How Does Living Alone or With a Partner

Population-E, 67 (1), 2012, 43-70

Jolle GAYMU* and Sabine SPRINGER**

How does Living Alone or with a Partner Influence Life Satisfaction among Older Men

and Women in Europe?

Numerous studies have examined the links between the objective living conditions and the life satisfaction of persons aged 60 and over. Despite the wide variety of methods and data used, these studies all show that good health, a favourable economic status and a good family network positively infl uence the subjective well-being(1) of older adults (Bowling and Windsor, 2001; Brown et al., 2004; Doyle, 1984; Easterlin, 2001; Fagestrm et al., 2007; Ferring et al., 2004; George, 2006; Holden and Hatcher, 2006; Noll, 2007; Von dem Knesebeck et al., 2005 and 2007). It has also been observed that people living alone are less satisfi ed with their life than those living with a partner (Jakobsson et al., 2004). It may therefore seem paradoxical that women report being satisfi ed with their lives only slightly less often than men (Inglehart, 2002; Pinquart and Srensen, 2001) even though they are the ones who face multiple disadvantages: not only higher rates of living alone (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2000), but also greater economic insecurity (Eurostat, 2002) and poorer health (Cambois et al., 2003; Egidi, 2003). Some researchers (Bourque et al., 2003; Calasanti, 1996; Pinquart and Srensen, 2000) have suggested that subjective well-being is not determined by the same factors among men and women. Indeed, it has been shown (Pinquart and Srensen, 2000) that life satisfaction is more strongly dependent on social integration for women than for men, and the reverse is true for socioeconomic status. These fi ndings are generally attributed to gender differences in socialization in those generations, with men being more focused on career and women on home life. Nonetheless, these results concern all older people, raising the question of the infl uence of living arrangements. For example, do they still apply to persons who live alone to

(1) In this article, the terms life satisfaction and subjective well-being are used as synonyms.

* Institut national dtudes dmographiques.** Fondation nationale de grontologie.Correspondence: Jolle Gaymu, Institut national dtudes dmographiques, 133 boulevard Davout, 75980 Paris cedex 20, France. Tel: 00 33 (1) 56 06 21 21, email: [email protected]

J. GAYMU, S. SPRINGER

44

men who do not have, or no longer have, a spouse and who invest in the family sphere, and to women who fi nd themselves without the fi nancial support of a partner? Conversely, does the fact that men and women who live with a partner largely share the same living conditions (shared economic status and family relationships) favour increasingly similar determinants of well-being?

People living alone and those living with a partner must be analysed separately because their characteristics and needs are different and vary by gender. In general, those living with a partner are better integrated socially, in terms of both social relationships and participation in the world of leisure and consumption (Delbs and Gaymu, 2004; De Jong Gierveld et al., 1997). They are also better at handling everyday domestic tasks since they benefi t from role sharing and specialization (David and Starzec, 1996). In addition, in the event of disability, the spouse is the primary caregiver, thereby postponing or even preventing institutionalization (Carrire and Pelletier, 1995; Freedman, 1996). Men, however, are less autonomous than women in performing day-to-day tasks. They also have greater diffi culty in managing the dependency of their spouse and more frequently call upon professional assistance (Martel and Lgar, 2001) or place their spouse in a care home (Gaymu et al., 2006). Living with a partner, moreover, has a stronger protective effect on mens mortality and health status (Glaser et al., 1997), while for women it tends to improves their fi nancial situation (De Santis et al., 2008), since most women of the older generations have only modest personal resources. As a result, the determinants of subjective well-being can be very different for men and women, depending on whether they live with a partner, as is the case for most older men, or alone, as is the case for the majority of older women. Even though rates of living alone have increased dramatically for both sexes in all European countries over the last few decades (Pampel, 1992; Wolf, 1995; Glaser et al., 2004; Tomassini et al., 2004; Gaymu et al., 2006), most older adults who live alone are women. Indeed, in all European countries, after age 75, twice as many women live alone as men. In this age group, around two-thirds of men live with a partner, versus only about a quarter of women. This gender gap is essentially due to excess male mortality that raises the risk of widowhood for women (Kalogirou and Murphy, 2006).

The main aim of this article is to show the extent to which disparities in mens and womens economic, family and health situations explain the discrepancies in life-satisfaction levels. We will also explore whether the fact of living alone or with a partner generates a greater or lesser degree of similarity in determinants of well-being. While some studies have emphasized the important link between older peoples sociocultural context and life satisfaction (Diener et al., 2000; Ferring et al., 2004; Fagestrm et al., 2007; Von dem Knesebeck et al., 2005; Noll, 2007), international comparisons of gender differences remain rare (Inglehart, 2002; Tesch-Rmer et al., 2008). As gender disparities in living conditions vary across Europe (Eurostat, 2002), we will examine whether the sociocultural context, i.e. residing in a particular country

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

45

or larger European region, has an incidence on the determinants of subjective well-being among men and women.

These analyses are based on the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), which looks at life satisfaction, a variable commonly used to measure older adults subjective well-being. Thanks to the international scope of this survey, inequalities between men and women can be studied in ten European countries. After an initial study based on the same data focusing on people living alone (Gaymu and Springer, 2010), we extend the comparisons to men and women living with a partner in order to verify the infl uence of living arrangements on the determinants of subjective well being among the over-60s.

I. Data and Methodology

1. Data

The data used are taken from the fi rst wave of the SHARE survey, conducted in 2004 (version 2.0.1). A total of 13,550 people aged 60 years and over were surveyed in the ten countries concerned. Among them, 3,501 lived alone and 7,723 with a partner.(2) Table 1 presents the size of available samples by gender,

(2) Multigenerational co-residence, which concerned 2,236 respondents, could not be analysed on account of the low sample numbers, especially in northern countries.

Table 1. Sample sizes by living arrangement (alone or with a partner), by gender and by country

Total samplePeople who answered the life satisfaction question

Living alone Living with a partner Total*

AloneWith a partner

Total* Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women

Sweden SE 401 1,204 1,672 95 191 286 507 454 961 637 665

Netherlands NL 300 935 1,345 62 176 238 451 375 826 563 593

Denmark DK 373 558 0,970 78 165 243 220 194 414 309 369

Austria AT 485 619 1,293 91 319 410 302 234 536 455 644

Germany DE 306 1,051 1,528 64 159 223 434 374 808 561 597

Belgium BE 501 1,104 1,874 105 285 390 490 406 896 704 786

Spain ES 185 539 1,262 36 116 152 213 217 430 437 592

Italy IT 189 631 1,352 32 104 136 228 224 452 428 506

France FR 328 576 1,021 49 151 200 214 179 393 297 357

Greece GR 433 506 1,233 83 291 374 261 210 471 490 631

Total Total 3,501 7,723 13,550 695 1,957 2,652 3,320 2,867 6,187 4,881 5,740

* Including multigenerational co-residence.Source: SHARE, wave 1, version 2.0.1.


46

living arrangement and country. The question on life satisfaction was included in a self-administered questionnaire answered by three-quarters of the sample. This fraction of the population was positively selected, with better health, a higher educational level, younger age, greater likelihood of living with a partner and lower incidence of widowhood, these factors varying very little by country. Among people living alone, respondents differed mainly by health and age.

2. Method

There is a large body of literature on indicators of subjective well-being. These indicators are sometimes based on a single question about life satisfaction or happiness, at other times on scales combining diverse questions about various aspects of subjective well-being. The studies all show that the different measurements are very closely correlated, both among themselves and with the essential individual determinants of well-being (George, 2006; Pinquart and Srensen, 2000; Smith et al., 2004). The exact question used in the fi rst wave of SHARE was, Are you satisfi ed with your life in general?, with four possible answers: very satisfi ed, relatively satisfi ed, relatively dissatisfi ed and very dissatisfi ed. Since only 1.4% of people aged 60 or over said they were very dissatisfi ed, the last two categories were merged and the variable used has three response categories: very satisfi ed, relatively satisfi ed and dissatisfi ed (relatively or very).

