Applied Research in Quality of Life

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09943-5

Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being

in Emerging Adulthood

M. Pilar Matud 1 & Juan Manuel Bethencourt 1 & Ignacio Ibáñez 1 &
Demelza Fortes 1 & Amelia Díaz 2

Received: 27 February 2021 / Accepted: 22 March 2021/

# The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) and Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
Gender is recognized as an important social determinant of health, but past research on
gender differences in psychological well-being have not produced conclusive results.
This study investigated gender differences in eudaimonic well-being and life satisfac-
tion in emerging adulthood. A cross-sectional study with a sample of 1990 emerging
adults (50% males) from the Spanish general population was conducted. Participants
were assessed through five questionnaires. Results showed that women scored higher
than men in purpose in life and personal growth. Hierarchical multiple regression
analysis revealed that the most important predictors of emerging adult men’s and
women’s eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction were higher self-confidence and
lower negative self-evaluation. Other significant variables in the eudaimonic well-being
of both women and men were higher score in the masculine/instrumental trait, higher
emotional social support, higher educational level, and higher score in the feminine/
expressive trait. Furthermore, higher instrumental social support was associated with
eudaimonic well-being in females. Other predictors of women’s and men’s life satis-
faction were higher score in the feminine/expressive trait, less age, higher educational
level and higher instrumental social support. In addition, higher emotional social
support was associated with life satisfaction in males. The results suggest that gender
is important in the psychological well-being of people in emerging adulthood, although
self-esteem and instrumental social support are, in both emerging adult women and
men, the most important predictors of psychological well-being.

Keywords Gender . Eudaimonic well-being . Life satisfaction . Emerging adulthood .

Masculine/instrumental trait . Feminine/expressive trait

* M. Pilar Matud
[email protected]

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

 M. P. Matud et al.

Introduction

Emerging adulthood is regarded as a critical period within the lifespan (Saikkonen et al.,
2018). It is a period between adolescence and adulthood, which extends between 18 and
29 years of age (Arnett, 2015), that often entails multiple life transitions involving living
arrangements, relationships, education and employment (Arnett, 2000, 2015); emerging
adulthood is a period of possibilities and exploration for risk behaviors and also for
prosocial behaviors (Padilla-Walker et al., 2008). This life stage has been defined
primarily by its demographic profile encompassing “longer and more widespread
education, later entry to marriage and parenthood, and a prolonged and erratic transition
to stable work” (Arnett, 2015, p. 8). This transition period involves changes and
adaptations that contribute to psychosocial development but life transitions also involves
risks of mental disorders and of distress (Arnett et al., 2014; Lane et al., 2017) and can
pose risk to well-being. Nevertheless, the needs of people at this significant time of life,
and the challenges they face, have not received much systematic attention in research
and in policy (Bonnie et al., 2015). One of the important areas to examine is how gender
shapes experiences in emerging adulthood (Norona et al., 2015).
Gender roles “involve the degree to which people adopt stereotypically masculine
versus feminine traits, behaviors, and interests” (Zell et al., 2015, p. 12). Masculinity is
associated with an instrumental orientation informed by agency as its central feature
and characterized by focusing on oneself and prioritizing the achievement of personal
goals and independence. Conversely, femininity is associated with an expressive
orientation, in which communion, defined as centering on others and caring for their
well-being, is fundamental (Bem, 1993; Helgeson, 2015). Traditionally it has been
considered that the adoption of gender roles appropriate to the sex assigned at birth was
healthy and traditional formulations of sex typing suggested that the adoption of the
gender roles appropriate to one’s male or female sex is developmentally desirable
(Worell, 1978). The traditional congruence model holds that psychological well-being
is fostered when one’s gender role is congruent with one’s sex (Whitley, 1983), that “it
is the masculine male and feminine female who typify subjective well-being” (Lubinski
et al., 1981, p. 722). But research results have not supported the congruence model
(Whitley, 1983, 1985) and results of meta-analysis have proved that, in both women
and men, the masculine/instrumental trait was more associated with psychological well-
being and with higher levels of mental health than the feminine/expressive trait
(Whitley, 1983, 1985).
Psychological well-being is a multifaceted concept that includes hedonic and
eudaimonic aspects (Ryan & Deci, 2001). The hedonic approach focuses on subjective
well-being and encompasses life satisfaction, positive affect and low levels of negative
affect (Diener, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Eudaimonic well-being focuses on meaning
and self-realization and defines well-being to the degree of functioning fully as a person
(Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff, 1989). Research have reported relationships between
psychological well-being and physical health, predicting a wide array of health out-
comes such as subjective health, chronic diseases, physical symptoms and longevity
(Diener & Chan, 2011; Yoo & Ryff, 2019). Also, life satisfaction during emerging
adulthood is important because it prevents health risky behaviors and promotes positive
functioning (Hollifield & Conger, 2015), and population studies have shown that life
satisfaction and positive affect are predictors of health behavior (Kushlev et al., 2020).
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

