CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 257Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionGender Roles and Identity StudiesOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender Differences in Aspects of Psychological Well-Being

Roothman, Brett, Kirsten, Doret K., Wissing, Marié P.·2003·South African Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1177/008124630303300403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether men and women differ with regard to aspects of psychological well-being. For the purposes of this study, a meta-analysis was performed on data from a trans-university project, involving a multicultural availability sample of 378. The participants each completed 13 scales that measure psychological well-being in affective, physical, cognitive, spiritual, self and social aspects. Statistically significant gender differences with small to medium practical effects were found. Men scored higher on physical self-concept, automatic thoughts (positive), constructive thinking, cognitive flexibility, total self-concept, and fortitude. Women scored higher on the expression of affect, somatic symptoms, and religious well-being. No significant gender differences were found on sense of coherence, satisfaction with life, affect balance, emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and the social components of self-concept and of fortitude. The results are in line with gender stereotypes and traditional socialisation practices and possibly reflect the impact of longstanding social inequity between men and women.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/008124630303300403

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1037/0022-0167.42.3.304 · DOI
  2. Bach M., 2000, Stres, copingstrategieë, sosiale ondersteuning en die psigiese en fisieke welsyn van 'n groep akademici
  3. Bar-On R., 1997, Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory technical manual.
  4. Bar-On R., 1997, Development of the Bar-On EQ-I: A measure of emotional and social intelligence.
  5. Connors J.V., 1990, Gender differences in perceived advancement problems, stress and satisfaction of university.
  6. Depken D., 1994, Wellness Perspectives, 10, 54
  7. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Eagly A.H., 1987, Sex differences in social behaviour: A social-role interpretation.
  9. Ek E., 2000, Assessment of coping flexibility of young adults in a population based study – The Flex-method revised.
  10. Epstein S., 1993, Manual for the Constructive Thinking Inventory (Preliminary Version).
  11. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.898 · DOI
  13. Louw D. A., 1991, Human development.
  14. Nolen-Hoeksema S., 1999, The foundations of hedonic psychology, 330
  15. Paloutzian R. F., 1979, Spiritual well-being, loneliness, and perceived quality of life.
  16. Pretorius T. B., 1998, Fortitude as stress-resistance: Development and validation of the Fortitude Questionnaire (FORQ).
  17. Roid G. H., 1989, Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Revised manual.
  18. Stephens T., 1999, Chronic Diseases in Canada, 20
  19. Stewart D. E. (Ed.) (2001). Organization statement: Society for Women's Health Research. http://www.womens-health.org/resstat/orgapa.htm Accessed on 5 March 2001
  20. Strümpfer D. J. W., 1998, Review of South African data on the Sense of Coherence Scale as a measure of fortigenesis and salutogenesis.
  21. Van Eeden C., 2000, Gender differences in bio-psycho-social well-being - Fact or fiction? Implications for life skills development.
  22. Watkins P. L., 2000, Handbook of gender, culture and health, 43
  23. Wegner M., 1981, Measurement of perceived self-efficacy. Psychometric scales for cross cultural research, 1
  24. Wissing M. P., 1998, A trans-university research programme on fortology: Clarification and advancement of psychosocial well-being.
  25. Wissing M. P., 1994, Relations of NEO-PI-R dimensions (NEO-FFI) to Sense of Coherence (SOC) and other measures of psychological well-being.
  26. Wissing M. P., 1997, Psychological well-being: A fortigenic conceptualization and empirical clarification.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 257

Related

Metadata

Authors
Roothman, B., Kirsten, D. K., & Wissing, M. P.
Affiliations
North-West University (ZA)
ORCID
Venue
South African Journal of Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-11
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
212-218
ISSN
0081-2463 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/008124630303300403
OpenAlex
W2316523035
Cited by
257
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • South African Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Boloka Institutional Repository (North-west University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Research Foundation
  • Division of Chemistry
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
gender differences, psychological well-being, self-concept, physical self-concept, automatic thoughts, cognitive flexibility, fortitude, religious well-being, somatic symptoms, gender stereotypes, socialization, social inequities

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