A multiple correspondence analysis for people living alone showed that the notion of life satisfaction was properly understood in all of the countries, as the order of response categories was used in a comparable way (Blasius and Thiessen, 2006). As found in other studies (Christoph and Noll, 2003), however, the various response categories were not used homogeneously. French respondents tended to focus on the negative categories, and the Danes on the positive ones. The use of anchoring vignettes(3) would have helped to reduce this heterogeneity (Angelini et al., 2008), but they were not available in the version of SHARE used here. Nonetheless, with these three response categories it is possible to control partly for this bias, since the whole range of attitudes can be considered.

Since the dependent variable is ordered, a generalized ordered logit model can be used, such as the one developed by R. Williams (2006) for Stata (gologit2). This type of model is more fl exible than an ordered logit model that only allows a single coeffi cient per independent variable for the different levels of the dependent variable (hypothesis of parallel slopes). The fact that this hypothesis is challenged (by Brands test) for a certain number of independent variables justifi es the use of a model that can relax the hypothesis: the model is more fl exible while at the same time keeping all the information related to the dependent variable. In practice, odds ratios (OR) are used to estimate the

(3) Questions used to correct bias resulting from cultural differences between the respondents.


47

infl uence of each independent variable, fi rst on the probability of being very or relatively satisfi ed (compared with the likelihood of being dissatisfi ed) and then on the odds ratio of being very satisfi ed (compared with the probability of being relatively satisfi ed or dissatisfi ed). The odds ratios are identical in both cases if the hypothesis of parallel slopes is respected. If not, the infl uence of the variable will vary depending on the level of life satisfaction.

In the following equation, X1 and X2 respect the hypothesis of parallel slopes, whereas for X3, the coeffi cient i may vary with the signifi cance level of the dependent variable.

P (Yi ! j) = exp (Dj + X1i E1 + X2i E2 + X3i E3j) 1 + ^exp (Dj + X1i E1 + X2i E2 + X3i E3j)` , j = 1, 2,M 1

When the hypothesis of parallel slopes is respected, an OR that is signifi cant and above one indicates that the variable has a positive infl uence on the probability of being satisfi ed with life. If this hypothesis is relaxed, interpretation is more complex and nuanced. The variable may then have a signifi cant infl uence for the fi rst level of comparison (dissatisfi ed versus very or relatively satisfi ed), but not on the second (dissatisfi ed or relatively satisfi ed versus very satisfi ed). The direction of this infl uence may itself be different.

Contrasting the two levels of comparison reveals the high consistency of the fi ndings. The odds ratios are generally higher and more strongly signifi cant for the variables affecting the probability of being relatively or very satisfi ed (as opposed to dissatisfi ed). For these reasons, this is the model that was analysed in detail for this article. When some variables only infl uence the odds of being very satisfi ed with life (versus relatively satisfi ed and dissatisfi ed), these cases are still mentioned.

In line with the literature on the topic, the three main factors infl uencing older adults subjective well-being (i.e. family, health and fi nancial situation) were taken into account in the analysis (Table 2). For a certain number of variables, only one household representative was interviewed on behalf of all of the members. This was the case for information pertaining to children, help received from outside persons, income, housing occupancy status (owner or not) and location (city, town or rural area). This information would perhaps have been different if another person had been chosen as respondent. Nonetheless, within couples, this single declaration can be justifi ed by the fact that the dwelling and budget are usually shared, and even if one person in the couple is more involved in family life, it is a largely shared life.

Family networks are depicted through several variables: existence of children, distance between the parental home and that of the nearest child (less or more than one kilometre) and the frequency of contact with the child seen most often (daily or less frequent contact). In the multivariate analyses, to maintain the size of the sample of people living alone, a variable was created with three positions associating the possible existence of a child and the


48

Table 2. Description of the variables used in the multivariate analysis

Scale Respondent DescriptionCategories

(reference category in bold)

Life satisfaction

Ordinal Self-administered questionnaire

Are you satisfi ed with life? Dissatisfi ed (very dissatisfi ed, relatively dissatisfi ed) relatively satisfi ed, very satisfi ed

Age Interval 60 years and over; mean age: 70.8 years; standard deviation: 7.10

Years

Living arrangement

Nominal The living with others category may include couples who live with other people

Alone, with partner, with others

Marital status Nominal Widowed, single, divorced/ separated

Gender Nominal Man, women

Education Nominal Based on ISCED classifi cation: 0-2 = low, 3 = medium, 4-6 = high, other = NR

Low, medium, high

Health Nominal Limitations in activities of daily living Severe, moderate, none

Income Nominal Respondent for household fi nances

Based on gross household income, corrected using the OECD equivalence scale, terciles calculated on a national basis

Low, medium, high

Home-owner Nominal Respondent from the household

No, yes

Residential environment

Nominal Respondent from the household

Urban = metropolitan areas, cities, suburbs and city outskirts; Rural = rural areas, villages and small towns

Urban, rural

Transport and services

Nominal Self-administered questionnaire

Availability of transport and services (shops, doctor, pharmacy)

Not satisfactory, satisfactory

Child(ren) and contact


Combination of having children or not and frequency of contact (all types)

No children, child(ren) and non-daily contact, child(ren) and daily contact

Help received Nominal Respondent from the household

Received by a household member and from a family member, friend or neighbour

No, yes

Help given Nominal Given by the individual to a family member, friend or neighbour

No, yes

Leisure activities

Nominal Volunteer work, classes/training, sports or social clubs, religious, political or other organizations

No, yes

Country Nominal Switzerland was excluded because of its small sample size

AT, DE, SE, NL, ES, IT, FR, GR, DK, BE

Contact with children


Highest frequency of contact (all types) during the last 12 months with all reported children

Daily contact/ less frequent contact

Distance from childs residence


Geographical distance between the respondents home and the closest residence of one of his/her reported children (less than 1 km includes children living in the same building).

Less than 1 km, more than 1 km

Source: SHARE survey, wave 1, version 2.0.1.


49

frequency of contact: no children, child(ren) and daily contact, and child(ren) and non-daily contact. Finally, support (received and given) involving persons outside the household was also taken into account.

A wide range of variables were tested to refl ect respondents diverse socioeconomic contexts: educational level, based on the International Standard Classifi cation of Education (ISCED); income level, divided into terciles; and housing occupancy status. Two variables describing their everyday environment were also used: living in a city (versus towns and rural areas) and the availability of public transport and services.

Health status was incorporated via the degree of severity of limitations in activities of daily living due to physical or mental disabilities (no limitations, moderate limitations, severe limitations). Lastly, involvement in leisure activities was also considered as a measure of social integration.

Some of these variables were used solely for descriptive analysis and were not retained for the multivariate analyses because of their high correlation with other variables.(4) Various other factors were also tested during this study: a poverty indicator, the duration of widowhood, an indicator of home comfort, the partners state of health, the proportion of persons practising a religion, and so forth. While the fi ndings associated with these variables are sometimes mentioned, this article presents only the most signifi cant models. In addition, potential interactions between independent variables were tested, but none were important enough to be retained.

Firstly, sex and country were considered as independent variables in the regression model, but this process did not shed light on potential interactions between sex or area of residence and the other independent variables. Consideration of all possible interactions would lead to extremely cumbersome and hard-to-interpret models. Secondly, we performed separate regressions by sex and by residential area for a given sex. The aim was to check whether there was a single life satisfaction model, or whether some factors are infl uential in only certain cases.

II. Findings

1. Disparities in mens and womens living conditions

The socio-demographic characteristics and living conditions of men and women are much more contrasting when they live alone than when they live with a partner. Women are widowed much earlier than men, and the oldest among them are consequently less represented in the population group living with a partner. Among those aged 70 and over, 45% of women live with a partner versus 51% of men (Table 3). Conversely, women who live alone are

(4) For example, frequency of contact and distance between parents and childrens homes.


50

Tab

le 3

. Ob

ject

ive

livin

g c

on

dit

ion

s o

f p

erso

ns

aged

60

and

ove

r d

epen

din

g

on

wh

eth

er t

hey

live

alo

ne

or

wit

h a

par

tner

, by

sex

(all

cou

ntr

ies)

Char

acte

ristic

s (%

)

Livi

ng w

ith a

par

tner

Livi

ng a

lone

Men

Wom

enM

enW

omen

Mea

n%

Stan

dard

de

viat

ion

Coef

cie

nt

ofv

aria

tion

Mea

n%

Stan

dard

de

viat

ion

Coef

cie

nt

ofv

aria

tion

Mea

n%

Stan

dard

de

viat

ion

Coef

cie

nt

ofv

aria

tion

Mea

n%

Stan

dard

de

viat

ion

Coef

cie

nt

ofv

aria

tion

70 y

ears

and

ove

r50

.86.