Research on gender differences in psychological well-being conducted in several

parts of the world have not produced conclusive results (Dluhosch, 2021; Ferguson &
Gunnel, 2016). While gender differences have been found in some eudaimonic well-
being dimensions (Ahrens & Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011; Ryff & Keyes, 1995),
by and large differences depend on other factors such as culture or age (Karasawa et al.,
2011). Consistently, results have revealed that women score higher than men on
positive relations with others (Ahrens & Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011; Lindfors
et al., 2006; Matud et al., 2019; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), and men score higher than
women on self-acceptance and autonomy (Ahrens & Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011;
Matud et al., 2019).

Social and Personal Factors Influencing Health and Well-Being

Social support is one of the most well-documented psychosocial factors influencing

health and well-being, and research has reported that the quantity and/or quality of
social relationship has been linked not only to mental health but also to mortality and
morbidity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; House et al., 1988). There are various conceptu-
alizations and measures of social support, and perceived social support “refers to one’s
potential access to social support” (Uchino, 2009, p. 238). Review studies have shown
that perceived emotional and instrumental social support have protective effects on
mental health (Santini et al., 2015), and research conducted in several countries had
reported that social support is associated with well-being (Calvo et al., 2012). Although
there are many investigations proving that social support positively influences on
psychological well-being, most research has focused on either adolescents or older
adults, and research in emerging adulthood is scarce and the findings have been
somewhat conflicting (Saikkonen et al., 2018).
Another factor that may be important in good mental health and well-being in
emerging adulthood is high self-esteem. Definitions of self-esteem vary widely, as it
is a highly discussed topic (Heppner & Kernis, 2011). Self-esteem was once acknowl-
edged a determining causal factor in many important life outcomes, therefore consid-
erable analytical attention has been drawn to its value. Some researchers continue to
argue that self-esteem is a fundamental construct associated with a wide range of
important life outcomes, whereas others hold that self-esteem has limited value (e.g.
Zeigler-Hill, 2013).

Aims of the Study

Whereas emerging adulthood is regarded a critical period of life (e.g. Saikkonen et al.,
2018) characterized by many life transitions and significant mental health risk (Lane
et al., 2017) research on psychological well-being in emerging adulthood is scarce.
Despite the relevance of gender in this period of life, there is no research to our
knowledge analyzing psychological well-being from a gender perspective. Therefore,
the first aim of the present study was to examine the relevance of gender in this life
cycle stage by studying the existence of differences between emerging adult women
and men in psychological well-being and by assessing the relevance of the
 M. P. Matud et al.

