Gender Differences of Experiencing of Subjective Social Well-Being

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 10, 31.05.2018

Tatyana Viktorivna Danilchenko

Abstract

The article deals
with the gender differences in experiencing subjective social well-being.
Subjective social well-being (SSWB) is defined as an integral social and
psychological phenomenon, which reflects awareness and evaluation of social
functioning based on the correlation between the level of demand and degree of
satisfaction of individual’s social needs, as a result of which he/she defines
his/her social being as optimal and experiences the feeling of satisfaction. It
has been demonstrated that while divorce decreases the SSWB of men, it equally
increases and decreases the SSWB of women. The leading agents of social
relation for women are friends, parents and a partner, for men-parents,
neighbours and acquaintances. The presence of children decreases the SSWB of
women. At the same time, for men the effect depends on the perception of
parenthood. For women dominant psychological factors of experiencing SSWB are
competence, autonomy, intuitiveness, desire for power, activeness, whereas for
men they are courage, expression of aggression, universalism, kindness and
conformism.

Keywords

Subjective social well-being, social approval, positive relations, social visibility, positive social judgments

References

• Bowling, A., Gabriel, Z., Dykes, J., Dowding, L. M., Evans, O., Fleissig, A., Bannister, D., & Sutton, S. (2003). Let's ask them: a national survey of definitions of quality of life and its enhancement among people aged 65 and over. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56(4), 269-306.
• Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological wellbeing. Chicago, Aldine.
• Callaghan, L. (2008). Social Well-Being in Extra Care Housing: An Overview of the Literature. PSSRU Discussion Paper 2528. March, 2008. Accessed on 12.03.2014. www.ukc.ac.uk/PSSRU/dp2528.pdf
• Carmel, S. & Bernstein, J. (2003). Gender differences in physical health and psychosocial well being among four age-groups of elderly people in Israel. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 56(2), 113-131.
• Cohen, S. (2004). Social Relationships and Health. American Psychologist, November, 676-684.
• Danilchenko, T. V. (2015). Metodychni problemy vyvchennia subiektyvnoho sotsialnoho blahopoluchchia. Visnyk Chernihivskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni T. H. Shevchenka. Seriia «Psykholohichni nauky», 126, 57-62.
• Danilchenko, T. V. (2015). Questionnare subjective social well-being: A methodological substantiation and working out procedure. East European Scientific Journal, 3(4), 20-29.
• Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.
• Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J. & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 52-61.
• Diener, Е. (2013). The Remarkable Changes in the Science of Subjective Well-Being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 663-666.
• England, R. W. (1998). Measurement of social well-being: alternatives to gross domestic product. Ecological Economics, 25(1), 89-103.
• Evans, S., & Vallelly, S. (2007). Best Practice in Promoting Social Well-Being in Extra Care Housing: A Literature Review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
• Eyles, J. (1986). Quality of life and social well-being, in R. J. Johnston ed., The dictionary of human geography. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Fratiglioni, L., Wang, H. X., Ericsson, K., Maytan, M., & Winblad, B. (2000). Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study. Lancet, 355, 1315-1319.
• Gallagher, M. W., Lopez, S. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). The Hierarchical Structure of Well-Being. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1025-1049.
• Hahulinа, L. (2006). Chelovek v sisteme social'nyh svjazej. Vestnik obshhestvennogo mnenija. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 1(81), 39-49.
• Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks and learning machines. Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Helliwell, J. & Putnam, R. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical transactions royal society of London, series B biological sciences, 359, 1435-1446.
• Huppert, F. A. (2009). A new approach to reducing disorder and improving well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 108-111.
• Huppert, А. F., So, T. C. (2013). Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicator Research, 110, 837-861.
• Joshanloo, M., & Ghaedi, G. (2009). Value priorities as predictor of hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being. Personality and individual differences, 47, 294-298.
• Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140.
• Larson, J. S. (1993). The measurement of social well-being. Social Indicators Research, 28(3), 285-296.
• Lucas, R. E., & Clark, A. E. (2006). Do people really adapt to marriage? Journal of happiness studies, 7(4), 405-426.
• Muller, M. L. (2012). Social well-being: Investigating the relation of social aspects to optimal functioning in society: Bachelor thesis. Universiteit Twente, Enschede, April 2012, 39 p. Accessed on 12.03.2014. http://essay.utwente.nl/61867/1/M% C3%BCller, _M._-_s0163465_(verslag).pdf
• Nieboer, A., Lindenberg, S., Boomsma, A., & Van Bruggen, A. C. (2005). Dimensions of well-being and their measurement: The SPF-IL Scale. Social Indicators Research, 73, 313-353.
• Nisbet, R. (1953). The Quest for Community. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Rusting, C. (1999). Gender differences in well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, N. Scwartz (Eds.) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, N.Y. (pp. 330-352).
• O’Hare, T., Sherrer, M. V., Connery, H. S., Thornton, J., & Emrick K. (2003). Further Validation of the Psycho-Social Well-Being Scale (PSWS) with Community Clients. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(2), 115-129.
• Ozer, D. J., Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
• Rapley, M. (2003). Quality of Life Research. London, Sage.
• Reig-Martinez, E. (2013). Social and economic wellbeing in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: Building an enlarged human development indicator. Social Indicators Research, 111(2), 527-547.
• Ryff, C. D., Singer, B., Wing, E. H., & Love, G. D. (2001). Elective affinities and uninvited agonics: Mapping emotion with significant others onto health in C. D. Ryff, B. Singer (Eds.). Emotion, social relotionships, and health. New York: Oxford University Press (pp. 133-175).
• Schimmack, U. (2003). Affect measurement in experience sampling research. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(1), 79-106.
• Schmutte, P. S., Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: What is the connection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 549-559.
• Siegler, I. C., & Brummett, B. H. (2000). Associations between neo personality inventory assessment and well-being at mid-life: Facet level analysis. Psychology and Aging, 15, 710-714.
• Skilton, L. (2009). Measuring societal wellbeing in the UK. Working paper: London: Office for National Statistics (ONS).
• Van Lente, E., Barry, M. M., Molcho, M., Morgan, K., Watson, D., Harrington, J., & McGee, H. (2012). Measuring population mental health and social well-being. International Journal of Public Health, 57(2), 421-430.
• Wilt, J., Cox, K. S., & McAdams, D. P. (2010). The Eriksonian life story: Developmental scripts and psychosocial adaptation. Journal of Adult Development, 17, 156-161.
• Wood, W., Rhodes, N. & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 249-264.
• Zhuravlev, А. & Kupreichenko, А. (2012). Social'no-psihologicheskoe prostranstvo lichnosti. M., Institut psihologii RAN.