for gender differences in well-being may be either biological (see Udry, 1994) or social in nature. Lopata (1987) argued that human beings are assigned sex identification at birth through socialization, which translates into a pervasive gender identity which is then carried through life, influencing social roles. The life course perspective has emerged to link women and men’s lives with the broader social and historical context in which they lived (Elder, 1999; Hatch, 2000). Aging cannot be understood apart from gender and the gendered process of aging must be viewed within the context of earlier experiences as well as the broader contexts of social and historical change (Moen, 1996). We argue that some of the sex and cohort differences in perceptions of life achievements and psychological well-being are rooted in
gender socialization, which has varied by cohort history and will change with cohort succession. Each cohort has a unique history (Uhlenberg & Miner, 1996) and is located in a particular stage of life during a specific historical context, and enmeshed in a social structure that adapts as society changes (Riley, Foner, & Waring, 1988). Ryder (1964, p. 461) stated ‘social change occurs to the extent that successive cohorts do something other than merely repeat the patterns of behavior of their predecessors’. Intra-cohort variation exists so that women have different experiences than men, blacks from whites, and so forth (Miner & Tolnay, 1998; Uhlenberg & Miner, 1996). At the individual level, agreement between expected and achieved roles is thought to lead to greater well-being (Hooker & Siegler, 1993), while incongruity leads to distress and feelings of regret may accompany inaction toward perceived goals. Accomplishments are also evaluated within the context of socially shared values and norms over the life course (Cohler & Boxer, 1984), such as prescribed traditional gender expectations. Predictors of well-being within cohorts may vary by gender, based on the rigidity of cultural expectations versus achievement in prescribed areas. While people do
Correspondence: Sonia Miner Salari, PhD, Family & Consumer Studies, AEB 228, 225 South, 1400 East, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Tel: þ 1 (801) 581 5725. Fax: þ 1 (801) 581 5156. E-mail:
[email protected] ISSN 1360-7863 print/ISSN 1364-6915 online/06/050485–496 ß 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13607860600647975
486
S. Salari & W. Zhang
change over time, unique gender socialization trends during formative developmental years are expected to have a lasting effect on a cohort as it moves through the life course, creating differential pathways to well-being for men and women. The importance of studying gender, age, cohort and historical context has been emphasized in recent research (Hatch, 2000; Hooyman et al., 2002). Lopata (1987) suggests that from girlhood to old age, female lives are constrained by the gender stratification system and its consequences for selfconcept and life chances. Historically, traditional roles encouraged middle and upper class white women to interact within the home or ‘private sphere’ (Hatch, 2000) by raising children and doing ‘kin-work’, involving ‘conceptualization, maintenance, and ritual celebration of cross-household kin ties, the organization of holiday gatherings, and the creation and maintenance of quasi-kin relations’ (di Leonardo, 1992, p. 248). At the same time, they have been isolated from formal participation in politics, labor force, medicine and law. Traditional roles for men have isolated them from family life as they have been strongly tied to the ‘public sphere’ (Moen, 1996) with a focus on occupation, economic status, formal organizations and political activity. Jessie Bernard (1981) described the rise and fall of the male ‘good provider role’ (1830–1980), as a specialized expectation for men to be primary breadwinners, devoted to stable employment and career development. Failure in these areas negatively affected the man’s identity, regardless of his emotional contributions to his family. Evidence suggests labor force participation is still associated with men’s well-being over the life course, as those who conform to gendered expectations have greater mental and physical health and those with discontinuous work histories experience higher mortality than stable workers (Pavalko, Elder, & Clipp, 1993). Labor force participation rewards typically include higher income and assets, which has been linked to positive effects on subjective well-being (Easterlin & Schaeffer, 1999) and cohort membership over the life course (Miech & Shanahan, 2000). Involvement in voluntary organizations provide participants with greater life satisfaction (Palmore, 1981), but some cohort groups have been exposed to exclusionary rules for membership. Segregation by gender was (and for some still is) common practice in many organizations (e.g., fraternal clubs, veterans’ posts, sports leagues, political groups, service clubs and professional groups) and opportunities established earlier in life are likely to be maintained over time (Miner & Tolnay, 1998). We do not suggest that people must conform to traditional gender expectations to be happy, but macro social pressures can have an influence on how we define our micro level sense of self. If individuals receive strong messages that they should be valued
for certain traditional achievements, feelings of poor well-being and disappointment may exist if they fall short in those areas. These influences may continue to be relevant for older individuals, even as society has moved away from traditional pressures, opportunities, and gender expectations as it socializes later born cohorts (Stoller & Gibson, 1997). Eventually, cohort replacement will change gender expectations and societal pressures that influence perceptions of life accomplishments and well-being. We link cohorts to historical influences and differential socialization below. Great Depression/GI generation Current older cohorts in the USA have experienced traditional gender socialization in their formative adult years, as elderly persons today were socialized as young adults during the 1940s–1950s and earlier. The survivors of the GI generation were born prior to 1930, experienced childhood during the Depression and were young adults during World War II (Crispell, 1993). The Depression cohort is represented by a relatively small group born between 1930 and 1939 (Weeks, 2005). In 2000 there were approximately 60.5 million