usband and Wife Differences in Response to UndesirableLife E.docx

usband and Wife Differences in Response to Undesirable
Life Events*
RAND D. CONGER
FREDERICK O. LORENZ
Iowa State University
GLEN H. ELDER, JR.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
RONALD L. SIMONS
XIAOJIA GE
Iowa State University
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1993, Vol. 34
(March):71-88
In the present study of 451 married couples living in the rural
midwest, gender
differences were examined in reports of exposure and
vulnerability to specific types
of^ undesirable life events. Consistent with expectations
derived from either a social
structural or identity perspective, the results demonstrated that
men are more likely
than women to report exposure to and to be distressed by work
and financial
events. Women, on the other hand, are more strongly influenced
by exposure to
negative events within the family but not within their network
of friends. Outcomes
vary according to the type of emotional distress. Financial

stress, for example,
increases hostility among men more than among women, but
wives are more likely
than husbands to report somatic complaints in response to the
same stressor. The
findings demonstrate the need for future research that more
directly investigates
the intraindividual and social mechanisms which account for
gender differences in
a broad range of emotional and behavioral responses to varying
types of
significant life changes.
The present investigation addresses a cen- emotional distress
suggests that women are at
tral issue in social epidemiology: the role of greater risk than
men for some types of
gender in the stress process (Mirowsky and psychological
problems such as depression
Ross 1989). Research on sex differences in and anxiety. Men,
on the other hand, are
more likely to demonstrate other symptoms of
distress such as alcohol or drug use (Cleary
^ , . , ,, ... . ,u 1 .u 1987; Pearlin 1989). In addition to gender
* We would like to thank the anonymous ,... ' . r ,. . ,•
reviewers whose comments considerably improved differences
m types of distress, a second line
the manuscript. This paper is based on collabora- of inquiry has
focused on the differential
tive research involving the Iowa Youth and reactivity of men
and women to varying types
Families Project at Iowa State University, Ames, of life crises
with the expectation that

and the Social Change Project at the University of gender-
related patterns of socialization, self-
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The combined
research effort is currently supported by National
Institute of Mental Health grant no. MH43270, no. MH00567,
and the Iowa Agriculture and
National Institute on Drug Abuse grant no. Home Economics
Experiment Station. For re-
DA05347, the John D. and Catherine T. Mac- prints, contact
Rand D. Conger, Department of
Arthur Foundation Program for Successful Adoles- Sociology,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
cent Development among Youth in High-Risk 50011. Journal
Paper no. 14942 of the Iowa
Settings, Bureau of Maternal and Child Health Agriculture and
Home Economics Experiment
grant no. MCJ-109572, Research Scientist Award Station,
Ames, Iowa, project no. 2931.
71
72 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
conceptions, or responsibilities within proxi-
mal social networks will affect both exposure
and response to undesirable life events
(Aneshensel, Rutter, and Lachenbruch 1991;
Kessler and McLeod 1984; Lennon 1987;
Thoits 1987, 1991; Wethington, McLeod,
and Kessler 1987).
GENDER, DISTRESS, AND
LIFE EVENTS

A number of studies have used diverse
measures (e.g., symptom checklists and
psychiatric diagnoses), research procedures
(e.g., questionnaire self-reports and intensive
clinical interviews), and study populations
(e.g., urban versus rural) in demonstrating
that women report more symptoms of anxiety,
depression, and psychophysiological com-
plaints (somatization) than men (Cleary 1987;
Pearlin 1989), although some divergent find-
ings have been reported (Aneshensel et al.
1991). The symptoms of distress are typically
those employed in studies of gender differ-
ences in vulnerability to undesirable life
changes (Bolger et al. 1989; Kessler and
McLeod 1984; Thoits 1987; Wheaton 1990).
There is growing recognition, however, that
men are at higher risk of demonstrating other
symptoms of distress such as overt aggres-
sion, criminal misconduct, or substance abuse
(Aneshensel et al. 1991; Cleary 1987; Lennon
1987; Pearlin 1989). Thus, both contradictory
findings regarding women's greater vulnera-
bility to distress (e.g., Aneshensel et al.
1991), as well as evidence for higher rates of
some emotional or behavioral problems for
men, suggest the need for additional research
on gender differences for specific symptoms
or disorders. An important element in such
research is the identification of factors that
differentially infiuence emotional distress for
men and women.
Explaining Sex Differences in Distress
Several approaches have been taken in

efforts to explain why women are more likely
than men to demonstrate some symptoms of
psychological distress. One might assume that
women are disadvantaged by the lower social
status they often experience and by role
overload or the multiple role demands made
of them, such as worker and homemaker.
This social status approach to gender differ-
ences in vulnerability suggests that fewer
social resources increase the risk of distress,
in contrast to life event models which
hypothesize that greater exposure to specific
life crises accounts for gender differences in
psychological functioning. Several recent
reviews of the empirical evidence (e.g.,
Mirowsky and Ross 1989) report modest
empirical support for social status explana-
tions for different levels of psychological
distress among men and women; however,
having fewer roles also has been found to
operate to women's disadvantage (Thoits
1986). A second perspective on women's
greater psychological distress proposes that
women lack adequate personal or social
resources for coping with the stresses and
strains of life (Kessler and McLeod 1984;
Thoits 1987). Kessler and McLeod (1984)
note, however, that women may fare better
than men in their response to many stressful
events such as divorce or widowhood. They
suggest that if women do in fact have fewer
personal or coping resources, they should not
demonstrate better adjustment than men to
certain types of life crises. Moreover, in a
careful test of the coping resource approach,

Thoits (1987) found that differences in
feelings of mastery and control by men and
women did not account for gender differences
in distress (see also Ross and Mirowsky
1989).
Some investigators have suggested that
lower status groups (including women)
generally suffer greater emotional problems
because they are exposed to a larger number
of undesirable life events (Dohrenwend
1970; Thoits 1987). Although there is
evidence that for some types of events and
for some symptoms of emotional distress
differences in event exposure may account
for gender effects on distress (e.g., Thoits
1987), most studies do not find that
exposure alone accounts for such sex
differences. In sum, variations in social
status, multiple role demands, coping re-
sources, or event exposure do not appear to
account for the greater risk of certain types
of psychological distress for women com-
pared to men. Moreover, no systematic
study has been done within the stress and
coping literature specifically designed to
identify factors that might explain the higher
levels of certain types of distress for men.
Although in addition to the stress process
RESPONSES TO UNDESIRABLE LIFE EVENTS
many other factors likely contribute to
gender differences in psychological well-

being (e.g., gender-related differences in
lifestyle), several investigators now suggest
that the study of differential response to
particular types of life stresses may provide
a better understanding of sex differences in
emotional distress.
Differential Vulnerability to Undesirable
Life Events
Although gender-related research during the
past decade has been concerned primarily with
explaining women's higher rates of psycholog-
ical difficulties, the growing recognition that
men are at greater risk than women for many
problems other than anxiety and depression sug-
gests the need for a new avenue of investigation
focused on exposure to events that differen-
tially influence the vulnerability of men and
women to specific types of psychopathology.
Kessler and McLeod (1984), for example, sug-
gested that investigators had for too long as-
sumed that women are generally more vulner-
able than men to stressful life events. They
proposed instead that women are particularly
reactive only to certain types of stressors, es-
pecially undesirable events that occur within
their network of family and friends. Here and
elsewhere (e.g., Wethington et al. 1987),
Kessler and his colleagues suggest that wom-
en's roles often involve a greater commitment
to nurturing and caring for those around them.
They note that women are more likely to bear
the emotional costs of caring when family or
friends have acute or chronic difficulties.

