Back

Gender Differences in Work Expectations and Psychological Distress: Insights from the United States and South Korea

Dang, L.; Antonucci, T.; Mendes de Leon, C.; Mezuk, B.

2025-02-03 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.01.30.25321419 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesOver the past 50 years, womens roles have changed significantly, from primarily domestic roles to active labor force participation. Women from the "Baby Boom" cohort (born 1948-1965) have experienced unprecedented access to educational and employment opportunities, which has implications for work and mental health later in life. This study examined gender differences in the association between work expectations and psychological distress among Baby Boomers in the United States and South Korea. MethodsData came from the 2006-2018 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (n=14,005) and Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (n=2,362). Perceived expectations of working in the next five years were reported on a probability scale (0-100%). Psychological distress was assessed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to examine the longitudinal association between work expectations and psychological distress for men and women. ResultsIn both countries, women had higher CES-D scores and lower expectations of working in the next 5 years than men. Higher work expectations were robustly associated with lower odds of psychological distress among both men and women in Korea; however, this inverse association was more modest in the US. Moreover, the association between work expectations and distress was stronger among Korean men (ORmen=0.82 [0.78, 0.87]) compared to women (ORwomen=0.88 [0.83, 0.93]), but there were no gender differences among US respondents (ORmen=0.99 [0.96, 1.01]; ORwomen=0.96 [0.95, 0.98]). DiscussionFindings highlight the complex interplay between biology sex and social contexts in shaping expectations regarding work in later life.

Published in The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.