survivors of these two birth cohorts—61 years and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In his book Children of the Great Depression, Glen Elder (1999) reported on the movement of these birth cohorts through the life course. Their often-deprived childhoods created adaptations which emphasized traditional values and relationships, but their formative adult years took place during relatively good economic times. Strong blatant socialization pressures influenced both men and women during the World War II era, as it was common for service age men to serve in the armed forces, couples to marry during the war, and for women to be occupied with child rearing in the relatively affluent post war years (Elder, 1999). To assist in the war effort, some women worked nontraditional jobs, but when the servicemen returned, the female labor force was pressured by government propaganda to quit and return to the home (Andersen, 1999), so their husbands could assume the role as employed head of the household. Baby Boom cohort 1946–1964 The post war Baby Boom born between 1946–1964 (Crispell, 1993; Weeks, 2005), represents the largest USA cohort in recent history, with recent estimates at 79 million persons—all of whom are now over 40 (U.S. Census, 2000). Men and women born early in the Baby Boom were teens and young adults during the late 1960s, and were associated with Vietnam, Woodstock, the Woman’s Liberation Movement and Civil Rights demonstrations (Braus, 1995; Crispell, 1993). Later born Baby Boomers came of age during the Equal Rights Amendment and Watergate debates. This large cohort recognized gender
Kin keepers and good providers discrimination in the workforce as a problem (Andersen, 1999), and women often chose male dominated careers as they judged traditional female jobs as low paying and under appreciated. Family structure was changing with the availability of the birth control pill and Betty Friedan’s (1963) best selling book, Feminine Mystique pinpointed the isolation women often felt with full-time household and child care duties. Recent qualitative research found mid-life Baby Boom women still have a strong desire to make a contribution in life, but full-time homemaker status was not viewed as a vehicle toward that end (Stewart & Gold-Steinberg, 1990). The male ‘good provider’ role has declined beginning in the 1980 census, when men were no longer considered the automatic household head (Bernard, 1981). In 1960, 42% of families had a male sole breadwinner, compared to about 7% of married couple households today (Lamanna & Reidmann, 2006). Baby Boom men have been encouraged to be involved in their families (Coltrane, 1996) and these men are termed the ‘new, nurturant fathers’, who attempt to reconcile the good provider model of their father’s generation with current societal expectations (Daly, 1995). While vestiges of traditional perspectives may still apply, the Baby Boom generation has shifted away from rigid gender definitions and moved toward more androgynous expectations characterized by high education, sharp increases in the female labor force, women in professional careers, dual earner families, and more single parents (Braus, 1995). Baby Bust cohort born 1965–1976 The youngest cohort we examined, born in a period of low fertility between 1965–1976, is described as the Baby Bust cohort, also known as Generation X. There were approximately 48 million Americans in this age range in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), and many have experienced single parent families and have a quest for emotional security, independence and informality. They do not remember the women’s movement firsthand, but they benefit from the changes in gender socialization that resulted, such as greater career development among women and an interest in egalitarian relationships between the sexes (Crispell, 1993). They came of age during a period where secondary education was considered a necessity, and changes in the economy emphasized service work and computer technology. Government policies such as affirmative action and ADA served to widen employment and training opportunities for previously under-served groups and choices in employment have fewer limitations based on gender norms. This generation has been socialized to be more androgynous than older cohorts, with fewer rules associated with gender-typed careers and family roles, so we expect fewer traditional influences on achievement and well-being.
487
Research hypotheses The literature motivates the following hypotheses: (1) first, traditional gender attitudes will vary by birth cohort, reflecting a change in socialization. The earliest born cohorts are expected to agree that men should be breadwinners and women kin keepers to a greater degree than later born cohorts. (2) Second, predictors of (a) satisfaction with life achievements, and (b) internal well-being—happiness and depression—will vary for men and women by cohort group reflecting historical differences in fulfillment of traditional societal expectations related to gender. The Depression and GI cohorts are expected to show stronger influence of the good provider/public sphere indicators (education, assets, income contribution, workforce participation, and voluntary organization membership) for men and the kin keeper/private sphere characteristics (frequency and quality of family and friend contact) for women. Younger cohorts would show evidence of more androgynous gender socialization with regard to predictors of the dependent measures—with family being salient for men and financial accomplishments for women. (3) Another hypothesis would suggest that what determines satisfaction with achievements and well-being will not vary significantly by cohort and gender group and is not related to differential socialization. In other words, the predictors of life satisfaction will be universal across cohort and gender category. (4) ‘Life course’ effects represent an alternative hypothesis for describing the influences on satisfaction with achievements and psychological well-being. This perspective would argue that different age groups vary in the predictors of the dependent variables, because of the life stage they are experiencing, and these may change as they get older. For example, if we do not see a reflection of traditional expectations, perhaps aging men have become more family-oriented as their work roles decreased and women were freed up for more achievement-oriented pursuits as their child rearing years ended (Gutmann, 1994).