The findings from Kessler and McLeod's
(1984) research were supportive of their per-
spective. A combined analysis of data from five
independent studies showed that women were
more psychologically distressed than men but
were not more likely to report a greater overall
level of stress (negative life events). However,
women did indicate a larger number of crises in
their network of close relationships. Men actu-
ally reported greater exposure to physical health
and financial problems than women, and also
experienced similar numbers of marital disrup-
tions and love losses. Most important, men and
women responded almost equally to income loss,
divorce or separation, and other love losses in
terms of symptoms of depression and psycho-
physiological distress. Working men, however,
were more adversely affected by income loss
73
than women who were homemakers. As ex-
pected, women were more negatively influ-
enced by deaths, ill health, and other adverse
events within their social networks. Women's
differential response to network events primar-
ily accounted for gender differences in psycho-
logical well-being in these analyses.
In an important extension of the above
study, Thoits (1987) found that women were
more likely than men to experience increased
anxiety or depression as a result of uncontrol-
lable network or personal events. Men were
more reactive to negative controllable events
such as financial problems. Thus, her results

provided support for the earlier study by
Kessler and McLeod (1984). Contrary to the
earlier study, though, women's differential
response to poor health had the greatest
impact on their emotional functioning. Net-
work events played a secondary role in
women's greater vulnerability to specific
stressors. Also contrary to Kessler and
McLeod's results, women were no more
emotionally vulnerable than men to deaths
among family and friends. Given the combi-
nation of consistent and inconsistent findings
across these two studies, further analyses
clearly are needed of possible gender differ-
ences in reaction to negative life events.
The results from the above two studies
suggest that men may be more vulnerable
than women to economic difficulties and
women more reactive to crises in their social
networks. More recent research adds to the
credibility of this hypothesis. For example,
Bolger and his colleagues (1989) examined
the impact of daily stressors on negative
mood. Over a six-week period, married
couples were asked to record their levels of
stress and negative feelings each day in a
diary kept with them. For present purposes,
the important findings were that women were
more adversely affected than men by prob-
lems in relationships such as arguments with
spouse and others within their social net-
works. Men, on the other hand, were more
distressed by financial problems. Similar
results are reported by Wheaton (1990) in a
three-wave panel study of Canadian adults.

He found that men's emotional well-being
(depression and anxiety) was more strongly
infiuenced by work-related stressors while
women were more responsive to stresses
involving social relationships. Using a psy-
chiatric measure of affective or anxiety
disorder, an outcome most comparable to that
employed by the other studies discussed here,
Aneshensel et al. (1991) report contrary
fmdings that show greater male reactivity to
network events and greater female vulnerabil-
ity to financial strains. Thus, although not
entirely consistent, the weight of the evidence
from this series of studies is highly suggestive
that men and women are differentially
vulnerable to varying types of undesirable life
events.
Attempts to explain these sex differences to
reaction to specific negative events have led
to two general approaches to the issue, both
related to social structural conditions typical
to the lives of men and women. The first
perspective suggests that gender-related so-
cialization practices lead to daily roles,
responsibilities, and divisions of labor that
uniquely affect men and women (Aneshensel
and Pearlin 1987; Kessler and McLeod 1984).
Thus, men typically are taught to emphasize
occupational success and to acquire the skills
necessary to support themselves and a family.

Women, on the other hand, by observation or
instruction, learn to take greater responsibility
than men for providing nurturance in relation-
ships, raising children, and caring for a home.
Thoits (1987, 1991) proposes an extension
of this social structural perspective by suggest-
ing that, as a result of their experiences, men
and women typically have divergent self-
concepts (see also Stryker and Serpe 1982).
She hypothesizes that, on average, they de-
velop different role identities which determine
expected rights, responsibilities, and priorities
in multiple life domains such as work and fam-
ily. Stressors that threaten these identities are
most likely to create distress for either men or
women. If men, for example, are most likely to
identify with the worker/family provider role,
they will be most distressed by problems such
as economic reversals. Conversely, if women
most identify with a family/caregiverrole, they
will be most vulnerable to negative events in
that area of life. The important point here is that
either an identity or social structural approach
to understanding differential response to nega-
tive life events links reactivity to the primary
roles and responsibilities in an individual's life.'
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of the present study is
to investigate further the relationship between
gender and distress using a new population of
respondents. As noted, although certain themes
are present in earlier research, inconsistencies

remain and new data are needed to clarify the
relationship between gender and stress pro-
cesses. Moreover, the above review demon-
strates that overall rates of distress are similar
for both sexes; thus, the question today relates
not to a female disadvantage but to the identi-
fication of specific stressors that differentially
influence particular dimensions of distress for
men and women. Especially important, men
are more likely than women to engage in overt
antisocial behavior toward others, such as ag-
gressive acts, in response to stressful life con-
ditions (Cleary 1987; Pearlin 1989). For exam-
ple, unemployed men are more likely to become
violent at home than unemployed women. For
that reason, in the present study we employ
several measures of psychological symptoms,
including hostile feelings and behaviors, as well
as several indicators of theoretically relevant
undesirable events. In addition, to address the
influence of previously discussed social param-
eters that describe important structural condi-
tions or identity-relevant responsibilities (e.g.,
marital status, residential location, family roles)
on the stress process, we employ a sample of
relatively traditional husbands and wives who
have fairly clearly demarcated roles in family
life.
Drawing on the above review, we hypothe-
sized that men in the present sample of
husbands and wives would be more likely
than women to demonstrate symptoms of
distress indicative of overt antisocial behav-
ior, operationalized in these analyses as
hostile behaviors or feelings. Women, on the