internalization of the psychological characteristics and traits traditionally considered as

masculine and feminine in emerging adult women’s and men’s psychological well-
being. The second aim of the study was to examine the relevance of self-esteem and
perceived social support in the psychological well-being of emerging adult women and
men.
Consistent with previous findings (Ahrens & Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011;
Lindfors et al., 2006; Matud et al., 2019; Ryff & Keyes, 1995), we hypothesized that
men will score higher than women on self-acceptance and autonomy, while women
will score higher than men on positive relations with others. Based on the meta-analytic
findings of Whitley (1983, 1985) on the associations of masculine/instrumental and
feminine/expressive traits with psychological well-being, we hypothesized that the
masculine/instrumental trait will be more strongly associated with psychological
well-being than the feminine/expressive trait in both women and men. Further, we
expected that higher self-esteem and perceived social support will predict greater
psychological well-being in emerging adult women and men.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants consist of 995 men and 995 women from the Spanish general population
with ages between 18 and 29 years. In the men group the mean was 22.92 years (SD =
3.37), and of 22.65 years (SD = 3.15) in the women group, t(1988) = 1.88, p = .06. All
participants were volunteers who did not receive financial compensation for their
participation. Measures were individually and manually completed, on a paper version,
after informed consent was obtained and no names or any other data identifying the
participant were used in the measures. Access to the sample was through educational
and work centers of different Spanish localities, where psychology and sociology
students from seven Spanish universities trained in administering the questionnaires,
who received course credits for this task, came to ask people there to participate in the
research. Access to participants was likewise obtained through the social net of
psychology and sociology students. The sample of the present study was randomly
selected from a larger sample of the general population aged between 16 and 65 years,
ensuring that age ranged between 18 and 29 years, that there were the same number of
women and men, and that there were no missing values in the study variables. All
procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration’s
ethical standards. This study forms part of extensive research on gender and health and
was positively evaluated by the Ethics Committee on Animal Research and Well-Being
of the University of La Laguna (approval number 2015–0170).

Measures

Eudaimonic well-being The Spanish version of the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being

Scale in the version shortened by Van Dierendonck (2004) was used to measure
eudaimonic well-being. This scale consists of 38 items, which are structured in six
subscales: 1) self-acceptance, made of 6 items whose reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

alpha) for the current sample was .84. An example item is “In general, I feel confident
and positive about myself”; 2) positive relations with others, consisting of 6 items with
a Cronbach’s alpha of .81. An example item is “I know that I can trust my friends, and
they know they can trust me”; 3) autonomy, made of 8 items with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .75. An example item is “I judge myself by what I think is important, not by the
values of what others think is important”; 4) environmental mastery, consisting of 6
item with a Cronbach’s alpha of .69. An example item is “I am quite good at managing
the many responsibilities of my daily life”; 5) purpose in life, comprising 6 items with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .83. An example item is “I have a sense of direction and purpose in
life”; 6) personal growth, made of 6 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .73. An example
item is “I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time”. All the
scale’ items constitute the second order well-being factor (Van Dierendonck et al.,
2008) and measure eudaimonic well-being. For the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha
for the 38 items was .93. The items were scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), with higher scores indicating greater levels of
well-being.
Life satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener
et al., 1985). This scale contains five items that measure satisfaction with the respon-
dent’s life as a whole. The response format is on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) with higher scores indicating greater life
satisfaction. An example item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. All items
were translated into Spanish and back translated into English by the research team and
two bilingual people. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .84.
The masculine/instrumental and feminine/expressive traits were measured using the
scales of masculinity and femininity of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem,
1974). The BSRI is a self-report inventory that measures participants’ identification
with socially desirable personality traits stereotypically associated with women and
men. The masculinity scale is made of 20 items and an example item is “willing to take
a stand”. The femininity scale consists of 20 items and an example item is “sensitive to
the needs of others” The response format is a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never
or almost never true) to 7 (always or almost always true). In the present study, the
Cronbach’s alphas were .83 and .78 for masculinity and femininity, respectively.
Self-esteem was assessed using the Spanish version of the York Self-Esteem Inven-
tory (Matud et al., 2003). This inventory comprises 43 items that reflect several
evaluative self-domains including personal, familial, interpersonal, achievement and
physical attractiveness which are structured in two factors: 1) negative self-evaluation,
consisting of 28 items with a Cronbach’s alpha in the present sample of .93. An
example item is “I feel that I am one of life’s losers”; 2) self-confidence, composed
of 15 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. An example item is “I trust my own
judgement”. The response format is a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3
(always), higher scores indicating greater levels of each factor (negative self-evaluation
or self-confidence).
Social support was assessed by the Social Support Scale (Matud, 1998). This scale
consists of 12 items measuring perceived social support that are structured in two
factors: 1) emotional social support, made of 7 items with a Cronbach’s alpha in the
present sample of .84. An example item is “Someone who comforts you when you are
upset”; 2) instrumental social support, consisting of 5 items with a Cronbach’s alpha of
 M. P. Matud et al.