Data and methods We analyzed wave two of the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH2) collected in the USA between 1992–1994. The original NSFH was based on a national probability sample of 13,008 respondents age 18þ in 1987–1988. The main sample had 9643 respondents with an over sample of 3374 Blacks, Hispanics, single parent families, cohabiting couples and the recently married. The second wave (NSFH2) re-interviewed 10,008 from the original sample. The results are generalizable, since NSFH2 weights adjusted for NSFH1 person weight, tracing, successful interview, and post stratification adjustments. Our sample was restricted
488
S. Salari & W. Zhang
to groups large enough to separate into cohorts (non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites). Respondents were initially grouped into four cohorts: Baby Bust born 1965–1970, age 22–28; Baby Boom born 1946–1964, age 29–47; War Babies born 1940–1945, age 48–52; and the Depression/GI cohort age 53 and over in 1992. We combined those born in the 1930s with survivors of the GI Generation born prior to 1930. Elder’s (1999) work sets the precedence for this combination, as both groups experienced the hardships associated with the Depression at an early stage of life, and had similar traditional gender socialization. When analyzed, the War Babies cohort was quite small, but showed results we would have expected. The decision was made to streamline the results by omitting them from the tables, which allowed for a five-year gap separating the earliest born cohort and the Baby Boom. The Baby Boom cohort was quite large and an analysis of two halves separately did not change the results, so we kept it intact. We used a partial Baby Bust cohort (adults 22–28 in 1992), since those born 1971–1976 would have been under age 18 in 1987 and excluded from the original sample. The continuous measures of perceptions of life achievements and the two psychological well-being indicators (happiness and depression) were analyzed using multivariate analyses (OLS regression for all cohort groups). The dependent measure in the descriptive analysis reported the percentage of the respondents in each cohort who agree ‘it is much better for everyone if the man earns the main living and the woman takes care of the home and family’. Those who agreed or strongly agreed were coded 1, and all other nonmissing cases were coded 0. Other dependent variables represented both positive and negative assessments. The life achievement item was phrased ‘In many ways, I feel disappointed about my achievements in life’ and it was coded 0 ¼ disagree, 1 ¼ slightly agree, 2 ¼ moderately agree and 3 ¼ strongly agree. The global happiness item was measured ‘Overall, how would you say you are feeling these days?’ (1 ¼ very unhappy, 7 ¼ very happy). Depressive symptomology was measured by a 12-item modified Center for Epidemiological Studies (CES-D) scale which included frequency of irritability, poor appetite, blues, trouble with concentration, depression, fatigue, fear, insomnia, withdrawal, loneliness, sadness and lethargy in the past week ( ¼ 0.93). The modified CES-D scale excluded items not generalizable across men and women (Ross & Mirowsky, 1984). Independent measures were separated into two types, representing the ‘good provider’ variables in the public sphere and the ‘kin keeper’ measures in the private sphere. Good provider/public sphere— Socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with subjective well-being and mental health (Belle, Doucet, Harris, Miller, & Tan, 2000).
Empirical evidence has shown those with greater education, wealth and income report lower levels of depression and distress (Easterlin & Schaeffer, 1999). Education was measured continuously by number of years of school attended (0–20 ¼ doctorate or professional degree and GED ¼ 12). Those who enrolled in a college, university or professional school, but did not graduate were coded 13. Assets were measured continuously in dollar value, including ownership of a home, real estate, business or farm, and motor vehicles. The amount owed was subtracted from the estimated sale value and the difference was summed for the four types of assets. The value of savings accounts, stocks and bonds were added to the total non-liquid assets. The log of asset value was used in the multivariate analyses. Family income was highly related to asset value, so we used respondent’s income contribution (including pensions, welfare and other sources) as a percentage of the total family income. We coded the variable into four quartiles 1 ¼ 0–24%, 2 ¼ 25–49%, 3 ¼ 50–74% and 4 ¼ 75–100%. In order to measure income adequacy, we included a 0–4 scale of financial worry based on ‘How often do you worry that your total family income will not be enough to meet your family’s expenses and bills? Would you say almost all the time (4), often (3), once in awhile (2), hardly ever (1) or never (0)?’ Labor force participation was measured by the item ‘are you currently working for pay in any job?’ and for respondents over age 60 ‘do you consider yourself fully retired?’ Employment was dummy coded (1 ¼ in workforce, 0 ¼ unemployed). While ‘unemployed’ described absence from the labor force, we realize that for stay-at-home mothers or retirees this status may not be perceived as unemployment. Public sphere participation included membership in the following organizations: fraternal groups, service clubs, political groups, labor unions, farm organizations, and professional societies. These organizations were historically segregated by gender, with men traditionally more involved. Frequency of participation was coded in times per month (0–12). We used two categories available in the NSFH2: (1) service clubs, fraternal or political groups; and (2) work related groups. The mean frequencies in each category were summed representing public sphere interaction (0–24). Kin keeper/private sphere Traditionally, women have maintained relationships (Belle, 1991), even toward secondary and distant kin (Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Frequency of contact with non co-resident relatives and friends (separately) was measured in number of contacts per month (0–12). Analyses originally included existence of children (not a significant predictor except in the Baby Bust cohort, which we will discuss later), but it was removed in favor of contact with relatives
Kin keepers and good providers (included interaction with any non co-resident children). While frequency of kin interaction is important, the quality of relationships influences psychological outcomes (Belle, 1991) and was measured by agreement with ‘maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me’ (0 ¼ disagree, 1 ¼ slightly agree, 2 ¼ moderately agree, 3 ¼ strongly agree). Couple status was dummy coded appropriately (married or cohabiting ¼ 1; singles ¼ 0), since non-marital cohabitation was much more relevant for later born respondents and almost a non-issue for older persons. Impairment has been identified as a major cause of depression (Mirowsky & Ross, 1992) and was controlled here. Respondents identified whether they ‘have a physical or mental condition that limits your ability to: (a) care for personal needs, (b) move around inside the house, (c) work for pay, (d) do household tasks, (e) climb a flight of stairs, or (f) walk six blocks?’ All items were dummy coded (1 ¼ some limitation, 0 ¼ none) and the six items were summed. Race (1 ¼ white, 0 ¼ black) was dummy coded and also included as a control, due to the differential gender socialization histories of blacks and whites. While middle and upper class white women were isolated from the public sphere, low income whites and non-whites continued to work in the paid labor force out of economic necessity (Hatch, 2000). African-Americans tend to be more egalitarian and black women have not necessarily identified with the grievances of the 1960s women’s movement (Collins, 2000).