other hand, were expected to report higher
levels of depression, anxiety, or somatic
complaints. Because married couples, com-
pared to men and women in general, are more
likely to share similar life stresses, socioeco-
nomic circumstances, personality characteris-
tics, and emotional problems (Caspi and
Herbener 1990; Thoits 1987; Weissman
1987), this design holds constant several
conditions that might confound the relation-
ship between gender and distress and thus is a
conservative approach to contrasting the
effects of some social factors influencing
gender differences in psychopathology.
Based on the social structural and identity
perspectives, we also hypothesized that hus-
bands would report more undesirable events
related to financial circumstances, and
women would report more crises regarding
interpersonal relationships. The sample used
RESPONSES TO UNDESIRABLE LIFE EVENTS
for analysis is particularly well-suited to
addressing this proposition in that the couples
come from traditional, two-parent, rural
families in which the husbands are the
primary breadwinners and the wives typically
work no more than part-time and have the
primary responsibility for home and family.
In Thoits' terms (1991, p. 106), these may be
thought of as "configural identities" and their
concomitant role responsibilities suggest that

these men should be more involved in and
aware of the economic side of family life and
the wives more involved in the maintenance
of family relationships and more knowledge-
able about crises which arise in that domain.
Also based on the social structural and
identity perspectives, we proposed that
women would be most vulnerable to crises
in their interpersonal networks and men
most reactive to financial or work-related
difficulties. The strongest support for this
hypothesis would be provided by two types
of complementary findings: (1) within-group
(i.e., within-gender) comparisons showing
that, relative to other stressors, work or
financial problems are the best predictors of
distress for men and network crises the best
predictors for women, and (2) between-
group comparisons demonstrating significant
differences in husband and wife reactions to
financial and network events. Importantly,
within- and between-group findings in such
analyses do not always produce these
consistencies (e.g., Aneshensel et al. 1991;
Kessler and McLeod 1984); an important
contribution of the present study, then, will
be to determine whether they might be
present in a sample with clearly differenti-
ated social roles.
To address this last proposition, we first
examined patterns of reactivity within each
group of respondents. Within-group regres-
sion equations predicting emotional distress
for women, for example, were expected to

produce larger standardized coefficients for
network than financial events. The same
analyses were expected to demonstrate rela-
tively larger effects for financial or work
events for men. Between-group comparisons
also were conducted to determine whether
network events, as proposed, would have a
significantly greater impact on wives' than
husbands' distress, and financial or work
events would have a larger association with
husbands' than wives' distress. As a corollary
of this hypothesis, we expected that men's
75
differential reactions to work and financial
stressors would be most evident for hostility
(predicted to be a more male-oriented form of
distress), and women's differential reactions
to network difficulties would be most evident
for symptoms of depression, anxiety, and
somatization.
Finally, we hypothesized that negative
family events would be more strongly related
to all forms of psychological distress than
negative friend events for both husbands and
wives. This hypothesis is tested in the
within-group analyses. Most previous re-
search on stress and gender has aggregated
friend and family crises (e.g., Aneshensel et
al. 1991; Kessler and McLeod 1984; Thoits
1987), thus obscuring possible differences in
their relative effects. We extend earlier
findings by disaggregating friend and family
events and propose that, given their heavy

investments in and mutual responsibilities for
family life, these respondents will be more
reactive to crises involving family than
friends across all measures of psychological
distress.
METHODS
Sample and Procedures
A total of 451 White, married couples
were recruited for the study. On average,
they had been married 18 years when
interviewed in 1989. The couples lived in
one of eight adjacent, predominantly rural
counties in a midwestem state. Consistent
with the rural location of the study, none of
the couples lived in a town with a
population greater than 6,500. The couples
are participants in a research project on
socioeconomic change in the rural midwest,
the focus of which is the investigation of
individual characteristics and family pro-
cesses that promote successful adaptation by
adults and children during stressful times.
Because the goal of the research is to study
adaptive processes within families, the poten-
tially confounding effects of family struc-
ture, race, and geographic location were
held constant.
The sample includes families that had a
child in the seventh grade in a public or
private school in one of these eight rural
counties during the 1988-89 academic year.
The counties were selected because of their

rural character and heavy dependence on the
agricultural economy, attributes that created
enormous social and economic upheaval
during the 1980s (Murdock and Leistritz
1988). In addition to the seventh grader, at
least one sibling was within four years of age
in each household. Only families containing
both biological parents of the seventh grader
were eligible for the study. Thus, these
couples were involved in relatively stable
marriages that included significant invest-
ments in childrearing. Of those families
eligible for participation, 78 percent agreed to
be interviewed. To be included, all four
family members (husband, wife, seventh
grader, sibling) had to agree to participate.
Because no data are available for nonrespon-
dents, we cannot determine how they differed
from participants. We are assured, however,
given the wide variability in socioeconomic
Status next described, that we interviewed a
broad cross-section of eligible couples.
For the total sample, 34 percent of the
families lived on farms, 12 percent in the
countryside but not on a farm, and the
remainder (54%) in small towns. Median
family income from all sources (e.g., earn-
ings, net farm income, interest, etc.) for the
past year was $33,700 and ranged from a net
loss to over $100,000; 11 percent of the

families fell below the poverty line. These
families were slightly poorer than married
couples in the United States as a whole, a
group that had a median income of $38,164 in
1988 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991).
Consistent with our interest in relatively
traditional couples with divergent responsibil-
ities for men and women, the fathers were the
primary breadwinners in most of these
families as indicated by median earnings of
$20,600, compared to $6,000 for wives. The
median level of education for both husbands
and wives was 13 years, quite comparable to
the median of 13.1 years for Whites between
35 and 44 years of age in the U.S. in 1989
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991), and
ranged from eighth grade to completion of the
doctoral degree. Their median ages were 39
(husbands) and 37 (wives) years, ages
characteristic of 80.7 percent of parents in
married-couple families with children in 1989
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991). Because
of the study's selection criteria, total family
size was above average (median = 5.00).
The national median of 4.13 for married-
couple families (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1991) suggests that couples in this sample had
one more child on average than their
counterparts in the nation as a whole. Thus,
these couples were similar in terms of age and
education to married couples with children in
general; however, they were somewhat poorer
and had larger families than would be
expected from national norms. Given the
nature of the study questions, only data for

the married couples were considered in these
analyses.
The names and addresses of possible
participants were obtained from the 34
schools with seventh-grade students in the
eight counties. All public and private schools
in these counties cooperated. Families were
sent a letter explaining the project and then
were contacted by telephone and asked to
participate. A personal visit was made to
those without a telephone. After agreeing to
be interviewed, each family was visited twice
at home.
During the first visit, the project inter-
viewer explained the purpose of the study,
and obtained informed consent and demo-
graphic information (e.g., ages of all family
members, number of people living in the
home, etc.). Then each of the four family
members separately completed a set of
questionnaires that asked about topics such as
recent life changes, family economic circum-
stances, the quality of family relationships,
styles of family interaction, psychological
distress, and other issues relevant to the
study. In the present paper, we are concerned
primarily with the data regarding life changes
and emotional distress. This first visit took an
average of two hours. During a second visit
that occurred about two weeks after the first,
the family participated in a series of video-
taped interviews to be used for qualitative
analyses of family process. Those data were
not relevant to questions addressed here. At