70.

1345

.0*

4.7

0.1

61.0

7.1

0.12

73.6

*4.

90.

07

Sing

le

25

.88.

20.

3212

.2*

4.0

0.32

Div

orce

d

23

.29.

90.

4313

.5*

7.0

0.52

Wid

owed

51.0

5.7

0.11

74.3

*5.

90.

08

Seve

re d

isabi

litie

s14

.03.

80.

2713

.44.

60.

3417

.29.

00.

5222

.4*

7.5

0.34

Rece

ives

hel

p18

.54.

80.

2620

.4*

4.7

0.23

33.7

5.3

0.16

46.8

*6.

40.

14

Giv

es h

elp

28.6

11.5

0.40

26.8

8.5

0.32

24.9

10.6

0.42

20.9

*7.

50.

36

Low

inco

me

27.0

5.1

0.19

26.3

5.9

0.22

29.7

14.0

0.47

41.7

*14

.50.

35

Low

edu

catio

nal l

evel

50.6

28.7

0.57

64.3

*21

.40.

3355

.726

.80.

4867

.9*

17.9

0.26

Hom

e-ow

ner

76.9

13.4

0.17

75.9

13.7

0.18

53.5

19.2

0.36

50.9

22.8

0.45

Ade

quat

e tr

ansp

ort

and

serv

ices

71.8

7.1

0.10

71.1

6.9

0.10

72.6

8.5

0.12

70.9

5.1

0.07

No

child

ren

7.6

2.3

0.30

8.1

2.3

0.29

33.6

8.8

0.26

21.0

*4.

00.

19

Dai

ly c

onta

ct47

.217

.40.

3747

.117

.90.

3837

.616

.10.

4349

.0*

14.0

0.29

Chi

ld le

ss th

an 1

km

aw

ay36

.314

.40.

4036

.314

.40.

4030

.812

.40.

4037

.9*

15.4

0.40

Has

a le

isure

act

ivity

37.5

11.0

0.29

36.2

13.3

0.37

32.8

11.8

0.36

34.8

11.7

0.34

Very

sat

isfi e

d w

ith li

fe41

.918

.20.

4339

.6*

18.5

0.47

31.2

13.5

0.43

28.0

*13

.50.

48

* Si

gnifi

cant

mal

e/fe

mal

e X

2 di

ffer

ence

.So

urc

e: S

HA

RE, w

ave

1, v

ersi

on 2

.0.1

.


51

older than men who do (74% and 61%, respectively, are older than 70). The older age of women who live alone and/or the fact that they belong to older cohorts disadvantages them in many respects.

When they live alone, women report severe limitations in activities of daily living more frequently than men (22% versus 17%, Table 3). They are also in more disadvantaged socioeconomic situations, since they often have low levels of both education (68% versus 56%) and income (42% versus 30% in the lowest tercile). Men and women who live alone have similar rates of home ownership (around 50%). On the other hand, these women are in a more favourable situation than men in terms of family, and this is doubtless linked to the fact that they are less often single (12% versus 26%). They more frequently have at least one child (79% versus 66%) and, in this case, also more frequently live close to one of them (38% versus 31% at less than one kilometre) and have daily contact (49% versus 38%). In addition, they receive support more often (47% versus 34%), but in terms of the help they provide, they are no different from their male counterparts. Finally, men and women rate the quality of their immediate environment similarly (just under 30% mention a lack of transport or services) and as frequently have leisure activities (roughly 35%). These disparities vary across countries, but with few exceptions, women living alone are in a less favourable situation than men in terms of health and fi nancial situation, but have a stronger family network (see Figure 1 for some examples).(5)

In comparison, when men and women live with a partner, their living conditions are much more homogeneous. The only differences concern womens lower educational levels with respect to men (64% versus 51%) and the fact that women more frequently report receiving outside help.(6) In other words, compared with living alone, living with a partner improves womens fi nancial situation thanks to the extra income from their spouse. This living arrangement also has a benefi cial effect(7) on their state of health and the same is true, but to a lesser extent, for men. Persons living with a partner also less frequently report receiving informal assistance (20% versus 47% for women, 19% and 34% for men), which again refl ects their better health and the central supporting role played by their spouse.

For men, living with a partner essentially improves their family situation (47% have daily contact with a child). Benefi ting from their spouses investment in family relationships, men reach the level attained by women.

(5) Most southern European countries are exceptions to this, in that differences between the sexes in terms of educational level and contact with children are very small. At national level, however, the numbers of men living alone are sometimes very low.

(6) It is true that, since women generally live with an older man, their couple has a higher average age.

(7) Selection/protection effect.


52

Figure 1. Disparities in the living conditions and life satisfaction of men and women who live alone, by country (female/male percentage ratio)

0.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

3.0Ratio

0.5

Ined 2012

Low educational level

Daily contact with a child

Severe disabilities

Very satisfied with life

GermanyAustria Belgium Denmark SpainFrance Greece Italy Netherlands Sweden Overall

Interpretation: In Spain, the proportion of women living alone who have severe disabilities is 2.5 times higher than that of men in the same situation.

Source: SHARE 2004, wave 1, version 2.0.1.

Heterogeneity between countries varies depending on indicators and living arrangements, as indicated by the coeffi cient of variation (Table 3). Among people living alone, the sociocultural context has a lesser effect for women, whose coeffi cients of variation are, with a few exceptions (proportions of divorcees and home-owners), smaller than those of their male counterparts. On the other hand, for men and women living with a partner, the effect of geographical location is identical, their coeffi cients of variation being practically the same. As a general rule and regardless of gender, geographical spread is greater for economic aspects among people living alone and for family aspects among couples.

2. Differences in life satisfaction levels

In contrast to the disparities in living conditions, womens subjective well-being is relatively close to that of men. Whatever the living arrangement, women are less frequently very satisfi ed with life (28% versus 31% when living alone). Yet for women as for men, living with a partner has a positive effect on well-being, with the proportions who are very satisfi ed reaching 40% and 42%, respectively. Moreover, the coeffi cient of variation for this indicator is particularly high, refl ecting the strong infl uence of sociocultural context on well-being. This geographical heterogeneity is more marked for women, whether they live alone or with a partner (Table 3).

For both living arrangements, the objective relationship between living conditions and life satisfaction (Table 4) shows that a favourable situation in


53

terms of health or personal fi nances enhances well-being. When living alone, 38% of women with no disabilities say they are very satisfi ed with their life, versus only 19% of women with severe disabilities. These fi gures reach 46% and 28%, respectively, when the women live with a partner. Even when they have comparable health and income characteristics, persons living with a partner more frequently say they are very satisfi ed with their life than those living alone.

Table 4. Life satisfaction of men and women aged 60 and over by objective living conditions and whether they live alone

or with a partner (% very satisfi ed)

Living alone Living with a partner

Men Women Men Women

No limitations in activities of daily living 37.2 37.5 47.3 46.2

Severe limitations in activities of daily living 25.2 18.8* 28.4 27.5

High income 32.6 32.3 46.7 44.3

Low income 28.6 27.9 35.6 36.0

No children 27.2 30.1 38.1 38.7

Daily contact with a child 30.2 29.4 44.0* 38.5

Non-daily contact with a child 33.3 24.4* 39.9 39.3

Signifi cant difference with respect to the fi rst category.* Signifi cant male/female chi difference.Source: SHARE, wave 1, version 2.0.1.

In agreement with the literature review (Delhey, 2004), however, the levels of these proportions show that a poor objective situation does not always result in a low satisfaction level, or vice versa. This paradox, long-observed with respect to the effects of age,(8) notably stems from the fact that individuals gradually adapt their aspirations to the objective changes in their environment in order to maintain a high level of satisfaction (Campbell et al., 1976; Walker, 2005).

Along similar lines, comparable situations are sometimes perceived differently by men and women. In the case at hand, women always report a more negative perception of things. For example, when living alone with severe disabilities, only 19% of women say they are very satisfi ed with life, compared with 25% of men.