Results The weighted descriptive means for selected variables by sex and cohort membership are reported in Table I. Traditional gender attitudes assigning the man as the breadwinner and the woman as kin keeper differed significantly for men and women in the earliest born cohort. Variation in the attitudes by cohort group was demonstrated here, as the difference in percentage who agreed was lowest for Baby Bust men and women (29 and 28% respectively), a bit higher for Baby Boomers (31 and 32%), and the majority in the Depression/GI cohort (62 and 58%). These results support hypothesis 1 and infer that gender socialization has changed over time. Women were more disappointed with their life achievements, but the difference between men and women was not significant in the Baby Boom cohort. Gender differences in well-being were evident, with women in each cohort reporting higher levels of depressive symptomology. Men are also significantly happier than women in the Depression/GI generation. All cohorts reported men to have an advantage in Socioeconomic status (SES) and women were more worried about finances. Mean asset values were
489
significantly higher among men in the Depression/GI cohort, with a difference of over $60,000. Men had higher labor force participation than women, except in the Depression/GI cohort (influenced by retirement). Involvement in voluntary organizations was more common among men and the oldest cohort had the most frequent participators. Other notable sex differences included the greater contact with relatives among women in all cohorts, and greater contact with friends among Depression/ GI women. Men in the Baby Boom and Baby Bust cohorts had a higher frequency of contact with friends than women. Differences in couple status by gender reflected the life expectancy differences that more often have men married or partnered later in life. In the first multivariate analysis, predictors of disappointment with life achievements show some signs of gender socialization influence for men in the three cohorts studied. Evidence of the good provider expectations existed in the Baby Boom and Depression/GI cohorts. Specifically, men in the earliest born cohort were more disappointed in their achievements if they were out of the workforce (unemployed or retired), and if they worried that their family income would not be sufficient. Baby Boom men were disappointed if they had low education, made a smaller percentage of the family income and were worried about income adequacy (Table II). For the youngest men, education was the only significant SES predictor. Low frequency of contact with relatives was a significant determinant of disappointment in achievements only among Baby Bust men. Difficulty with close relationships was a predictor of disappointment for all three cohorts (with the strongest effect among Depression/GI generation men). Table III shows a similar pattern as all cohorts of women were disappointed if they had difficulty with close relationships (slightly stronger among Depression/GI women). However, frequency of contact with relatives was not a significant predictor of disappointment among any cohort for women. Some evidence of differential gender socialization existed in women’s predictors of disappointment with achievements. For the Baby Boom and Baby Bust women, low education and assets were predictors of this variable. In addition, for Baby Boom women, perceptions of financial inadequacy and making a lower percentage of the family income were related to feelings of disappointment. Perhaps modern socialization among younger cohorts encourages women to value their ability to contribute financially to the family. Table IV reports the results predicting global happiness and depressive symptomology for men in the three cohorts. Some similarities existed, where all men reported a strong negative influence of financial worries on well-being. Those concerned that their family income would not cover their expenses were
*5.05
Kin keeper/Private sphere Frequency contact with relatives (per month 0–12) Frequency contact with friends (per month 0–12) Difficulty with close relationships (0–3) Married or cohabitating N
Good provider/Public sphere Education (1–20) R’s income % of total family income Assets (thousands) Financial worry (0 never–4 almost all the time) Frequency voluntary organizations (per month 0–24) Work in paid labor force
Gender socialization attitude Much better if man earns main income and woman takes care of home/family (0–1 Agree/Strongly agree)
Disappointed in achievements (0 disagree–3 strongly agree) Depressive symptomology scale (12 items, frequency 0–84) Global happiness (1–7)
Dependent variables
Variables
289
3.55 3.79 0.91 0.49
3.10
3.20
0.59
0.55
0.19
31.8
9.29
0.96
1.9 28.0 65 1.11
0.60
1.65
16.7
1.0
SD
12.9 60.8 44 2.04
0.29
5.39
11.9
0.49
Mean
Men
*
ns
ns
*
*
*
ns * ns *
ns
ns
*
*
Sig.
0.64
0.59
2.34
3.8
0.76
3.42
12.6 44.7 35 2.47
0.28
5.43
15.7
0.64
432
0.88
SD
0.48
0.94
3.11
3.96
0.42
14.23
1.81 34.4 72 1.15
0.48
1.30
15.7
Women Mean
Bust Baby/Age 22–28
0.75
0.64
2.24
1.77
0.95
9.64
13.3 63.4 98 2.08
0.31
5.25
11.6
0.55
Mean
Table I. Means and standard deviations of selected variables for men and women in three birth cohorts.
