Cited by 208Health and Well-being StudiesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentGender Roles and Identity Studies

Is life more difficult on mars or venus? A meta-analytic review of sex differences in major and minor life events

Davis, Mary C., Matthews, Karen A., Twamley, Elizabeth W.·1999·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining sex differences in reported levels of stress, considering the impact of: (a) the age and representativeness of sample participants, (b) whether life events were weighted or unweighted by participants for impact or severity, (c) the major versus minor nature of the stress, and (d) the life domain of the stressor. Overall, the meta-analysis of 119 studies including 83,559 participants found that females were exposed to more stress than were males (d=.123, r=.061). However, there was considerable heterogeneity among studies, with greater effect sizes associated with: (a) life events weighted by participants for impact, (b) adolescents compared to both younger and older samples, (c) major life stressors compared to minor stressors, and (d) interpersonal relationship stressors compared to work stressors. In none of the subgroup analyses did males experience considerably more stress than females. Evaluation of a subsample of 39 studies that examined gender differences in psychological symptoms revealed that females reported more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic problems (d=.282, r=.139) and that the sex difference in reports of psychological symptoms accounted for approximately 4% of the variance in the sex differences in reports of stress. Possible explanations for the observed patterning of effects are discussed, as are recommendations for further research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02895038

Cites

151 of 151 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 153 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M. C., Matthews, K. A., & Twamley, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Davis, Mary C.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
1999-03
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
83-97
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2090770638
Cited by
208
References
153
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS25767)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL38712)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
Keywords
sex differences, life events, major life events, depression, anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, interpersonal relationship stress, occupational stress, adolescents
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Child, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Gender Identity, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Job Satisfaction, Life Change Events, Male, Stereotyping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review