Abstract
The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) is frequently used as a measure of mental well-being. A consistent pattern across countries is that women report lower levels of mental well-being, as measured by the GHQ. This paper applies decomposition techniques to Irish data for 1994 and 2000 to examine the factors lying behind the gender differences in GHQ score. For both 1994 and 2000 about two-thirds of the raw difference is accounted for by differences in characteristics, with employment status the single most important factor.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We confine our discussion to comparing the coefficients for males and females bearing in mind that the coefficient for the pooled sample will lie in between.
References
Ashenfelter, O., & Oaxaca, R. (1987). The economics of discrimination: Economists enter the courtroom. American Economic Review, 77, 321–325.
Banks, M., Clegg, C., Jackson, P., Kemp, N., Stafford, E., & Wall, T. (1980). The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 187–194.
Bauer, T., Göhlmann, S., & Sinning, M. (2007). Gender differences in smoking behaviour. Health Economics, 16, 895–909.
Bauer, T., & Sinning, M. (2006). An extension of the Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition to non-linear models, RWI Discussion Papers, No. 9.
Bebbington, P. (1998). Sex and depression. Psychological Medicine, 28, 1–8.
Bebbington, P., Dunn, G., Jenkins, R., Lewis, G., Brugha, T., Farrell, M., et al. (1998). The influence of age and sex on the prevalence of depressive conditions: Report from the national survey of psychiatric morbidity. Psychological Medicine, 28, 9–19.
Blinder, A. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of Human Resources, 8, 436–455.
Clark, A., & Oswald, A. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, 648–659.
Clark, A., & Oswald, A. (2002). A simple statistical model for measuring how life events affect happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1139–1144.
Demoussis, M., & Giannakopolous, N. (2007). Exploring job satisfaction in private and public employment: Empirical evidence from Greece. Labour, 31, 333–359.
Emslie, C., Fuhrer, R., Hunt, K., Macintyre, S., Shipley, M., & Stansfield, S. (2002). Gender differences in mental health: Evidence from three organisations. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 621–624.
Emslie, C., Hunt, K., & Macintyre, S. (1999). Gender differences in minor morbidity among full-time employees of a British University. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 465–475.
Even, W., & Macpherson, D. (1990). Plant size and the decline of unionism. Economics Letters, 32, 393–398.
Gardeazabal, J., & Ugidos, A. (2004). More on identification in detailed wage decompositions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 1034–1036.
Goldberg, D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988) A users guide to the general health questionnaire. Windsor. (NFER-NELSON).
Kuehner, C. (2003). Gender differences in unipolar depression: An update of epidemiological findings and possible explanations. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108, 163–174.
Madden, D. (2009). Mental stress in Ireland, 1994–2000: A stochastic dominance approach. Health Economics, 18, 1202–1217.
Neumark, D. (1995). Employers’ discriminatory behaviour and the estimation of wage discrimination. Journal of Human Resources, 23, 279–295.
Nolan, B., Gannon, B., Layte, R., Watson, D., Whelan, C., & Williams, J. (2002). Monitoring poverty trends in Ireland: Results from the 2000 living in Ireland survey. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male–female wage differentials in urban labour markets. International Economic Review, 14, 693–709.
Oaxaca, R., & Ransom, M. (1994). On discrimination and the decomposition of wage differentials. Journal of Econometrics, 61, 5–21.
Oaxaca, R., & Ransom, M. (1999). Identification in detailed wage decompositions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 154–157.