The links between family relationships and subjective well-being are more complex. Some studies have shown that the quality of relationships matters more than the number (Veenstra, 2000; Pinquart and Srensen, 2000). In this survey, for people living alone, occasional contact with their children is

(8) The oldest do not necessarily report being less satisfi ed with their life than the youngest, even though their living conditions are generally less favourable (Schilling, 2006; Lelkes, 2007).


54

associated with lower satisfaction among women (24%) and higher among men (33%). In a couple, the strength of family ties barely infl uences well-being. Whatever the frequency of contact, slightly less than 40% of men and women are very satisfi ed with their lives. Only among men who have daily contact with a child is the proportion higher (44%).

Beyond differences in mens and womens living conditions, these analyses show the complexity of links between objective situations and subjective well-being. The use of multivariate analyses will allow us to explore these links more fully.

3. The determinants of life satisfaction

The infl uence of living arrangements

For comparable living conditions, women are less likely to be satisfi ed with their lives (OR = 0.8; Table 5). In all of the regression models used, health status is by far the factor with the greatest infl uence. As a general rule, the probability of not being satisfi ed with life increases with the level of limitation of activity. Compared with situations of severe disability, having mild disabilities and, especially, no limitations of activity, raises the likelihood of being satisfi ed with life (OR of 2.5 and 4.7, respectively). Attachment to physical autonomy also contributes indirectly to the negative impact of receiving assistance on well-being (OR = 0.8).

Living with a partner is one of the factors that contributes most to life satisfaction (OR = 1.5), with a higher incidence among women than men (OR of 1.6 and 1.4, respectively).(9) The other main determinants of well-being are: being older,(10) having a high educational level (OR = 1.4), participating in leisure activities (OR = 1.5) and owning ones home (OR = 1.5). Having a high income, at least one child and a living environment with enough services and public transport have less infl uence; giving help to others has no signifi cant effect on life satisfaction.

Living in certain countries strongly infl uences life satisfaction: upwards in Sweden (SE), the Netherlands (NL) and Denmark (DK) (OR between 2.1 and 3.4); to a lesser extent in Belgium (BE); and downwards in France (FR), Italy (IT), Spain (ES) and Greece (GR) (OR between 0.4 and 0.5). Germany (DE) was not signifi cantly different from Austria (AT, used as the reference).(11) This hierarchy, in perfect agreement with other research fi ndings on the subject, illustrates the strong tendency of people in northern European countries to be satisfi ed with their lives. The opposite is true in southern countries, and Austria, Belgium and Germany form an intermediate group.

(9) Regression models not presented here.

(10) The only continuous variable. Note that this apparent effect of age may conceal a cohort effect, since older cohorts may have different expectations from younger ones.

(11) In Denmark, the odds ratio of being very satisfi ed with life is even higher (4.9).


55

Table 5: Determinants of life satisfaction by living arrangement multivariate analyses

VariableCategory Total population Living with apartner Living alone

Reference Other j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2

Sex Men Women 0.78*** 0.93* 0.75*** 0.94 0.9 0.9

Age (years) 1.02*** 1.01*** 1.01* 1.01* 102*** 1.02***

Living arrangement

Living alone With a partner

1.48*** 1.48***

With other people

1.11 1.12

Limitations in activities of daily living

Severe Moderate

None

2.51***

4.68***

1.38***

2.46***

2.92***

5.23***

1.52***

2.45***

2.35***

4.35***

1.20

2.42***

Help received No Yes 0.78*** 0.78*** 0.53*** 0.77*** 0.87 0.89

Help given No Yes 1.08 1.08 1.40** 1.09 0.99 0.99

Educational level

Low Medium

High

1.16***

1.42***

1.16***

1.42***

1.12

1.44***

1.12

1.44***

1.07

1.35**

1.07

1.35**

Income level Low Medium 1.12** 1.12** 1.18** 1.18** 1.06 1.06

High 1.31*** 1.31*** 1.01 1.40*** 1.23** 1.23**

Home-owner No Yes 1.48*** 1.16*** 1.54*** 1.17** 1.46*** 1.09

Environment Urban Rural 1.04 1.04 0.77** 1.03 1.15 1.15


Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 1.12 1.12 1.50** 1.01 1.15 1.15

Child(ren) No children Non-daily contact

1.26*** 1.26*** 1.71*** 1.17 1.22 1.22

Daily contact 1.26*** 1.26*** 1.71*** 1.17 1.48*** 1.48***

Leisure activitiesCountry

No Yes 1.52*** 1.18*** 1.42*** 1.08 1.42*** 1.42***

Austria Germany 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89

Belgium 1.42*** 1.42*** 1.54*** 1.55*** 1.00 1.00

Sweden 2.12*** 1.25** 1.39*** 1.39*** 2.42** 1.06

Netherlands 3.43*** 3.43*** 3.96*** 3.96*** 2.37*** 2.38***

Denmark 2.94*** 4.92*** 2.24*** 5.72*** 3.88*** 3.88***

Spain 0.46*** 1.55*** 0.37*** 1.69*** 0.40*** 0.98

Italy 0.43*** 0.43*** 0.42*** 0.42*** 0.46*** 0.46***

Greece 0.41*** 1.09 0.34*** 1.03 0.34*** 0.93

France 0.54*** 0.40*** 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.47*** 0.69***

Pseudo R 0.11 0.1156 0.0867

N 10,440 6,071 2,615

Note: j = 1: fi rst level of the dependent variable (dissatisfi ed versus satisfi ed or very satisfi ed); j = 2: second level of the dependent variable (dissatisfi ed or satisfi ed versus very satisfi ed).(a) urban = cities; (b) rural = towns and rural areas. Signifi cance levels: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.Source: SHARE, wave 1, version 2.0.1.

If the model is applied successively to both groups those living alone or with a partner (Table 5) being a woman has an observable negative infl uence on life satisfaction (OR = 0.8) only within couples. For people living alone,


56

gender does not have a signifi cant effect on well-being. Rather, the less favourable living conditions of women who live alone, particularly in terms of health status and socioeconomic situation, explain their tendency to report being less satisfi ed with life, as observed on a descriptive basis.

Only persons living with a partner mention the positive effect on well-being of specifi c aspects of their everyday environment (not living in a highly urbanized area, having availability of transport and services) and providing support (while not receiving it). Concerning this last point, outside assistance reinforces the feeling of lost autonomy, which is perhaps more diffi cult to accept for persons living with a partner. Mutual support usually enables spouses to manage without other assistance.

The other factors (age, health,(12) socioeconomic situation and relations with children) are common to persons living alone and with a partner, and the same is true, overall, for the hierarchy of countries (north/south).

These models by living arrangement were dissociated by gender in order to check whether these determinants contribute in the same way to mens and womens life satisfaction (Table 6).

The gender effect

When men and women are in a couple, their well-being is infl uenced by practically the same factors (Table 6). Having no limitations in activities of daily living (OR of 6.8 for men and 4.5 for women), a high educational level (1.3 and 1.6) and a high income (1.3 and 1.5(13)) have a positive effect, while receiving assistance has a negative infl uence (0.6 and 0.7). A few factors are signifi cant for only one of the two sexes: the existence of a child(14) for men, and for women, being older, having leisure activities, owning a home and living in an area with enough services and public transport. In this latter respect, the traditional division of tasks in these generations means that women manage day-to-day affairs more often and are therefore more directly aware of the quality of their immediate living environment. They are also more dependent on such services since they generally drive less than men (Von dem Knesebeck et al., 2007). It could be argued that the infl uence of leisure activities among women, and children among men, reveals a desire to make up for lost time, with women, pillars of family solidarity throughout their lives, turning towards other centres of interest upon retirement, and men displaying a reverse compensatory behaviour.

(12) For couples, regression models that incorporate the spouses health status show its considerable infl uence on well-being, but the effect lags far behind that of ones own health (OR of 1.8 for women and 1.9 for men).

(13) Among women, this variable is only signifi cant for the probability of being very satisfi ed with life.

(14) Signifi cant only for the probability of being very satisfi ed with life.