1896
0.43
0.94
2.99
2.61
0.22
28.5
2.27 28.1 155 1.10
0.46
1.25
13.7
0.85
SD
Men
*
ns
*
*
*
*
* * ns *
ns
ns
*
ns
Sig.
0.66
0.62
1.93
2.64
0.83
7.02
13.2 47.1 87 2.34
0.32
5.25
14.8
0.59
2785
0.74
SD
0.47
0.97
2.87
3.75
0.37
24.2
2.15 34.6 158 1.16
0.39
1.10
13.6
Women Mean
Bust Boom/Age 29–47
0.69
0.54
1.58
2.36
0.48
11.4
11.6 55.9 191 1.52
0.62
5.60
9.38
0.62
Mean
1006
0.46
0.89
2.71
3.21
0.50
32.1
3.30 30.3 248 1.19
0.57
1.61
14.7
1.09
SD
Men
*
*
*
*
ns
*
* * * *
*
*
*
*
Sig.
0.39
0.55
1.99
2.90
0.37
5.66
11.4 38.1 128 1.82
0.58
5.40
14.4
0.72
Mean
1835
0.96
SD
0.48
0.95
3.12
3.71
0.48
19.1
2.87 31.2 160 1.26
0.48
1.45
16.2
Women
Depression/GI Age 53þ
490 S. Salari & W. Zhang
Kin keepers and good providers
491
Table II. Regression coefficients and standard error predicting men’s disappointment with life achievements in three birth cohorts1. Men Disappointed achievements Variables Good provider/Public sphere Education R’s income % of total Financial worry Work in labor force Kin keeper/Private sphere Contact with relatives Difficulty close relations Married/cohabiting Controls Functional limitations N R2
Baby Bust
Baby Boom
0.054* (0.026)
0.029*** (0.008) 0.064*** (0.019) 0.127*** (0.018)
0.026* (0.013) 0.160** (0.057)
0.191*** (0.021) 0.121** (0.050)
0.178*** (0.052) 260 0.11
1719 0.13
Depr./GI
0.154*** (0.027) 0.136* (0.064)
0.328*** (0.036)
0.075*** (0.020) 805 019
þ p 0.10; *p 0.05; **p 0.01; ***p 0.001. 1Variables that were included in the analysis, but not significant predictors for any cohort included assets, formal organizations, contact with friends and race.
Table III. Regression coefficients and standard error predicting women’s disappointment with life achievements in three birth cohorts1. Women Disappointed achievements Variables Good provider/Public sphere Education R’s income % of total Assets Financial worry Kin keeper/Private sphere Difficulty close relations Controls Functional limitations N R2
Baby Bust
Baby Boom
Depr./GI
0.100*** (0.022)
0.041*** (0.007) 0.030* (0.015) 0.016** (0.006) 0.121*** (0.015)
0.092*** (0.021)
0.232*** (0.018)
0.264*** (0.026)
0.061*** (0.013) 2549 0.17
0.032* (0.016) 1399 0.10
0.022* (0.011) 0.069þ (0.037) 0.156*** (0.049)
390 0.15
þ p 0.10; *p 0.05; **p 0.01; ***p 0.001. 1Variables that were included in the analysis, but not significant predictors for any cohort included formal organizations, labor force participation, contact with relatives, contact with friends, married/cohabiting, and race.
more depressed and less happy. Perceived difficulty in close relationships had a similar effect across cohorts. Consistent with our hypotheses, SES was a strong predictor of well-being among men in the Depression/GI generation as asset values significantly predicted depressive symptomology and global happiness. Men in that cohort who earned a lower percentage of the family income were more depressed. The two later born cohorts did not show this financial pattern, with the exception of worrying about income adequacy. Baby Boom men were happier and showed fewer depressive symptoms if they were employed in the labor force, which does correspond to the good provider socialization.
However, lower educated men were happier, which would contradict traditional expectations. Men’s family relationship predictors varied by cohort, with some similarities. Those in all cohorts who perceived difficulty and frustration in close relationships were less happy and exhibited more depressive symptoms, compared to their counterparts. The ‘nurturant male’ pattern was evident among the youngest men who reported greater happiness with higher kin and friend contact, but those private sphere relationships were not significant for Baby Boom and Depression/GI cohorts. Table V reports the results of the multivariate regression analyses predicting global happiness and depressive symptomology for women across
3.07*** (0.797) 9.08*** (2.20) 255 0.28
Controls Functional limitations Race (1 ¼ white, 0 ¼ black) N R2
p 0.10; *p 0.05; **p 0.01; ***p 0.001.
þ
3.25*** (0.813) 3.04þ (1.67)
Kin keeper/Private sphere Contact with relatives Contact with friends Difficulty close relations Married/cohabiting
3.08*** (0.719) 0.563þ (0.345)
Baby Bust
2.56*** (0.260) 770 0.29
1693 0.31
2.67*** (0.453) 1.94þ (1.07)
0.729* (0.382) 0.505* (0.218) 2.63*** (0.360)
Depr./GI
3.03*** (0.254)
4.19*** (0.311) 2.10** (0.731)
0.154þ (0.094)
6.66*** (1.38)
0.198þ (0.110) 2.52*** (0.262)
Baby Boom
Depressive symptoms
Men
219 0.16
0.076** (0.028) 0.261*** (0.098) 1430 0.19
0.318*** (0.033) 0.461*** (0.080)
0.484*** (0.150)
0.802þ (0.474) 0.044* (0.022) 0.051** (0.020) 0.375*** (0.094) 0.349þ (0.195)
0.266*** (0.028)
0.057*** (0.013)
Baby Boom
0.188* (0.084)
Baby Bust
Global happiness
Regression coefficients and standard error predicting men’s depressive symptomology and global happiness in three birth cohorts.