Watson, D. (2004). Living in Ireland survey—Technical overview. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
Weich, S., Slogget, A., & Lewis, G. (2001). Social roles and the gender difference in rates of the common mental disorders in Britain: A 7-year, population-based cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 31, 1055–1064.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the Irish Social Science Data Archive for providing the data and to Mike Harrison and participants at the Irish Economics Association for helpful comments. Part of this work was carried out while I was the recipient of a Senior Fellowship from the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences and I gratefully acknowledge their support. I remain responsible for any errors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Decomposition Using Ordered Probit
Appendix: Decomposition Using Ordered Probit
An individual’s GHQ score is an ordered categorical variable. Thus, it may be appropriate to model GHQ using an ordered probit/logit approach. When using such an approach the straightforward Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition outlined in the main text is no longer applicable, as the conditional expectation \( E(Y\left| X \right.) \)is no longer equal to \( \bar{X}\hat{\beta } \). Thus, an alternative way of carrying out the decomposition must be found. In what follows we adapt the procedure outlined in Bauer and Sinning (2006). For the general case of a non-linear decomposition we have the decomposition for the outcome for individual i, Y i given by
where \( E_{{\beta_{m} }} (Y_{im} \left| {X_{im} )} \right. \) is the conditional expectation of male outcomes and \( E_{{\beta_{m} }} (Y_{if} \left| {X_{if} )} \right. \) is the conditional expectation of female outcomes evaluated with the male parameter vector, β m . Alternatively, using females as the reference group the decomposition is
In both cases the first term on the right hand side provides that portion of the difference in conditional expectation arising from differences in characteristics, X m , X f and the second term refers to the difference arising from the “returns” to those characteristics, β m , β f . Thus, to apply this decomposition it is necessary to obtain the sample counterparts \( S(\hat{\beta }_{m} X_{im} ) \)and \( S(\hat{\beta }_{f} X_{im} ) \)of the conditional expectations, \( E_{{\beta_{g} }} (Y_{ig} \left| {X_{ig} )} \right. \) and \( E_{{\beta_{h} }} (Y_{ig} \left| {X_{ig} )} \right. \) where (g, h) = (m, f) and m ≠ f. We now apply this decomposition to the case of an ordered model.
An ordered model is based upon a latent regression of the form \( Y_{im}^{*} = X_{im} \beta_{m} + \varepsilon_{im} \) where \( Y_{im}^{*} \) is unobserved (we give the example here in terms of male outcomes). Instead we observe
where the μ i , the “cut-off points”, are parameters to be estimated along with the vector β m . The conditional expectation of Y im evaluated at the parameter vector β m is:
If we assume that the error term, ɛ im , is distributed normally we obtain the ordered probit model and F refers to the cumulative standard normal distribution (if we assume it is distributed logistically we obtain the ordered logit model and F refers to the cumulative logistic distribution).
Given estimation of the parameter vector β im , the sample counterparts of the components of the decomposition (assuming males to be the reference group) are calculated as follows:
The sample counterpart of \( E_{{\beta_{m} }} (Y_{if} \left| {X_{if} )} \right. \), \( S(\hat{\beta }_{m} X_{if} ) \) is obtained by replacing X im by X if in the above equation. The sample counterparts are then used to obtain the parts of the decomposition:
The case where females are the reference group is the mirror image of above, while the decomposition for the Neumark approach of using the estimates of the pooled sample as the reference group gives:
Table 7 provides the counterpart to Table 3 and gives the results for the ordered probit models for the pooled sample of men and women for 1994 and 2000. As in the case of the linear regression, the gender coefficients are statistically significant. While the interpretation of coefficients for the ordered probit is obviously different from the linear regression case it is noticeable that the pattern of coefficients by sign and significance levels by variable is very similar.
Table 8 provides the counterpart to Table 4 with the regressions by gender and the pooled regressions (not including the gender variable). Once again the pattern by sign and significance level is very similar, and while not every coefficient takes the same sign as its counterpart in the linear regressions in Table 4, the vast majority do, and in those cases where the sign is different, the coefficient is typically not statistically significant. This gives confidence to our belief that the qualitative results obtained are not sensitive to the choice of OLS or ordered probit.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Madden, D. Gender Differences in Mental Well-Being: a Decomposition Analysis. Soc Indic Res 99, 101–114 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9569-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9569-8