the conclusion of the second interview, each
participating family member was compen-
sated at a rate of approximately $10 per hour
for his/her time and effort.
Measures
The study involved four basic domains of
measurement: gender (husband or wife),
undesirable or negative life events, psycho-
logical distress, and a set of sociodemo-
graphic control variables that might relate
RESPONSES TO UNDESIRABLE LIFE EVENTS 77
both to distress and life changes (Mirowsky
and Ross 1989). The sociodemographic
control variables included (a) family per
capita income, (b) education in years, (c)
household size, (d) age in years, and (e)
employment status (1= employed at least
part-time, 0 = unemployed). Because finer
discriminations regarding employment status
(e.g., part-time, full-time, unemployed) did
not affect the analyses, a simple dichotomy
was used. The employment variable did not
necessarily indicate low or high stress. For
example, some individuals in the study chose
not to be employed so that they could stay
home with children, pursue an education,
take early retirement, etc. Thus, current
employment status may or may not have been
a result of adverse work changes during the
past year.

Undesirable Life Events. Life events were
assessed using items primarily from the PERI
measure of objective life-event ratings
(Dohrenwend et al. 1978). The use of
negative life events was consistent with the
central role they have been shown to play in
the relationship between life changes and
emotional functioning (Lin and Ensel 1989;
Mirowsky and Ross 1989; Thoits 1983). In
separate questionnaires, husbands and wives
were asked to indicate independently whether
any of 35 different events had happened to
them, to a member of their family, or to a
friend during the past 12 months. The events
were clustered a priori into eight sets of items
that were theoretically meaningful within the
context of this study. The total score for each
cluster is the sum of affirmative responses
(1 =yes, 0 = no) for those events.
The events selected for study emphasize
our interest in differentiating between crises
hypothesized to be particularly salient for
these men, who are the primary providers for
their families, versus those especially perti-
nent for the women in the study who have the
major responsibilities for childrearing and
household maintenance. These theoretical
interests necessitated a sample of negative
events related to work and finances as well as
crises related to important social networks
(e.g., friends, nuclear family, extended fam-
ily). We used the research by Kessler and
McLeod (1984) as a guide in developing
negative event categories.

The first four event types were concerned
with negative changes that directly involved
the respondents. The first of these involved
job disruptions (four items) during the past
year such as being fired, laid off, or demoted.
Difficulties with work were considered sepa-
rately from financial problems (eight items)
which included losses in income or debt
problems during the past year. It was
particularly important to consider these two
areas of change individually as many of the
respondents were self-employed and experi-
enced financial problems unrelated to loss of
employment. These two categories of events
include those items indicative of income loss
in the Kessler and McLeod (1984) study.
For completeness and consistency with
earlier studies (e.g., Kessler and McLeod
1984; Thoits 1987), we also determined
whether the respondent had experienced a
serious illness or injury during the past year
(one item). We included two items about
legal problems, e.g., being involved in a
court case of some type. Many of these
couples had financial difficulties (e.g., loss of
a farm) that included legal action. Thus, we
expected that these events would most
influence the lives of men.
The last four dimensions of change in-
volved negative experiences within important
social networks: the nuclear family, extended
family, and friends. Here we extend earlier

work by discriminating between family and
friend events. Because of the nature of the
sample, two categories of events from the
Kessler and McLeod study were not pertinent:
separation/divorce and other love loss (except
for losses of friends included in our friend
events measure). Friend events (five items)
included changes during the past year such as
health or marital problems among close
friends. Deaths among friends were included
with the items. Such events were rare for
respondents at midlife and the results of the
analyses were similar whether friends' deaths
were considered separately or as part of the
overall category.
Problems within the nuclear family (seven
items) included experiences such as a marital
separation or increased conflict with the
spouse or children. Extended family events
(four items) involved questions related to
issues such as financial or personal problems
among relatives outside the nuclear family.
Finally, we considered family health changes
(four items) for both nuclear and extended
family members within a single cluster of
items, e.g., serious illness or accidents
experienced by spouse, children, in-laws, or
other close relatives. Health events were
combined for nuclear and extended families
because almost all negative health events

involved grandparents. The findings reported
here would not change significantly if health
events were disaggregated to discriminate
between the nuclear and extended family.
Moreover, all deaths in the past year occurred
in the extended family and they influenced
distress in the same fashion as other family
health events; thus, they were included with
the other items in this category.
Psychological Distress. The SCL-90-R was
used to measure symptoms of emotional
problems (Derogatis 1983). This instrument
has demonstrated reliability and validity as a
measure of psychological distress. Although
earlier stress research has been concerned
primarily with anxiety and depression
(Mirowsky and Ross 1989), four SCL-90
subscales were of particular interest in this
study: depression, anxiety, somatization, and
hostility. The hostility subscale was included
to determine whether men are more likely
than women to respond to stress in an angry
manner, as might be suggested by epidemio-
logical studies of psychiatric disorder (Cleary
1987). The other subscales are those typically
used in earlier studies of gender differences in
distress (e.g., Kessler and McLeod 1984;
Thoits 1987).
Respondents were asked to report on a
five-point scale how much discomfort they
had experienced during the past week related
to each symptom of somatization, depression,
anxiety, and hostility. Responses ranged from
no discomfort to extreme discomfort. Scores

were summed to determine the level of
symptomology. The higher the score on a
measure, the greater the feelings of distress.
The somatization subscale (twelve items)
includes bodily complaints such as headaches
or nausea that are known to be correlated with
anxiety and depression (Mirowsky and Ross
1989). Thirteen symptoms (e.g., "feeling
blue") are included in the depression mea-
sure, ten in the anxiety measure (e.g.,
"feeling fearful"), and six in the hostility
subscale (e.g., "having urges to break or
smash things"). Internal consistency coeffi-
cients for this sample ranged from .67 (wives'
hostility) to .87 (husbands' and wives'
depression). The median coefficient of .79
across spouses and subscales suggests reason-
ably good reliability for these measures.
RESULTS
Appendix A provides the correlations,
means, and standard deviations for all study
variables, reported separately for husbands
and wives. The measures of emotional
distress were moderately to highly correlated
for both spouses, ranging from r = .43
(somatization and hostility for both husband
and wife) to r = .79 (depression and anxiety
for husbands). The highest correlation be-
tween an event category and distress for
husbands was .29 between negative financial
events and depression, consistent with study
hypotheses. For women, the highest event/
distress correlation was .26 between nuclear

family crises and depression, also as ex-
pected.
Gender Differences in Level of Distress and
Number of" Undesirable Events
Our first hypothesis was that men would
report more symptoms of hostility, while
women would report greater levels of depres-
sion, anxiety, and somatization. Table 1
provides the mean scores for distress by
gender. The multivariate F-test [F(4447) =
8.02, /?<.OO1] for repeated measures across
correlated groups indicates a statistically
significant difference in the means, the wives
averaging significantly higher scores than
TABLE 1. Mean Scores for Emotional Distress for Husbands
and Wives
SCL-90
Subscales
Somatization
Depression
Anxiety
Hostility
Husbands
16.10
18.87
12.68
7.90
Wives