Good provider/Public sphere Education R’s income % of total Assets Financial worry Formal organizations Work in labor force
Variables
Table IV.
0.131*** (0.031) 0.513** (0.174) 706 0.18
0.034þ (0.019) 0.315*** (0.056) 0.573*** (0.125)
0.079** (0.025) 0.189*** (0.043) 0.034þ (0.021)
Depr./GI
492 S. Salari & W. Zhang
þ
2.97*** (0.229) 2497 0.28
379 0.23
4.23*** (0.309)
1.69* (0.771)
0.316** (0.110) 3.20*** (0.260)
Baby Boom
1.98** (0.761)
2.98*** (0.853)
4.45** (1.86)
0.729* (0.379) 1.42* (0.676) 0.394* (0.196) 3.61*** (0.645)
Baby Bust
p 0.10; *p 0.05; **p 0.01; ***p 0.001.
Controls Functional limitations Race (1 ¼ white, 0 ¼ black) N R2
Kin keeper/Private sphere Contact with relatives Contact with friends Difficulty close relations Married/cohabiting
Good provider/Public sphere Education R’s income % of total Assets Financial worry Formal organizations Work in labor force
Variables
Depressive symptoms
2.76*** (0.236) 3.06* (1.39) 1291 0.22
3.09*** (0.436)
2.87*** (0.338) 0.674* (0.380)
Depr./GI
Women
330 0.16
0.149* (0.077) 0.355** (0.140)
0.029þ (0.017)
0.375*** (0.058)
Baby Bust
0.095*** (0.019) 0.152* (0.078) 2213 0.19
0.342*** (0.027) 0.159** (0.064)
0.266*** (0.022)
0.051* (0.024)
Baby Boom
Global happiness
Table V. Regression coefficients and standard error predicting women’s depressive symptomology and global happiness in three birth cohorts.
0.095*** (0.023) 0.454*** (0.138) 1258 0.10
0.024* (0.011) 0.022þ (0.013) 0.166*** (0.042) 0.263** (0.086)
0.244*** (0.033)
0.074þ (0.040)
Depr./GI
Kin keepers and good providers 493
494
S. Salari & W. Zhang
three cohorts. Similar to the results for men, women who felt worried about meeting their financial obligations were significantly more depressed and unhappy (but the relationship was weakest for the Depression/GI cohort). Perceptions of financial survival have a large influence on mental health, despite the cohort membership, sex or age of the respondent. Aside from the perception of financial worries, SES did not predict well-being for Depression/GI women. However, in an effect that neared significance (0.10 level), women were happier if they contributed a lower percentage of the family income (this was significant for Baby Boom women). Formal organization participation was related to higher depressive symptomology in the Depression/GI women. Socioeconomic variables were very important predictors of depressed states among women in the two later born cohorts. Specifically, Baby Boom and Baby Bust women were less depressed if they had more wealth (assets). For the youngest cohort, low levels of education and a small contribution to the family income were also predictors of greater depressive symptomology. Workforce participation had some curious influences. Unemployed Baby Boom women were more depressed, but paid work was a predictor of greater depression among Baby Bust women. Perhaps this reflects a ‘life course effect’ where women involved in education and training may begin in less fulfilling entry-level jobs they don’t enjoy (the direction is similar, but not significant among men of that cohort). To make sure that responsibilities of children did not cause this result, we ran a separate analysis with a variable measuring the presence of children (not shown here). The only significant influence across all cohorts found Baby Bust women with children were less happy (p ¼ 0.05), but the strong effect of paid work on depression remained. The perception of difficulty and frustration in close relationships was strong and negatively related to well-being across all cohorts of women. In the Depression/GI cohort, the frequency of contact with kin predicted greater global happiness. With the exception of the nearly universal influence of perceived difficulty in close relationships, the women in the youngest two cohorts had little evidence of the kin keeper role socialization affecting well-being.