57

Table 6. Determinants of life satisfaction by living arrangement and gender multivariate analyses

VariableCategory

Living with a partner Living alone

Men Women Men Women

Reference Other j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2

Age (years) 1.00 1.00 1.014** 1.014** 1.06*** 1.01 1.02*** 1.02***

Marital status

Widowed Single

Divorced

2.22***

0.97

2.25***

0.97

1.12

0.63**

1.12

0.91

Limitations in activity

Severe Moderate

None

4.55***

6.78***

1.68***

2.61***

2.17***

4.5***

1.34*

2.23***

2.50***

5.39***

1.10

1.78***

2.37***

4.23***

1.19

2.63***

Help received No Yes 0.55*** 0.80** 0.70*** 0.70*** 0.83 0.83 0.91 0.91

Help given No Yes 1.18* 1.18* 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Educational level

Low Medium

High

0.94

1.32**

0.94

1.32**

1.37***

1.61***

1.37***

1.61***

1.47**

1.61***

1.45**

1.59***

0.99

1.32*

0.99

1.32*

Income Low Medium 1.15 1.15 1.22** 1.22** 0.93 0.93 1.11 1.11

High 1.33*** 1.33*** 1.04 1.47*** 1.12 1.12 1.23* 1.23*

Home-owner

No Yes 1.18* 1.17* 1.27** 1.27** 1.12 1.12 1.52*** 1.07

Environment Urban Rural 0.79 1.1 0.94 0.94 1.10 1.10 1.16 1.16


Unsatis-factory

Satis-factory

1.13 1.13 1.32*** 1.32*** 0.97 1.11 1.20* 1.20*

Child(ren) No children Non-daily contact

1.46* 1.46** 1.16 1.16 2.44*** 2.44*** 0.98 0.98

Daily contact 1.13 1.13 1.11 1.11 2.35*** 2.35*** 1.28 1.28

Leisure activities

No Yes 1.10 1.10 1.84*** 1.07 1.57*** 1.57*** 1.36*** 1.36***

Country Austria Germany 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.62 0.62 1.03 1.03

Belgium 4.17*** 1.35* 1.58*** 1.58*** 1.09 1.09 0.99 0.99

Sweden 2.37*** 1.06 1.64*** 1.64*** 0.62 1.40 2.08** 1.03

Netherlands 3.24*** 3.24*** 4.82*** 4.82*** 2.48*** 2.48*** 2.36*** 2.36***

Denmark 5.36*** 5.36*** 1.75 5.63*** 2.89*** 2.89*** 4.47*** 4.47***

Spain 0.64 1.62** 0.33*** 1.67*** 0.69 0.69 0.34*** 0.74

Italy 0.66 0.34*** 0.33*** 0.54*** 0.51 0.51 0.45*** 0.45***

Greece 0.62* 1.07 0.26*** 0.88 1.06 1.06 0.27*** 0.91

France 0.89 0.33*** 0.34*** 0.34*** 0.64 0.64 0.43*** 0.43***

Pseudo R2 0.1141 0.1257 0.0954 0.091

N 3,254 2,817 681 1,934

Note: j = 1: fi rst level of the dependent variable (dissatisfi ed compared with satisfi ed or very satisfi ed); j = 2: second level of the dependent variable (dissatisfi ed or satisfi ed compared with very satisfi ed).Signifi cance levels: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.Source: SHARE, wave 1, version 2.0.1.

Whether living with a partner or alone, women have relatively similar sources of well-being. Their autonomy, both physical (health, leisure activities) and material (socioeconomic situation, services and public transport) is important to them. In contrast, men living alone stand out from the others in two respects: fi nancial security (a high income) does not infl uence their well-


58

being, whereas having a child, regardless of the frequency of contact, does, and very strongly so (OR = 2.4). Finally, among persons living alone, being single increases mens tendency to be satisfi ed with life (OR = 2.3), while being divorced has the opposite effect for women (OR = 0.6).

For the population as a whole and for both types of living arrangements, there is a clear divide between northern and southern European countries. In fact, this hierarchy holds only for women, whether they live alone or with a partner. Among men who live alone, only the Danish (OR = 2.9) and Dutch (OR = 2.5) are more likely to report being satisfi ed with life, all other things being equal. The specifi c living conditions of Italian, French and Greek men who live alone therefore explain their lesser probability of being satisfi ed with their lives, as previously observed.

The effect of geographical location

Given the strong infl uence of sociocultural context on women, the model was applied to three large regions(15) that are very different (north: Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands; centre: Austria, Germany and Belgium; south: Greece, Spain, Italy and France). Does living in northern or southern Europe have an infl uence on the determinants of womens life satisfaction? Does this infl uence change depending on whether they live alone or with a partner?

An absence of limitations in activities of daily living is the only factor that increases womens life satisfaction everywhere, regardless of living arrangements (Table 7). Its incidence does vary, however. For women living alone, having no limitations of activity, by comparison with having severe disabilities, has a stronger infl uence in northern Europe than elsewhere (OR of 12.2, versus 2.6 in the centre and 4.4 in the south). The contrasts are even greater for women living with a partner (OR of 2.0, 3.5 and 4.4, respectively). For this same group of women, the negative effect of receiving assistance is identical in all three regions (OR = 0.7).

Older women in northern Europe stand out from other European women in two other respects. When they live with a partner, fi nancial aspects do not infl uence their well-being, unlike elsewhere. Rather, having leisure activities (OR = 4.5) and the availability of transport and services (OR = 1.8) are major determinants. When living alone, they are the only European older women to mention the importance of their fi nancial independence and place of residence. For them, living in a small town or a rural area (OR = 17.6) and owning their home (OR = 1.5) are essential factors.

In central European countries, the life satisfaction of women who live alone depends on the ties maintained with their children. They stand out from other European women in this respect, and the effect is stronger when contact occurs on a daily basis (OR of 3.4, versus 1.7 for occasional contact). For such women,

(15) On account of the small sample sizes, we were unable to create models for each of the countries or pursue the same reasoning in the case of men.


59

Table 7. Determinants of womens life satisfaction by living arrangement and sociocultural context multivariate analyses

VariableCategory

North: SE, NL, DK


Reference Other j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2

Age (years) Age 0.99 0.99 1.08*** 1.01

Limitations in activity Severe Moderate 1.16 1.16 2.49* 1.13

None 2.04*** 2.04*** 12.2*** 2.31***

Assistance received No Yes 0.70** 0.70** 0.85 0.85

Assistance given No Yes 1.02 1.02 1.17 1.17

Educational level Low Medium 1.83*** 1.83*** 1.04 1.04

High 1.31 1.31 1.10 1.1

Income Low Medium 1.17 1.17 2.68* 1.07

High 1.24 1.24 1.18 1.18

Home-owner No Yes 1.11 1.11 1.53** 1.53**

Environment Urban Rural 1.23 1.23 17.57*** 1.00

Transport and services Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 1.78*** 1.78*** 1.48* 1.48*

Child(ren) No children Non-daily contact 1.55 1.55 0.98 0.98

Daily contact 1.46 1.46 0.39* 1.41

Leisure activities No Yes 4.50** 1.19 1.01 1.01

Pseudo R 0.0554 0.0923

N 1,002 522

VariableCategory

Centre: AT, BE, DE


Reference Other j=1 j=2 j=1 j=2

Age (years) Age 1.03** 1.03** 1.00 1.00

Limitations in activity Severe Moderate 2.02*** 2.02*** 2.44*** 1.24

None 3.47*** 3.47*** 2.60*** 2.60***

Assistance received No Yes 0.72* 0.72* 0.78 0.78


Educational level Low Medium 0.93 0.93 1.15 1.15

High 1.19 1.19 1.73** 1.73**

Income Low Medium 1.44** 1.44** 1.31 1.31

High 0.82 1.95*** 1.01 1.01

Home-owner No Yes 1.48** 1.48** 1.05 1.05

Environment Urban Rural 0.85 0.85 1.06 1.06

Transport and services Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 1.25 1.25 1.17 1.17

Child(ren) No children Non-daily contact 1.07 1.07 1.72** 1.72**

Daily contact 0.91 0.91 3.41*** 1.88**

Leisure activities No Yes 1.28 1.28 1.66*** 1.66***

Pseudo R 0.0618 0.0682

N 1,000 757



60

having leisure activities also has a positive incidence (OR = 1.7). For women living with a partner, it is fi nancial factors (having a good income level and owning a home) that take priority.