16.63
20.82
13.22
8.33
Univariate F(, 450,
3.39+
25.46***
4.59*
8.14**
Note: Multivariate ^,4447, = 8.02, p<.001. Multivariate and
univariate tests are for repeated measures across
dependent groups. Mean scores reflect the total summed score
for each subscale.
V < 1 0 ; * p < . 0 5 ; * * p < . 0 1 ; ***p<.001.
husbands for all forms of distress: somatiza-
tion, depression, anxiety, and hostility. The
greatest gender difference was for depression,
the least for somatization. For this sample,
men did not report higher levels of hostile
feelings or behaviors, contrary to our expec-
tations.
Consistent with our second hypothesis,
men reported an average of .84 adverse
financial events compared to .61 (p<.OOl)
for women (Table 2). There were no

significant gender differences for job disrup-
tions, illness or injury, or legal problems. The
results for network events were consistent
with expectations for family relationships but
not for friends (Table 2). Women reported
more negative events than men for all three
areas of family change. These spouses
reported very similar numbers of friend
events, however. Taken together, the results
for gender differences in reports of various
domains of undesirable life changes are
consonant with the study hypothesis.
Within-Group Differences in
Vulnerability to Stress
To address our third hypothesis, regression
equations for each dependent variable were
computed (Tables 3a and 3b). The standard-
ized coefficients in parentheses indicate the
relative effects of the independent variables
within each equation. According to our third
hypothesis, men should be most vulnerable to
financial or work crises compared to the other
negative events they experience and women
should be most distressed by network events.
For men, the within-group findings are
reasonably consistent with the hypothesis.
The largest standardized coefficients for
husbands involve negative financial events for
each dimension of emotional distress except
somatization, which was most strongly re-
lated to a control variable (employment
status) followed by negative friend events

(b* = .l2, p<.Ol, Table 3a). Men's anxiety
was most strongly associated with financial
problems {b* = .lS, p<.OOl, Table 3a), as
was depression {b*=.24, p<.OOl, Table 3b)
and hostility (Z>* = .18, p < . 0 0 1 . Table 3b).
Moreover, in three out of four regressions,
the findings for husbands were consistent
with our fourth hypothesis that family,
compared to friend, crises would be more
strongly associated with emotional distress.
Only in the case of somatization did the
findings suggest that negative friend events
were more distressing for men than family
events.
For women, the findings also were gener-
ally consistent with the within-group predic-
tion that they would be most affected by
network events. The largest standardized
coefficients for anxiety (nuclear family
events), depression (extended family events),
and hostility (nuclear family events) all relate
to network changes. Also important, and
consistent with our final hypothesis, was the
finding that crises within the family were far
more important for these women than friend
events, which were not statistically significant
for any outcome. Wives' symptoms of
somatization, however, were most strongly
associated with their own health problems,
which may refiect some confounding between
the two measures. The results for men,
however, did not reflect such a confound.
Thus, for both husbands and wives, the
within-group analyses were supportive of

TABLE 2. Mean Scores for Undesirabte Life Changes for
Husbands and Wives
Life
Events Husbands Wives Univariate F,,
Personal
Job disruptions
Financial problems
Illness or injury
Legal problems
Network
Friend events
Nuclear family
Extended family
Family health
.24
.84
.05
.09
1.07
.37
.76
.48
.20
.61
.08

.07
.98
.54
.92
.58
1.35
16.91**
2.09
2.28
2.31
18.62**
9.57*
8.20*
Note: Multivariate
dependent groups.
* p<.Ol; ** p<.0Ol.
437) = 8.51, p<.0Ol. Multivariate and univariate tests are for
repeated measures across
- Q
o

t/5
I I
I I
8
I I
8S
I I I
(S O — OS
I I
q oioo—^ o q S q q
I w - ^ ^ ^ I ^ I ^ ^
8
o — o o
I I
I I
§ e . | g a 2
5 « o 6 LS u
III
1 ^
ii^
i •? "ĝ.S

^ E z l l l " ' " " ^ -
S •£ ? I
•a
o
2 »
on *
g o
T3
•o a.
00 — O —
I I I I
S S S : S — o —(N — O
I I
I I
IT) VO O
— r>1 O
8
S
I

• " s i l l
study hypotheses except for those related to
somatization. We consider these divergent
results for this measure of distress in our later
discussion of the findings.
Between-Group Analyses
Tables 3a and 3b also provide the unstand-
ardized regression coefficients for between-
gender comparisons. We hypothesized that
wives, compared to their husbands, would be
more vulnerable to network events, while
men would be more reactive to financial and
work problems. Because husbands and wives
are paired groups, we employed generalized
least squares estimators for seemingly unre-
lated regression equations rather than ordinary
least squares (Johnston 1984; Zellner 1962).
The findings were only partially consistent
with the third hypothesis.
The results for hostility provided the best
fit with expectations for the differential
vulnerability of men. The unstandardized
coefficients predicting hostility (Table 3b)
were significantly larger for men than women
for financial problems {b=.'i5, husbands;
fc=.O8, wives; p < . 0 5 for the difference in
slopes) and for legal problems (Z)=1.18,
husbands; fc=.16, wives; p < . 0 5 for the

difference in slopes). Also consistent with
the third hypothesis, men were more likely
than women to report symptoms of anxiety
(p<.10) or depression (p<.10) as a result of
legal problems.
Although wives were somewhat more
likely than their husbands to be vulnerable to
depression (Table 3b) as a function of crises
in the extended family {b=.19, husbands;
b= 1.40, wives; p<.0 for the difference in
slopes), the findings were generally inconsis-
tent with the thesis that women would be
more vulnerable than men to network events.
Indeed, the association between friend events
and somatization was a bit greater for men
than women (/j<.10). Also contrary to
expectations, the relationship between finan-
cial problems and somatization (Table 3a)
was stronger for wives {b—.59) than for
husbands (fo=.O6, p<.05 for the difference
in slopes).
DISCUSSION
Four hypotheses guided these analyses.
The results did not support our first proposi-
tion that husbands would report more symp-
toms of hostility than their wives, although
they responded to some events in a more
hostile fashion than their spouses, a point we
will return to later in the discussion. These
analyses did replicate the usual finding that
women, compared to men, report higher
levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic

complaints (Pearlin 1989). We suspect that
our measure of problem behavior, self-
reported hostile feelings, and actions during
the past week may not correspond as well as
expected with more general antisocial tenden-
cies, including illegal acts, that characterize
men more than women (Cleary 1987).
Indeed, low levels of irritable and hostile
behavior are often associated with depressive
symptoms (Downey and Coyne 1990) and we
suspect that the hostility measure employed
here is more consonant with aversive acts of
this type than with the more dramatic forms
of antisocial behavior found to be more
prevalent among men in earlier research.
Future research on these issues should include
measures that emphasize overt antisocial
tendencies to a greater degree than the
indicator of hostility used here.
The data did support our second hypothesis
that women would report more undesirable
network events and men more negative
financial changes during the past year. The
present results are consistent with Kessler and
McLeod's central findings that reports of
income loss are more typical of men while the
prevalence of network crises is greater for
women. Although the events are not exactly
the same as in their study, the discrimination
between economic and interpersonal domains
is the same. In addition, these results
demonstrate that, at least for relatively
traditional married women, negative family
events are more common than problems
among friends. In contrast to these findings

and the Kessler and McLeod results, Thoits
(1987) reported that married women in her
study did not experience more negative
network events than men nor did men report
more financial problems. Moreover, she
found that women reported more negative
health events than men while Kessler and
McLeod found the reverse. In this study we
find no gender differences for negative health
changes during the past year, a result that
may reflect the relatively young age of the
respondents. Clearly, much additional work is
needed on the varying dimensions of social
context and life stage that determine risk for
exposure to different life stressors for both
men and women. For these relatively tradi-
tional couples at mid-life, however, gender-
based predictions for differential exposure to
negative events based on Kessler and
McLeod's research received considerable
empirical support.
The findings related to our third hypothesis
demonstrate the importance of considering
variation in psychological outcomes and
stressors within the same set of analyses (see
also Aneshensel et al. 1991; Lennon 1987).
We proposed that both within- and between-
group analyses would demonstrate greater
vulnerability of wives to negative network
events and of husbands to financial and work

events. For men, three out of four of the
within-group analyses were consistent with
the hypothesis. In the case of somatization,
though, crises among friends were the events
most strongly related to psychological symp-
toms for men. For the between-group analy-
ses, men were significantly more vulnerable
than women to negative financial or legal
events only for hostility, a response we
predicted would be more typical of husbands.
For symptoms of depression and anxiet̂ y, men
were marginally {p<.lO) more vulnerable
than women to legal problems. For somatiza-
tion, women were actually more vulnerable to
financial problems than men.
As noted, the greatest vulnerability of men
to financial and legal problems occurred when
hostility was the measure of distress. Thus,
even though men were not more hostile than
their wives in general, they reacted in a more
hostile fashion in response to sex-typed
negative events. In this sense, the results for
hostility were as predicted. In addition, the
findings suggest that the mean level of
distress represents only one of several impor-
tant dimensions of gender effects in the stress
process. The complex interaction found in
this study among gender, event type, and
psychological outcomes is equally important.
For women, the within-group analyses
were consistent with the hypothesis of greater
vulnerability to network events except for
somatic complaints, which were most
strongly related to illness or injury during the

past year. This finding concerning wives'
somatization may result, at least in part, from
confounds in measurement in that somatic
complaints at the time of the interview may
reflect continuing symptoms from prior ill-
ness or injury. Contrary to this thesis,
however, illness or injury reported by men
was only marginally (p<.10) related to
somatization, which was better predicted by
network events for husbands.
Although the strong association between
somatization and men's employment status
suggests that unemployment leads to somatic
symptoms, it also suggests another possible
confound in the somatization measure in that
ill or injured husbands may be less able to
work. This possibility cannot be tested with
these data because we would need to have a
measure of somatic complaints prior to
changes in employment status. Future re-
search will be needed to clarify the degree to
which these within-gender findings for soma-
tization result from measurement confounds
or model misspecification or whether they
refiect real differences in the stress process
for this measure of distress. Until findings are
available from research directed toward these
measurement and theoretical issues, we will
not know whether the within-group results for
somatization, which are so inconsistent with
the results for the other measures of psycho-
logical status, place in doubt its value as an
outcome variable in stress reseju'ch.

The between-group analyses did not sup-
port our thesis that wives would be more
vulnerable than husbands to negative network
events. Only for crises in the extended family
did wives demonstrate greater vulnerability
than husbands, and this finding held only for
depression and was only marginally signifi-
cant (p<.lO). Moreover, negative friend
events were marginally more predictive of
men's than women's somatic symptoms.
Particularly unexpected was the finding
that women were more reactive than men to
negative financial changes when the criterion
measure was somatization. This finding again
demonstrates the importance of considering
varying relationships between distress and
stress processes for men and women. Future
research will be needed to determine whether
the present finding of greater hostility by men
and greater somatization by women in
response to financial stress is generalizable
beyond the present study population. How-
ever, as indicated earlier, the findings for
somatization are somewhat suspect and
should be interpreted cautiously. In any case,
these findings again sensitize us to the fact
that sex differences in stress processes may
involve complex interactions among gender.
types of distress, and nature of the stressor.
Indeed, our findings are consistent with the

conclusion reached by Aneshensel et al.
(1991) that gender differences in vulnerability
to stress may vary depending on the types of
disorder and stress being considered. Despite
the small number of significant between-
group differences in reactivity to network
events, the results clearly show that women
experienced more undesirable family events
than men and were more distressed by them
than by other crises in their lives. Their
enmeshment in a greater number of family
problems than men increased the likelihood
that these role-related difficulties would
exacerbate their psychological distress. Simi-
larly, men were more distressed by financial
than other problematic changes in their lives
and were more likely than their wives to
experience such events.
In retrospect, the failure to find pervasive
and significant between-group differences for
relationship events may not be surprising.
These couples were involved in marriages
that averaged almost two decades in length
and they had a greater than average (mean =
2.95) number of children. From their behav-
ior we can infer that they had an above
average commitment to stable family relation-
ships and perhaps greater than normal inter-
personal skills that may be necessary to
maintain continuity in family life. They also
lived in a rural environment known to be
characterized by close ties within extended
family systems (Marotz-Baden, Hennon, and
Brubaker 1988). Given their life histories and
location in family-oriented social systems, the

husbands in this sample may well be as
sensitive as their wives to negative family
events, as these data suggest. Moreover, the
reactivity of men to friends' crises, contrary
to findings from earlier research, may reflect
the generally closer social ties in rural
environments in contrast to the urban settings
of most prior studies. The between-group
findings tell us that for this very family-
invested group, men are almost as reactive as
wives to family crises. Although not entirely
consistent with study hypotheses, this result is
similar to one reported by Wethington et al.
(1987), who found that men were about as
vulnerable as women to family crises and
were less reactive only to negative events
involving more distal social relations. Future
research will need to clarify whether this
finding is generalizable to similar samples or
to the population of men and women as a
whole.
Regarding our fourth hypothesis, with a
single exception (i.e., husband's somatic
symptoms), both spouses experienced greater
emotional distress as a function of stress in
family compared to friend social networks.
This finding is consonant with the above
. discussion regarding the heavy investment in
family life by this sample of respondents.
Moreover, it is consistent with either a social
structural or identity perspective. If our thesis
about the greater importance of family ties in
rural compared to urban settings is correct,