Discussion and conclusions At all stages of the adult life course, subjective wellbeing differs by gender, with women showing significantly greater internal distress and anxiety than men (Mirowsky & Ross, 1995). We found women were more often disappointed with their life achievements and they consistently averaged higher levels of depressive symptomology than men in the
three cohorts studied here. Our findings suggest that examining the historical experience of traditional gender socialization may be a viable way to shed light on sex and cohort differences in the predictors of well-being and perceptions of life achievements. We used a large nationally representative sample to test the notion that for the earliest born cohort (the oldest) ‘kin keeper’ role expectations would be reflected in women’s and the ‘good provider’ in men’s predictors of the dependent variables. We also examined the cohorts that followed, expecting to see fewer products of traditional gender expectations and reflections of more androgynous influences on well-being. The goals were to determine whether birth cohorts varied in their agreement with traditional attitudes about gender expectations and whether differential socialization by cohort could help explain the predictors of: (1) satisfaction with life achievements; and (2) psychological well-being for men and women. We acknowledge that cohort and gender group distinctions yielded a wide range of results across several dependent variables, so we will provide a brief overview of our findings and the implications. Women in all three cohorts had greater contact with relatives than men. Men worked more in the paid labor force, made a higher percentage of the family income and participated in more voluntary organizations when compared to their female counterparts. There was inter-cohort variation in the level of agreement with traditional ‘good provider’ and ‘kin keeper’ gender expectations, with the majority of Depression/GI generation men (62%) and women (58%) holding traditional views about ‘men earning income and women taking care of the home and family.’ In contrast, not even a third of men and women in the later born cohorts ascribed to these attitudes, so gender attitudes are cohort specific, and seem to change as a result of sociohistorical events and cohort succession. Multivariate analysis determined that psychological well-being was at times predicted by ‘good provider’ and ‘kin keeper’ expectations among the earliest born cohorts (Depression/GI), and that the later born cohorts were not as influenced by those roles. The Baby Bust cohort showed some patterns that went beyond androgynous and were opposite traditional expectations. For example, we found cohorts of young women were disappointed with life achievements if they had fewer assets. However, the youngest men did not have any significant predictors that mirrored the good provider expectations (except education), and they were more disappointed with less kin contact. Evidence for the oldest cohort was less remarkable, perhaps due to a life course effect where, adjustments are made to be satisfied with what has realistically been achieved by later life (Hooker & Siegler, 1993). In analyses not reported in the tables, we found disappointment with life achievements was a major predictor of the dependent variables in all cohort/gender
Kin keepers and good providers categories—illustrating this measures importance for overall psychological well-being. There was support for the third hypothesis that important similarities in predictors of the dependent variables would be found for all cohort and gender groups studied. A certain level of financial security was crucial for positive feelings of achievement and well-being. Worrying about finances was a strong predictor of mental health universally, not just among older men (good provider socialization). The perception of difficulty in close relationships was also a strong predictor of the dependent variables universally. Rather than shaping only the oldest cohort of women (as we expected), quality of relationships appear to be a basic need for better mental health, and not influenced by gender socialization, age, or cohort membership. Depression/GI cohort Elder (1999) suggested that the harsh experiences of the Great Depression during the formative years of this cohort may have influenced them to adhere to more traditional views. They were also subjected to strong pressures for men to act as head of the household, and women to be dependent on the male breadwinner. Hypothesis 2 was supported since men in the Depression/GI cohort were influenced by ‘good provider’ expectations since they were less depressed and happier if they had more wealth and more depressed if they earned a lower percent of the family income. Earnings and asset levels did not significantly influence well-being for women in the oldest cohort. Perhaps ‘money does not buy happiness’ for everyone, but as we reported earlier, financial inadequacy cannot buy happiness for anyone. Women in the Depression/GI cohort were happier if they had greater contact with relatives (kin keepers), but this was not a significant predictor for men. This supported the notion that men were not socialized to desire extended family contact (Bernard, 1981), as women were in these early cohorts. Baby Boom cohort Economic variables did not appear as significant predictors of well-being for men in the Baby Boom cohort (except financial worry and lower education predicted greater happiness). Women’s reports were mixed, as those with fewer assets had more depressive symptoms, but they were happier if they contributed a smaller portion to the household income. Perhaps a vestige of traditional gender socialization has survived in that cohort as the transition was made from traditional to modern ideology. Although this cohort showed little evidence of traditional gender roles, men and women both reported better well-being if they were employed. For men, they are no longer judged exclusively on SES factors, but men’s work roles are still relevant,
495
and it is still considered socially unacceptable for a man to be unemployed or a ‘house husband’ (only 2–4% of fathers stay home full time; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Baby Bust cohort Depressive symptomology was heavily influenced by SES variables for women (except for workforce participation) and not for men in the latest born cohort. Happiness was related to family and friend contact for men only. This suggests that for the youngest cohort, the expectations are not as gender specialized as they once were, and the findings go beyond androgyny to reflect the evidence of an opposite pattern. With the exception of the nearly universal effects of worry over financial adequacy and difficulty in close relationships, patterns of good provider/public sphere and kin keeper/private sphere influences on well-being were completely opposite for the Baby Bust and Depression/GI cohorts. We suggest these differences are evidence of stronger socialization of traditional gender ideologies in the earlier born cohorts. The Baby Boom cohort demonstrated support for a transitional pattern where some evidence of traditional and modern gender socialization influences existed together. Men and women experience various social structures, opportunities and cultural norms within society, not just currently, but during the decades in which they lived and grew old (Stoller & Gibson, 1997). This research gives us a glimpse into the wellbeing of future cohorts of older men and women by projecting results found with the latest born cohorts represented here. Consistent with changing gender socialization, future older men are likely to be more influenced by family relationships than the current older male cohort. This supports the idea of an emerging ‘nurturant’ male (Daly, 1995). In addition, we found evidence of decline in the influence of the ‘good provider’ role for men, as Jesse Bernard (1981) has indicated. However, another trend evident here is a potential decline of the influence of the ‘kin keeper’ role for future older women, if the observed patterns younger cohorts are maintained over the life course. However, it is possible these roles may be more salient with age, indicating a life course effect. So, perhaps women become kin keepers as the older generations of women are replaced through cohort succession. Our results also point to some other potential life course effects. For example, paid work was a significant predictor of well-being among Baby Boomers, who were in the peak career development years. Older cohorts would be winding down their labor force participation and the Baby Bust may have been influenced by low status jobs, education and training diversions. Therefore, both cohort and life course effects appear to influence well-being for men and women across cohorts.