This last point is also important for southern European women in couples, but they are also strongly attached to their living environment. Indeed, not living in a city (OR = 0.8) diminishes their well-being while having enough services and public transport (OR = 1.6) enhances it. For women living alone, as for women in central Europe, life satisfaction is associated with involvement in leisure activities (OR = 1.6). By contrast, having occasional contact with children decreases their probability of being satisfi ed with their lives (OR = 0.5).

This observed geographical heterogeneity in the determinants of older womens subjective well-being is consistent with the fi ndings of other studies on the elder population as a whole (Fagestrm et al., 2007; Von dem Knesebeck et al., 2005; Noll, 2007).

VariableCategory

South: GR, ES, FR, IT


Reference Other j = 1 j = 2 j = 1 j = 2

Age (years) Age 1.00 1.04*** 1.03** 1.03**

Limitations in activity Severe Moderate 1.77** 1.77** 2.12*** 2.12***

None 4.35*** 2.32*** 4.38*** 4.38***

Assistance received No Yes 0.66** 0.66** 1.00 1.00


Educational level Low Medium 3.18*** 1.03 0.81 0.81

High 1.28 1.28 1.35 1.35

Income Low Medium 1.15 1.15 0.98 0.98

High 1.42** 1.42** 1.39 1.39

Home-owner No Yes 1.39* 1.39* 1.24 1.24

Environment Urban Rural 0.77** 0.77** 1.31* 1.31*

Transport and services Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 0.91 1.58*** 0.98 0.98

Child(ren) No children Non-daily contact 0.91 0.91 0.46*** 0.46

Daily contact 1.28 1.28 0.77 0.77

Leisure activities No Yes 1.05 1.05 1.55*** 1.55***

Pseudo R 0.052 0.0603

N 815 655


Table 7 (contd): Determinants of womens life satisfaction by living arrangement and sociocultural context multivariate analyses


61

III. Discussion

In descriptive terms, women report being satisfi ed with life less often than men, whether they live with a partner or alone. Multivariate analyses qualify this fi nding, however, and reveal that, depending on the living arrangements, differences in mens and womens well-being are not of the same nature.

All other things being equal, gender does not signifi cantly affect the likelihood of being satisfi ed with life for those living alone. Within couples, however, women remain less frequently satisfi ed with their lives. It is true that when men and women are in a couple, they largely share the same world; and cancelling out the differences due to their individual characteristics in a multivariate model does not change the descriptive result. Beyond womens lesser well-being (Leroux and Morin, 2006), this fi nding perhaps also refl ects differences between men and women in expressing negative feelings (Simon and Nath, 2004; Mirowsky and Ross, 1995) and/or a failure to take into account certain factors that contribute more to womens well-being than mens.

The determinants of life satisfaction for men and women are more similar when they live with a partner than when they reside alone. In the second case, not having any limitations in activities of daily living, having leisure activities and being older are the only common factors. On the other hand, owning a home and, to a lesser extent, income levels and the quality of the living environment, infl uence only womens subjective well-being. For men, the existence of a child has an effect. These differences revolve around family relationships and fi nancial situation. When they have never lived or are no longer living with a partner, men tend to invest in the family sphere, which has traditionally been the womans domain. However, this fi nding may simply be the result of mens greater need for support in day-to-day life. This may also help to explain why mens children become, just after health, their most important source of well-being.(16) In this sense, they are distinctive with respect to all other older adults (i.e. men living with a partner, and women), for whom socioeconomic factors play a major role in life satisfaction.

Whether they live with a partner or alone, women present determinants of subjective well-being that, considered as a whole, are very similar. Priority is given to fi nancial aspects and the living environment. It is true that within couples, it is traditionally the woman who manages the material side of life. It is also known that widowhood (and divorce) pushes women, more often than men, into greater fi nancial insecurity (Zick and Smith, 1998), and these changes undoubtedly infl uence their defi nition of well-being.

All other things being equal, older womens life satisfaction is much more heavily shaped by their sociocultural context than it is for men. Women show a north-south gradient that has been observed many times before, including

(16) Given that being single also has a positive effect on mens life satisfaction, it could be that two sub-populations coexistent, each one probably having different sources of subjective well-being.


62

for other life-satisfaction indicators (Delhey, 2004; Fagestrm et al., 2007). Overall, individuals say they are satisfi ed with their life more often in northern Europe than in the south. This fi nding has been the subject of much interpretation and a large body of literature. Some researchers assert that this dichotomy refl ects reality (Bolle and Kemp, 2009), while for others it simply reveals differing responses to a subjective question (Angelini et al., 2008). Our analyses show that this gradient is clearly observed only among women, whether living alone or with a partner, perhaps refl ecting the large differences in the status of women across Europe. Indeed, each country organizes the balance between family and collective solidarity (regarding support in both childhood and old age) differently. These various social protection systems (Esping-Andersen, 1999) affect womens ability, for example, to balance their home life and career, giving rise to the divide observed between mens and womens living conditions among the very old (Eurostat, 2002). Female typologies, based on the sociocultural context of younger women (Hakim, 2003; Smer, 2009; Esping-Andersen, 2009), have revealed a hierarchy going from Scandinavia, where the situation is the most egalitarian, to the Mediterranean countries. Such differences among countries were much more marked for the current generations of older adults, who were pioneers of a more equal division of male and female roles. This diversity in the condition of women may give rise to more contrasting life satisfaction levels than men. Following on from this fi nding, we have shown that womens sources of well-being are very different depending on whether they live in northern or southern Europe. As is the case between men and women, disparities within the female population mainly occur in the balance between family roles and fi nancial situation (consequence of past working life).

Women, whatever their situation living with a partner or alone, and in all of the countries studied agree on only one point: not having a disability increases their likelihood of being satisfi ed with life.

For women living with a partner, well-being means fi nancial security (i.e. having a high income, owning a home) when they reside in the centre and south of Europe, but in northern countries women give priority to leisure activities and the quality of their living environment. The exception of women living with a partner in northern Europe may refl ect a smaller gap between their economic status and that of the rest of the population, the result of successful past labour force integration. By contrast, unlike other Europeans, northern European women who live alone rate their economic independence highly. These women say the are very attached to their physical independence (the odds ratios relative to health are much higher than elsewhere) and the quality of their living environment (in a town or rural area, with availability of transport and services). The fact that daily contact with their children negatively affects their well-being (still a marginally signifi cant factor) may also be interpreted as a wish for independence from family.


63

On the other hand, for women living alone in Germany, Austria and Belgium, life satisfaction is linked more to their relationships with others (frequency of contact with children, leisure activities) as well as their educational level.

Finally, women living alone in southern countries stand out for two reasons related to their relationships with their children. Firstly, not having children is not a factor of lesser life satisfaction. In these countries where multi-generational co-residence is more common, such women are certainly more positively selected than elsewhere. Indeed, only the most autonomous, both fi nancially and psychologically, would choose to live alone, and those without children have probably built an alternative social network not centred on the family. Secondly, having only occasional contact with their children has a negative effect on their life satisfaction. In these countries where family ties are traditionally strong (Reher, 1998; Pitaud and Vercauteren, 1995; Ogg and Renaut, 2005), does this fi nding refl ect a dissonance between the expectations shaped by these family values and the reality of having family relationships that are weaker than the norm?

Using models developed for homogeneous sub-populations, we were able to show that some determinants of life satisfaction are shared by all. This is the case for good health, which is always a major factor of well-being among both men and women, regardless of their living arrangement or country of residence. Other factors, on the other hand, are specifi c to only some population categories. Sociocultural context and gender are sources of major disparities, as is the living arrangement for a given sex, as shown in the case of women. With this approach and the models used, we identifi ed some sub-populations who, because they risk being dissatisfi ed with their lives, should receive special attention from policy makers. Aside from those in poor health, these groups include, among those living alone, men without children, women without children in central European countries, women in northern countries in an insecure economic position and women in the south with occasional family contact. Finally, for men living alone and for women living alone or with a partner, taking part in leisure activities should be encouraged since it is positively linked to life satisfaction. In another vein, the pension reforms being implemented throughout Europe could have major consequences on the future well-being of persons living with a partner,(17) for whom fi nancial security is a priority.

Some methodological limits should be mentioned, however. The small size of certain samples, in particular those of men living alone in southern countries, may explain the non-signifi cance of some variables. Likewise, the positive selection of respondents may explain the low (or non) signifi cance of certain disadvantaged categories who are less represented here than in the general

(17) And whose numbers are set to increase sharply in the future (Gaymu et al., 2008).