we would not expect the exact same pattern of
findings to hold in urban settings in which
friendships may rival family relations in their
importance. Rather than simply comparing
urban and rural respondents on stressors and
outcomes, however, future studies should
examine these processes while also investigat-
ing the value placed by urban or rural
respondents on family ties. For urban and
rural people with equivalent values about
family life, the results of such research may
be quite the same regardless of geographic
location.
Taken together, these findings suggest that
social roles and responsibilities, and perhaps
self-conceptions concomitant to such statuses,
play an important role in determining the
salience and infiuence of negative life events.
Overall, the analyses are more consonant with
Kessler and McLeod's (1984) findings than
with Thoits' (1987). In particular, as did
Kessler and McLeod, we found that women
are more exposed than men to social network
crises, especially in the family, and that men
experience a larger number of undesirable
financial events. Contrary to the results
reported by Thoits (1987) but consistent with
the Kessler and McLeod (1984) study, we
found that relationship events played a greater
role in women's vulnerability than did health
problems. We will be more confident about
these findings, however, when these results
are replicated with longitudinal data. It is
likely that distress leads to a more problem-
atic social environment, a possibility noted

earlier for the relationship between employ-
ment status and somatization. An understand-
ing of such reciprocal connections will
require prospective, longitudinal research.
There is also evidence, however, that
contextual factors may influence ties to
traditional notions of gender roles and respon-
sibilities. Samples with quite different demo-
graphic characteristics than the couples in this
study may produce very different results
(Aneshensel et al. 1991). Thus, the next stage
in this research must go much further in
elaborating the mechanisms at work. Rather
than inferring role responsibilities or self-
conceptions, for example, these constructs
must eventually be measured directly and
entered into our analyses as others have
suggested (Brown, Bifulco, and Harris 1987;
Thoits 1991). In addition, more information
should be generated about specific commit-
ments and activities in major life domains
such as work and family that might determine
resilience or vulnerability to particular stres-
sors, especially when men and women have
similar role responsibilities (Lennon 1987).
As Lennon (1987) also has suggested,
progress in research on gender and psycho-
logical distress will require a multiplicity of
theoretically relevant measures related to
work and family roles and emotional and

behavioral outcomes.
Also important in future research will be
greater attention to specific life stages, life
circumstances, and residential situation. For
example, we have suggested that the hus-
bands in this study may have been more
reactive than expected to network events
because of the norms and priorities in a rural
environment. In addition, the wives studied
here may have been less responsive to
financial and work-related crises because of
their generally secondary responsibilities in
these areas in a more traditional, relatively
conservative family context. It also may be
the case that family problems were especially
distressing to both men and women in these
families because of their concern for adoles-
cents soon to be on their own and for their
own aging parents, many of whom are
experiencing significant life transitions such
as retirement, chronic health problems, or
loss of a spouse. These cross-cutting dimen-
sions of social life should be investigated
carefully in future research on gender differ-
ences in distress and on how these differences
may be mediated or moderated by everyday
social contingencies that are located within
and vary by larger social contexts and stage in
life. Conducting such intensive research may
require an emphasis on relatively homoge-
neous samples that can be subdivided by
variables of theoretical interest (e.g., role
identities) while being held constant on other
significant factors (e.g., marital status). Such

a strategy, compared to large-scale surveys of
broad cross-sections of the adult population,
may provide a cost-effective means for
identifying the values, beliefs, and social
processes that may help to account for gender
differences in psychological distress.
NOTES
1. In the present analyses we are most concerned
with the relation between specific types of life
events and gender-related emotional outcomes.
For these associations, either a social structural
or identity perspective leads to similar predic-
tions. The intervening processes that account
for such relationships, however, may be quite
different. In identity theory, the role incumbent
must feel that some important dimension of self
has been threatened by an undesirable event for
psychological problems to occur. From a
structural perspective, this cognitive mediator is
not a necessary part of the process and the
important linking variables between events and
emotional distress may have more to do with
increased role demands, the imposition of
barriers that produce failure in meeting norma-
tive expectations, or other such structural
features of the proximal environment. From a
structural perspective, these environmental con-
tingencies should influence psychological dis-
tress or well-being even in the absence of
self-perceptions that describe a high degree of
identification with a specific role. Thus, with
appropriate data, one could test empirically
whether the identity mediator or moderator is
necessary or whether structural demands alone

account for variations in psychological status.
iv
e
s]
.o
s
o
1
a
o
5
.3
I
cs
2
3
I55
o

s
Pi
.3
8
.3
2
.3
8
!o
.2
0
0 0
.6
1
.0
8
.0
7
s
—
.9
8

0̂ S
*n ON .5
8
»n
07
§?̂
.4
0
^ —
•*
.7
0
.7
8
0000 — 0000000 — 0 — 0
I I I I I I I I I
m in in c^ 0*1 p*̂ in •̂" ^0 ^^ 0*1 00 ^^ 00 CN I G*^ P ^ ^^
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — O ( N — O l O - J O N
I I I I I I I
O O O O O — O — O — — O t N O
I I
0 0 0 0
I I I

— — o o o r j o o o o o o i f N t N — 0 0 —
I I I I I I I I I I I I M IP;
I — o o o o o r - 0 0
I I I • •
C N t N t N — O — O — — I —
~~ —" O O O O d O I O fS —" O O O O O O ~™
I I I - : -.:
S u-1 — v o o o O N f s l o v o n o o - — w n ^ ( N O —o o o
o o — I o — O O O O O O O O r ^
I I I I • •
I I I I I • •
0 ^ O ^ * ^ T t • 0 ^ I C S 0 O O O » O ^ f * ^ 0 0 — - O N d ^
I O O < N — ( N O — O O O O O O —
I I I I • - :
8 5 S S I 2 3 5 3 5 2 2 3 2 3 5 2 2 ;
I I I I
r ^ f ^ o o | i o O N ' » t ' n i ^ O N o o o i n o c N > r ) i y - i '
^ u - )
• / ^ T T V ^ ' 0 0 — 0 ^ 0 — 0 0 . — 0 0 < N c * ^ r o
I I I I - • •
I - . V O i v o o n o — — — ( N o o o o o — ( N c n
I I I I I - : '
in 1 i l O r ^ O O O O r ^ - ^ O v f N ^ O ^ C N O O I O C N O

O
O C N O — O ^ — O O O O O O t ^ f * ^
I I I I - : '
o o v r ^ ^ O N - o o — o » n o ^ - ^ — a » n f ^
r - r - u - > O ( N — — O c s f s o — O O O O ' * - *
I I I - : •
i.jtilillliii^ 1,
*-J HC '̂ ̂ ̂ UH S HJ UH Z U UM Qd UJ tL ̂ UJ
"" (N CO ̂ <n ̂ p^ 00 ON O "~ CN CO ̂ in ̂ o p».
1
il
g'l
Al S
.1
REFERENCES
Aneshensel, Carol S. and Leonard I. Pearlin.
1987. "Structural Contexts of Sex Differences in
Stress." Pp. 75-95 in Gender and Stress, edited
by R. C. Bamett, L. Biener, and G. K. Baruch.
New York: Free Press.

