Can gender differences in psychosocial factors be explained by socioeconomic status?

Abstract

Aims: The aims of this study were to examine (1) if associations between gender and psychosocial factors could be explained by socioeconomic status (SES) and (2) if associations between gender and psychosocial factors are more salient at lower levels of SES. Methods: Psychosocial factors such as decision latitude and social integration were studied in a cross-sectional study in two steps. In a public health survey, 4,086 randomly selected men and women aged 30—64 participated. Of these, 257 men and women also participated in an in-depth study. SES was measured in terms of education and occupation. Linear regression models were used to test associations between gender, SES, and a broad range of psychosocial factors. Results: Women reported lower scale scores on decision latitude, coping, and self-esteem, as well as more job strain, depression, and vital exhaustion, while men reported more cynicism (all p<0.05). Observed gender differences were still significant after control for effect of education, while after control for occupational status the effect of gender was lost for decision latitude and job strain. Significant interaction factors were found between gender and educational status for psychological demands, decision latitude, social integration, coping, and hopelessness. Conclusions: Gender differences, found for a broad range of psychosocial factors, could not be explained by SES. However, associations between gender and psychosocial factors were more salient at lower levels of SES. Psychosocial factors, especially decision latitude and social integration, may help explain why women with low SES experience poorer health.

Keywords

Decision latitude gender health psychosocial factors social integration socioeconomic status

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hunt K. , Annandale E. Relocating gender and morbidity: Examining men's and women's health in contemporary western societies. Introduction to special isssue on gender and health. Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1—5.

Wilkinson R. Health, hierarchy, and social anxiety. In: Adler N , Marmot M , McEven B , Stewart J , editors. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations. Social, psychological and biological pathways . New York: New York Academy of Sciences; 1999.

Marmot M. , Wilkinson R. Psychosocial and material pathways in the relation between income and health: A response to Lynch et al. BMJ 2001;322:1233—36.

Hemingway H. , Marmot M. Evidence based cardiology: Psychosocial factors in the aetiology and prognosis of coronary heart disease. Systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMJ 1999;318:1460—7.

Hall E. Gender , work control , and stress : A theoretical discussion and an empirical test . Int J Health Serv 1989;19:725—45.

Kling K. , Hyde JS , Showers C. , Buswell B. Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 1999;125:470—500.

Taylor S. , Seeman T. Psychosocial resources and the SES— health relationship. In: Adler N, Marmot M, McEven B, Stewart J, editors. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations. Social, psychological and biological pathways . New York: New York Academy of Sciences ; 1999. 210—25.

Mulatu MS , Schooler C. Causal connections between socioeconomic status and health: Reciprocal effects and mediating mechanisms. J Health Soc Behav 2002;43:22—41.

Moss N. Gender equity and socioeconomic inequality: A framework for the patterning of women's health. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:649—61.

10.

Krieger N. , Williams DR , Moss NE Measuring social class in US public health research: Concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 1997;18: 341—78.

11.

Twenge J. , Campelll W. Self-esteem and soicioeconomic status : A meta-analytic review . Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2002;6:59—71.

12.

Kristenson M. , Kucinskiene Z. , Bergdahl B. , Calkauskas H. , Urmonas V. , Orth-Gomér K. Increased psychosocial strain in Lithuanian vs Swedish men: The LiVicordia study. Psychosom Med 1998;60:277—82.

13.

Everson S. , Goldberg D. , Kapal K. , Cohen R. , Puukala E. , Tuomilehto J. Hopelessness and risk of mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction and cancer. Psychosom Med 1996;58:113—21.

14.

Bech P. , Rasmussen N. , Olsen Raabeck L , Noerholm V. , Abildgaard W. The sensivity and specificity of the Major Depression Inventory, using the present state examination as the index of diagnostic validity. J Affect Disord 2001;66:159—64.

15.

Statistics Sweden. Swedish socioeconomic classification. Reports on statistical Co-ordination. Stockholm: Statistics Sweden; 1984 .

16.

Ekberg K. , Noorlind Brage H. , Dastserri M. In: Swedish: Östgötens hälsa och miljö. Landstinget i Östergötland: Folkhälsovetenskapligt Centrum; 2000. Report No. 00:1.

17.

Hall E. Double exposure: The combined impact of the home and work environments on psychosomatic strain in Swedish women and men. Int J Health Serv 1992;22: 239—60.

18.

Ibrahim S. , Scott F. , Cole D. , Shannon H. , Eyles J. Job strain and self-reported health among working women and men: An analysis of the 1994/5 Canadian national population health survey. Women Health 2001;33:105—24.

19.

Immerman RS , Mackey WC The depression gender gap: A view through a biocultural filter. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 2003;129:5—39.

20.

Cole D. , Ibrahim S. , Shannon H. , Scott F. , Eyles J. Work and life stressors and psychological distress in the Canadian working population: A structural equation modelling approach to analysis of the 1994 National Population Health Survey. Chronic Dis Can 2002;23:91—9.

21.

Barefoot J. , Dodge K. , Peterson B. , Dahlstrom W. , Wiliams R. The Cook—Medley hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosom Med 1989;51:46—57.

22.

Rosenfield S.

Sex differences in depression: Do women always have higher rates?

J Health Soc Behav 1980 ;21:33—42.

23.

Zwart B. , Frings-Dresen M. , Kilbom Å. Gender differences in upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints in the working population. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2001;74: 21—30.

24.

Messing K. , Dumais L. , Courville J. , Seifert AM , Boucher M. Evaluation of exposure data from men and women with the same job title . J Occup Med 1994;36:913—17.

25.

Matthews S. , Power C. Socioeconomic gradients in psychological distress: A focus on women, social roles and work— home characteristics. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:799—810.

26.

Griffin J. , Fuhrer R. , Stansfield S. , Marmot M.

The importance of low control at work and home on depression and anxiety: Do these effects vary by gender and social class?

Soc Sci Med 2002;54:783—98.

27.

Hallqvist J. , Lundberg M. , Diderichsen F. , Ahlbom A. Socioeconomic differences in risk of myocardial infarction 1971—1994 in Sweden: Time trends in incidence, relative risks and population attributable risks. Int J Epidemiol 1997;26:782—7.

28.

Wamala S. , Mittleman A. , Horsten M. , Schenk-Gustafsson K. , Orth-Gomér K. Job stress and the occupational gradient in coronary heart disease in women: The Female Coronary Risk Study. Soc Sci Med 2000;51:481—9.

29.

Wamala S. , Mittleman M. , Schenk-Gustafsson K. , Orth-Gomér K. Potential explanations for the educational gradient in coronary heart disease: A population- based case control study of Swedish women. Am J Public Health 1999;89:315—21.

30.

Noor N. Work and family roles in relation to women's well-being: A longitudinal study . Br J Soc Psychol 1995;34:87—106.