64

population. It should also be recalled that these data are cross-sectional and therefore not transposable to other cohorts. The future cohorts of older men and women may indeed have completely different expectations and priorities from those of the over-60s today. In this regard, the longitudinal follow-up on SHARE will certainly be highly instructive.

Acknowledgements: This article was written for the European project MAGGIE (Major Ageing and Gender Issues in Europe) funded by the European Commission (contract no. 028571). It uses data from SHARE 2004 (version 2.0.1). SHARE data collection was primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th framework programme (project QLK6-CT-2001-00360 in the Quality of Life thematic programme). Additional funding came from the US National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-A G-4553-01 and OGHA 04-064). Data collection was nationally funded in Austria by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF), in Belgium by the Belgian Science Policy Administration and in Switzerland by BBW/OFE/UFES. Methodological details of the survey are discussed in Brsch-Supan and Jrges (2005).


65

REFERENCES

ANGELINI V., CAVAPOZZI D., CORAZZINI L., PACCAGNELLA O., 2008, Do Danes and Italians rate life satisfaction in the same way? Using vignettes to correct for individual-specifi c scale biases, Working paper, Milan, Italy, ISLA, Centre for research on Latin American Studies and Transition Economies, Universita Bocconi. ftp://ftp.unibocconi.it/pub/RePEc/slp/papers/islawp31.pdf

BLASIUS J., THIESSEN V., 2006, Assessing data quality and construct comparability in cross-national surveys, European Sociological Review, 22(3), pp. 229-242.

BOLLE F., KEMP S., 2009, Can we compare life satisfaction between nationalities? Evaluating actual and imagined situations, Social Indicator Research, 90, pp. 397-408.

BRSCH-SUPAN A., JRGES H. (eds.), 2005, The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe: Methodology, Mannheim Research Institute on the Economics of Ageing, Mannheim, Germany, 355 p.

BOURQUE P., PUSHKAR D., BONNEVILLE L., BLAND F., 2003, Contextual effects on life satisfaction of older men and women, Canadian Journal of Aging, 24(1), pp. 31-44.

BOWLING A., WINDSOR J., 2001, Towards the good life: A population survey of dimensions of quality of life, Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(1), pp. 55-81.

BROWN J., BOWLING A., FLYNN T., 2004, Models of Quality of Life: A Taxonomy, Overview and Systematic Review of the Literature, 113 p., http://www.ageingresearch.group.shef.ac.uk/pdf/qol_review_complete.pdf

CALASANTI T. M., 1996, Gender and life satisfaction in retirement: An assessment of the male model, Journals of Gerontology, 51B(1), pp. S18-29.

CAMBOIS E., DSESQUELLES A., RAVAUD J.-F., 2003, The gender disability gap, Population and Societies, 386, 4 p.

CAMPBELL A. E., CONVERSE P. E., RODGERS W. L., 1976, The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions, New York, Russell Sage, 583 p.

CARRIRE Y., PELLETIER L., 1995, Factors underlying the institutionalization of elderly persons in Canada, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50B(3), pp. S164-S172.

CHRISTOPH B., NOLL H., 2003, Subjective well-being in the European Union during the 1990s, Social Indicators Research, 64, pp. 521-546.

DAVID M. G., STARZEC C., 1996, Aisance 60 ans, dpendance et isolement 80 ans, Insee premire, 447, 4 p.

DELBS C., GAYMU J., 2004, La retraite quinze ans aprs, Paris, INED, Cahier 154, 223 p.DELHEY J., 2004, Life Satisfaction in an Enlarged Europe, Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the

European Communities, Luxembourg. DE JONG GIERVELD J., VAN TILBURG T., LECCHINI L., 1997, Socio-economic resources,

household composition and social network as determinants of well-being among Dutch and Tuscan older adults, Genus, 53(3-4), pp. 75-100.

DE JONG GIERVELD J., DE VALK H., BLOMMESTEIJN M., 2000, Living arrangements of older persons and family support in more developed countries, United Nations Technical Meeting on Population Ageing and Living Arrangements of Older Persons: Critical Issues and Policy Responses, New York, United Nations secretariat, 45 p.

DE SANTIS G., SEGHIERI C., TANTURRI M. L., 2008, Poverty trends among the elderly: What will the future hold?, in Gaymu J., Festy P., Poulain M., Beets G. (eds.), Future Elderly Living Conditions in Europe, Paris, INED, Cahier 162, pp. 117-140.


66

DIENER E., GOHM C. L., SUH E., OISHI S., 2000, Similarity of relations between marital status and subjective well being across cultures, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), pp. 419-436.

DOYLE D., 1984, Life satisfaction and old age. A reexamination, Research on Aging, 6(3), pp. 432-448.

EASTERLIN R., 2001, Income and happiness: Towards a unifi ed theory, The Economic Journal, 111(473), pp. 465-484.

EGIDI V., 2003, Health status of older people, Genus, 59(1), pp. 169-200.ESPING-ANDERSEN G., 1999, Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford, Oxford

University Press, 207 p.ESPING-ANDERSEN G., 2009, Families and the Revolution in Womens Roles, 20 p

http://dcpis.upf.edu/~gosta-esping-andersen/materials/families.pdf

EUROSTAT, 2002, The Life of Women and Men in Europe, a Statistical Portrait, European Commission, Population and Social Conditions, 197 p.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-43-02-680/EN/KS-43-02-680-EN.pdf

FAGESTRM C., BORG C., BALDUCCI C., BURHOLT V., WENGER C. ET AL., 2007, Life satisfaction and associated factors among people aged 60 years and above in six European countries, Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, pp. 33-50.

FERRING D., BALDUCCI C., BURHOLT V., WENGER C., THISSEN F. ET AL., 2004, Life satisfaction of older people in six European countries: Findings from the European Study on Adult Well-Being, European Journal on Ageing, 1, pp. 15-25.

FREEDMAN V. A., 1996, Family structure and the risk of nursing home admission, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 51B(2), pp. S61-S69.

GAYMU J., SPRINGER S., 2010, Living conditions and life satisfaction of older Europeans living alone: A gender and cross-country analysis, Ageing and Society, 30, pp. 1153-1175.

GAYMU J., FESTY P., POULAIN M., BEETS G., 2008, Future Elderly Living Conditions in Europe, Paris, INED, Cahier 162, 316 p.

GAYMU J., DELBS C., SPRINGER S., BINET A., DSESQUELLES A. et al., 2006, Determinants of the living arrangements of older people in Europe, European Journal of Population, 22(3), pp. 241-262.

GEORGE L. K., 2006, Perceived quality of life, in Binstock R. H., George L. K. (eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 6th edition, Amsterdam, Boston, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, pp. 320-336.

GLASER K., MURPHY M., GRUNDY E., 1997, Limiting long-term illness and household structure among people aged 45 and over, Great Britain 1991, Ageing and Society, 17(1), pp. 3-19.

GLASER K., TOMASSINI C., GRUNDY E., 2004, Revisiting convergence and divergence: Support for older people in Europe, European Journal of Ageing, 1, pp. 64-72.

HAKIM C., 2003, Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities, Ashgate, Aldershot, 282 p.

HOLDEN K., HATCHER C., 2006, Economic status of the aged, in Binstock R. H., George L. K. (eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, 6th edition, Amsterdam, Boston, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, pp. 219-237.

INGLEHART R., 2002, Gender, aging and subjective well being, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3-5), pp. 391-408.

JAKOBSSON U., HALLBERG J. R., WESTERGREN A., 2004, Overall and health related quality of life among the oldest old in pain, Quality of Life Research, 13(1), pp. 125-136.

KALOGIROU S., MURPHY M., 2006, Marital status of people aged 75 and over in nine EU countries in the period 2000-2030, European Journal of Ageing, 3(1), pp. 74-81.


67

LELKES O., 2007, Happiness over the life cycle: Exploring age specifi c preferences, in Marin B., Zaidi A. (eds.), Mainstreaming Ageing, Indicators to Monitor Sustainable Policies, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research,Vienna, Ashgate, pp. 359-390.

LEROUX I., MORIN T., 2006, Facteurs de risque des pisodes dpressifs en population gnrale, tudes et rsultats, DREES, 545.