, Carolyn M. Rutter, and Peter A. Lachen-
bruch. 1991. "Social Structure, Stress, and
Mental Health: Competing Conceptual and
Analytic Models." American Sociological Re-
view 56: 166-78.
Bolger, Niall, Anita DeLongis, Ronald C. Kessler,
and Elizabeth A. Schilling. 1989. "Effects of
Daily Stress on Negative Mood." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 57: 808-18.
Brown, George W., Andrew Bifulco, and Tirril O.
Harris. 1987. "Life Events, Vulnerability and
Onset of Depression: Some Refinements."
British Journal of Psychiatry 150:30-42.
Caspi, Avshalom and Ellen S. Herbener. 1990.
"Continuity and Change: Assortative Marriage
and the Consistency of Personality in Adult-
hood." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 58:250-58.
Cleary, Paul D. 1987. "Gender Differences in
Stress-Related Disorders." Pp. 39-72 in Gender
and Stress, edited by R. C. Bamett, L. Biener,
and G. K. Tsanich. New York: Free Press.
Derogatis, Leonard R. 1983. SCL-90-R Manual-II.
Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.
Dohrenwend, Barbara S. 1970. "Social Class and
Stressful Events." Pp. 313-19 in Psychiatric
Epidemiology, edited by E. H. Hare and J. K.
Wing. New York: Oxford University Press.
, Larry Krasnoff, Alexander R. Askenasy,

and Bruce P. Dohrenwend. 1978. "Exemplifica-
tion of a Method for Scaling Life Events: The
PERI Life Events Scale." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 19:205-29.
Downey, Geraldine and James C. Coyne. 1990.
"Children of Depressed Parents: An Integrative
Review." Psychological Bulletin 108:50-76.
Johnston, John. 1984. Econometric Methods, 3rd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kessler, Ronald C. and Jane D. McLeod. 1984.
"Sex Differences in Vulnerability to Undesir-
able Life Events." American Sociological Re-
view 49:620-21.
Lennon, Mary C. 1987. "Sex Differences in
Distress: The Impact of Gender and Work
Roles." Journal of Health and Social Behavior
28:290-305.
Lin, Nan and Walter M. Ensel. 1989. "Life Stress
and Health: Stressors and Resources." American
Sociological Review 54:382-99.
Marotz-Baden, Ramona, Charles B. Hennon, and
Timothy H. Brubaker. 1988. Families in Rural
America: Stress, Adaptation and Revitalization.
St. Paul, MN: National Council on Family
Relations.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1989.
Social Causes of Psychological Distress. New
York: Aldine.

Murdock, Steve H. and F. Larry Leistritz (Eds.).
The Farm Financial Crisis: Socioeconomic
Dimensions and Implications for Producers and
Rural Areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pearlin, Leonard 1. 1989. "The Sociological Study
of Stress." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 30:241-56.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1989.
"Explaining the Social Patterns of Depression:
Control and Problem Solving—or Support and
Talking?" Journal of Health and Social Behav-
ior 30:206-19.
Stryker, Sheldon and Richard T. Serpe. 1982.
"Commitment, Identity, Salience, and Role
Behavior." Pp. 199-218 in Personality, Roles,
and Social Behavior, edited by W. Ickes and
E. S. Knowles. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1983. "Dimensions of Life
Events that Influence Psychological Distress: An
Evaluation and Synthesis of the Literature." Pp.
33-103 in Psychosocial Stress: Trends in Theory
and Research, edited by H. B. Kaplan. New
York: Academic Press.
1986. "Multiple Identities: Examining
Gender and Marital Status Differences in
Distress." American Sociological Review 51:
259-72.
1987. "Gender and Marital Status Differ-
ences in Control and Distress: Common Stress

versus Unique Stress Explanations." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 28:7-22.
. . 1991. "On Merging Identity Theory and
Stress Research." Social Psychology Quarterly
54:101-12.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Statistical
Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Weissman, Myma M. 1987. "Advances in Psychi-
atric Epidemiology: Rates and Risks for Depres-
sion." American Journal of Public Health
77:445-51.
Wethington, Elaine, Jane D. McLeod, and Ronald
C. Kessler. 1987. "The Importance of Life
Events for Explaining Sex Differences in
Psychological Distress." Pp. 144-56 in Gender
and Stress, edited by R. C. Bamett, L. Biener,
and G. K. Baruch. New York: Free Press.
Wheaton, Blair. 1990. "Life Transitions, Role
Histories, and Mental Health." American Socio-
logical Review 55:209-23.
Zellner, Amold. 1962. "An Efficient Method of
Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions
and Tests for Aggregation Bias." Journal of the
American Statistical Association 57:348-68.

Rand D. Conger is professor of sociology, Iowa State
University, and Director of the NIMH-funded
Center for Family Research in Rural Mental Health. Some of his
research interests include the transition
from adolescence to adulthood, family research methods such as
the direct observation of family
interactions, and the influence of family dynamics and acute or
chronic stressors on physical and mental
health.
Frederick Lorenz is associate professor in the Departments of
Statistics and Sociology, Iowa State
University. His research interests include the effects of
measurement error in modeling family processes
and individual adaptation to psychosocial stressors.
Glen H. Elder, Jr. is Howard W. Odum Distinguished Professor
of Sociology and Research Professor of
Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where
he directs the Social Change project on life
course and family studies. His research activities include
studies of families and children under economic
pressure in the Iowa project and research on the life course
effects of World War II.
Ronald L. Simmons is professor of sociology and principal
investigator for the Single Parent Project at
Iowa State University. His research interests include parenting
practices and adolescent developmental
outcomes, family processes and individual development in
single-parent households, and homeless
adolescents and adults.
Xiaojia Ge is research associate. Center for Family Research in
Rural Mental Health, Iowa State
University. His research interests include family research

methods, adolescent development, and family
stress processes.

usband and Wife Differences in Response to UndesirableLife E.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to usband and Wife Differences in Response to UndesirableLife E.docx

Similar to usband and Wife Differences in Response to UndesirableLife E.docx (20)

More from dickonsondorris

More from dickonsondorris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

usband and Wife Differences in Response to UndesirableLife E.docx