496
S. Salari & W. Zhang
Guttmann (1994) has suggested that as people grow older, enter the post parental phase and retire, they soften their traditional gender role attitudes and behaviors—opting for ‘normal androgyny’. Perhaps the oldest cohort had even stronger kin-keeping and good provider patterns earlier in life and they have mellowed over time. Future research could use the longitudinal sections of this data set (NSFH) to test whether or not a shift occurs across time for individuals and to see if traditional gender role influence on well-being actually declines with age. In addition, more research could focus on the predictors of well-being in cohorts who have become adults since these NSFH2 data were collected, such as the second half of the Baby Bust and the Baby Boomlet or Generation Y (Crispell, 1993). An examination of differences in predictors of well-being by gender and cohort among distinct ethnic groups who hold more traditional gender norms (such as Hispanic- and Asian-Americans) would also be worthwhile.
References Andersen, M. (1999). Thinking about women: Sociological perspectives on sex and gender (5th ed.). New York: NY Macmillan. Belle, D. (1991). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In A. Monat & R. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp. 258–274). NY: Columbia University. Belle, D., Doucet, J., Harris, J., Miller, J., & Tan, E. (2000). Who is rich? Who is happy? American Psychologist, 55(10), 1160–1161. Bernard, J. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36(1), 1–12. Braus, P. (1995). The Baby Boom at mid-decade. American Demographics, April (1–5), 40–45. Cohler, B., & Boxer, A. (1984). Middle adulthood: Settling into the world-person, time and context. In D. Offer (Ed.), Normality and the life cycle (pp. 145–203). NY: Basic Books. Collins, P. H. (2000). Work, family and Black women’s oppression. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed., pp. 45–68). NY: Routledge. Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework and gender equity (pp. 5–8). NY: Oxford. Crispell, D. (1993). Where generations divide: A guide. American Demographics, May, 1–5. Daly, K. (1995). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research and social policy (pp. 21–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davies, L. (1999). Gender and distress in later life: The importance of lifelong employment and familial experiences. In C. Ryff & V. Marshall (Eds.), The self and society in aging processes (pp. 339–361). New York: NY Springer Publishers. di Leonardo, M. (1992). The female world of cards and holidays: Women, families and the work of kinship. In M. Yalom & B. Thorne (Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Easterlin, R., & Schaeffer, C. (1999). Income and subjective well-being over the life cycle. In C. Ryff & V. Marshall (Eds.), The self and society in aging processes. New York: NY Springer Publishers. Elder, G. H. (1999). Children of the Great Depression: Social change and life experience (25th Anniversary ed., pp. 304–312). Boulder, CO: Westview, 5.
Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton. Gutmann, D. (1994). Reclaimed powers: Men and women in later life (2nd ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Hatch, L. R. (2000). Beyond gender differences: Adaptation to aging in life course perspective (p. 23). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Hooker, K., & Siegler, I. (1993). Life goals, satisfaction, and self rated health: Preliminary findings. Experimental Aging Research, 19(1), 97–110. Hooyman, N., Brown, C., Ray, R., & Richardson, V. (2002). Feminist gerontology and the life course: Policy, research and teaching issues. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, 22(4), 3–26. Lopata, H. (1987). Women’s family roles in life course perspective. In B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science research. Newbury Park: Sage. Lamanna, M. A., & Reidmann, A. (2006). Marriages & families: making choices in a diverse society (9th ed., p. 8). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Miech, R., & Shanahan, M. (2000). Socioeconomic status and depression over the life course. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 41, 162–176. Miner, S., & Tolnay, S. (1998). Barriers to voluntary organization membership: An examination of race and cohort differences. The Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53B(5), 241–248. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. (1992). Age and depression. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 33, 187–205. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. (1995). Sex differences in distress: Real or artifact? American Sociological Review, 60, 449–468. Moen, P. (1996). Gender, age and the life course. In R. Binstock & L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and social sciences (4th ed., pp. 171–187). San Diego: Academic Press. Palmore, E. (1981). Social patterns in normal aging. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pavalko, E. K., Elder Jr, G. H., & Clipp, E. (1993). Work lives and longevity: Insights from a life course perspective. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 363–380. Riley, M. W., Foner, A., & Waring, J. (1988). Sociology of age. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 243–290). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ross, C., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Components of depressed mood in married men and women: The Centre for Epidemiological Studies’ Depression Scale. American Journal of Epidemiology, 119(6), 997–1004. Rossi, A., & Rossi, P. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Ryder, N. (1964). Notes on a concept of population. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 447–463. Stewart, A., & Gold-Steinberg, S. (1990). Midlife women’s political consciousness: Case studies of psychosocial development and political commitment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(4), 543–566. Stoller, E., & Gibson, R. (1997). Worlds of difference: Inequality in the aging experience (p. xvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Udry, R. (1994). The Nature of Gender. Demography, 31(4), 561–573. Uhlenberg, P. & Miner, S. (1996). Life course and aging: A cohort perspective. In R. Binstock, & L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and social sciences (4th ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1998). Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998. Table 652. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). PCT 12. Sex by Age. Census 2000 Summary File 1. http://factfinder.census.gov Weeks, J. (2005). Population: An introduction to concepts and issue (9th ed., p. 301). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