MARTEL L., LGAR J., 2001, Avec ou sans famille proche la vieillesse : une description du rseau de soutien informel des personnes ges selon la prsence du conjoint et des enfants, Cahiers qubcois de dmographie, 30(1), pp. 89-114.

MIROWSKY J., ROSS C. E, 1995, Sex differences in distress: Real or artefact?, American Sociological Review, 60, pp. 449-468

NOLL H. H., 2007, Monitoring the quality of life of the elderly in European societies A social indicators approach, in Marin B., Zaidi A. (eds.), Mainstreaming Ageing, Indicators to Monitor Sustainable Policies, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research,Vienna, Ashgate, pp. 329-358.

OGG J., RENAUT S., 2005, Le soutien familial intergnrationnel dans lEurope largie, Retraite et socit, 46, pp. 29-57.

PAMPEL F. C., 1992, Trends in living alone among the elderly in Europe, in Rogers A. (ed.), Elderly Migration and Population Redistribution, London, Belhaven Press, pp. 97-117.

PINQUART M., SRENSEN S., 2000, Infl uences of socio-economic status, social networks and competence on subjective well being in later life: A meta-analysis, Psychology and Ageing, 15(2), pp. 187-224.

PINQUART M., SRENSEN S., 2001, Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well being in old age: A meta-analysis, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 56B(4), pp. 195-213.

PITAUD P., VERCAUTEREN R. (eds.), 1995, Lintergnration en Europe. Recherche et dynamisation de la cohsion sociale, Ramonville Saint-Agne, ditions Ers, 168 p.

REHER D. S., 1998, Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts, Population and Development Review, 24(2), pp. 203-234.

SCHILLING O., 2006, Development of life satisfaction in old age: Another view on the paradox, Social Indicators Research, 75, pp. 241-271.

SIMON R. W, NATH L. E., 2004, Gender and emotion in the United States: Do men and women differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behaviour?, American Journal of Sociology, 109(5), pp. 1137-1176.

SMITH A., SIM J., SCHARF T., PHILLIPSON C., 2004, Determinants of quality of life amongst older people in deprived neighbourhoods, Ageing & Society, 24(5), pp. 793-814.

SMER S., 2009, European Gender Regimes and Policies, Ashgate, England, 154 p.TESCH-RMER C., MOTEL-KLINGEBIEL A., TOMASIK M. J., 2008, Gender differences in

subjective well-being: comparing societies with respect to gender equality, Social Indicators Research, 82, pp. 329-349.

TOMASSINI C., GLASER K., WOLF D. A., BROESE VAN GROENOU M. I., GRUNDY E., 2004, Living arrangements among older people: An overview of trends in Europe and the USA, Population Trends, 115, pp. 24-34.

VEENSTRA G., 2000, Social capital, SES and health: an individual level analysis, Social Science and Medicine, 50(5), pp. 619-629.

VON DEM KNESEBECK O., WAHRENDORF M., HYDE M., SIEGRIST J., 2007, Socio-economic position and quality of life among older people in 10 European countries: Results of the SHARE study, Ageing & Society, 27(2), pp. 269-284.

VON DEM KNESEBECK O., HYDE M., HIGGS P., KUPFER A., SIEGRIST J., 2005, Quality of life and well-being, in Brsch-Supan A., Jrges H., Mackenbach J., Siegrist J., Weber G., (eds.), Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe: First Results from SHARE, Mannheim, pp. 199-203.


68

WALKER A., 2005, A European perspective on quality of life in old age, European Journal of Ageing, 2(2), pp. 2-12.

WILLIAMS R., 2006, Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables, The STATA Journal, 6(1), pp. 58-82.

WOLF D. A., 1995, Changes in the living arrangements of older women: An international study, The Gerontologist, 35(6), pp. 724-731.

ZICK C. D., SMITH K. R., 1988, Recent widowhood, remarriage, and changes in economic well-being, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), pp. 233-244.


69

Jolle GAYMU, Sabine SPRINGER HOW DOES LIVING ALONE OR WITH A PARTNER INFLUENCE LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE?

This article looks at the in uence of living conditions on the life satisfaction of men and women over 60years of age in ten European countries using data from the European survey SHARE2004 (wave1). Whether living alone or with a partner, women report being less satis ed with their lives than men. Multivariate analyses show that, depending on living arrangements, differences are not of the same nature. All other things being equal, women living with a partner are still less frequently satis ed with life than men, but the factors determining their well-being are similar. For persons living alone, the nding is reversed: gender has no incidence on the level of life satisfaction, but in uences its determinants. For example, womens subjective well-being is affected by whether or not they are home-owners and, to a lesser extent, by their income level and the quality of their living environment, while for men, the existence of a child is a determinant of well-being. Older womens life satisfaction is more strongly shaped by their sociocultural context than is the case for men. Women who live alone have different sources of well-being, depending on whether they live in northern or southern Europe. These contrasts mainly emerge in the relationship between family roles and economic status.

Jolle GAYMU, Sabine SPRINGER VIVRE SEUL OU EN COUPLE : QUELLE INFLUENCE SUR LA SATISFACTION DE LA VIE DES HOMMES ET DE S FEMMES GS EN EUROPE ?

Cet article tudie lin uence des conditions de vie sur la satisfaction de la vie des hommes et des femmes de plus de 60ans dans une dizaine de pays europens partir des donnes de lenqute europenne SHARE2004 (vague1). Quelles vivent seules ou en couple, les femmes se dclarent un peu moins souvent satisfaites de la vie que les hommes. Des analyses multivaries montrent que, selon la situation rsidentielle, les diffrences ne sont pas de mme nature. Toutes choses gales par ailleurs, les femmes en couple continuent tre moins souvent satisfaites de la vie que les hommes, mais les facteurs dterminants de leur bien-tre sont proches. En cas disolement rsidentiel, le constat est inverse: le sexe na plus dincidence sur le degr de satisfaction de la vie mais il in uence ses dterminants; le fait dtre propritaire et, dans une moindre mesure, le niveau de revenu et la qualit de lenvironnement, jouent sur le bien-tre subjectif des femmes, lexistence dun enfant sur celui des hommes. La satisfaction de la vie des femmes ges est plus fortement modele par le contexte socioculturel que celle des hommes. Celles qui vivent seules ont des sources de bien-tre diffrentes selon quelles habitent au Nord ou au Sud de lEurope. Les contrastes apparaissent, pour lessentiel, dans larticulation entre rles familiaux et situation conomique.

Jolle GAYMU, Sabine SPRINGER VIVIR SOLO O EN PAREJA QU INFLUENCIA SOBRE LA SATISFACCIN DE LA VIDA DE LOS HOMBRES Y DE LAS MUJERES MAYORES EN EUROPA?

Este artculo estudia la in uencia del modo de vida sobre la satisfaccin de la vida de los hombres y de las mujeres de ms de 60 anos, en diez pases europeos, a partir de los datos de la encuesta europea SHARE (primera ola). Que vivan solas o en pareja, las mujeres se declaran un poco menos frecuentemente satisfechas de la vida que los hombres. Los anlisis multivariados muestran que, segn la situacin residencial, las diferencias no son de la misma naturaleza. Las mujeres en pareja estn menos frecuentemente satisfechas de la vida que los hombres, pero los factores determinantes de su bienestar son parecidos. En caso de aislamiento residencial, el resultado se invierte: el sexo ya no incide sobre el grado de satisfaccin de la vida pero in uencia sus determinantes; el hecho de ser propietario y, en menor medida, el nivel de renta y la calidad del entorno, inciden en el bienestar subjetivo de las mujeres, mientras que el hecho de tener hijos afecta el de los hombres. La satisfaccin de la vida de las mujeres mayores est ms fuertemente in uida por el contexto socio-cultural que la de los hombres. Las mujeres que viven solas tienen motivos de bienestar diferentes segn que habiten en el Norte o en el Sur de Europa. Los contrastes aparecen esencialmente en la articulacin entre roles familiares y situacin econmica.

Keywords: life satisfaction, ageing, gender, Europe, living alone, living with a partner.

Translated by Lynda Stringer.

Copyright of Population (16342941) is the property of Institut National d'Etudes Demographiques and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

How Does Living Alone or With a Partner