.76. An example item is “Someone who lend you money when you have economic
problems”. The response format is a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3
(always) and higher scores indicate greater levels of social support.
The demographic variables were gender, age, education level, occupation, marital
status and number of children. Education level was an ordinal variable with 8 levels
(from 0 for no studies to 7 for 5-year university degree) grouped in the descriptive
analyses into three levels: primary, secondary and university. Current occupation was
categorized into student, skilled or unskilled manual occupation, skilled non-manual
occupation, professional (category that applied only to participants whose job requires
university training) and unemployed. Marital status was categorized into never married
and married/cohabiting as they were the only categories found in the participants.

Data Analysis

Comparisons between men and women were computed performing Pearson’s chi
square test in case of categorical variables and by using Student t-test when they were
continuous. The effect size of the mean differences in well-being measures and life
satisfaction was computed by using the Cohen’s d. Pearson’s correlation coefficient
was used to calculate correlations, except for educational level, for which Spearman’s
Rho was used, given that it is an ordinal variable. Three-step hierarchical multiple
linear regression analyses were used to determine the relevance of the age and
educational level, the masculine/instrumental and the feminine/expressive traits, the
two factors of self-esteem and the two of social support in emerging adult men’s and
women’s eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction. In each regression analyses, the
respondents’ age and education as an ordinal variable with 8 levels (from 0 for no
studies to 7 for 5-year university degree) were entered in Model 1. Masculine/
instrumental and feminine/expressive traits scores were added in Model 2. The scores
on the two factors of self-esteem (negative self-evaluation and self-confidence) and on
the two factors of social support (emotional social support and instrumental social
support) were added in Model 3. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM
SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, N.Y., USA).

Results

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Table 1 reports the sociodemographic characteristics for the men’s and women’s
groups. As can be observed, most participants (89.0%) were single and had no children
(96.9%). There were statistically significant differences between women and men in all
demographic variables except for the number of children. A greater percentage of
women (60.7%) than men (38.1%) had university studies, being more frequent in men
than in women who only reported primary education (26.3% of men versus 11.7% of
women) or secondary education (35.6% of men versus 27.6% of women). Although
there was diversity in occupation, about half were students (55.6% of women vs 41.2%
of men); men would more frequently report skilled or unskilled manual occupation
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

(24.5% of men versus 14.8% of women) or skilled non-manual occupation (19.5% of

men versus 10.9% of women). And 7.8% of men and 5.3% of women were
unemployed.

Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being

Table 2 shows the means, SD, and comparisons for emerging adult men and women for
the well-being subscales, eudaimonic well-being, and life satisfaction. Statistically
significant differences were found in two of the eight variables, although the effect
sizes were small. Women scored higher than men in purpose in life and in personal
growth.
In the total sample, the global score on eudaimonic well-being was positively
correlated with life satisfaction (r = .63, p < .001). Correlation coefficient for men group
was r = .59, p < .001, and for women it was r = .66, p < .001. Table 3 shows the
correlation coefficients of age, educational level, masculine/instrumental and
feminine/expressive traits and the self-esteem and social support factors with
eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction, calculated on an independent basis for
the group of men and the group of women.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the men and women groups

Men Women χ2-value

Variables n % n %

Education: 117.81***
Primary 262 26.3 116 11.7
Secondary 354 35.6 275 27.6
University 379 38.1 604 60.7
Occupation: 93.64***
Student 403 41.2 548 55.6
Skilled/unskilled manual 240 24.5 146 14.8
Skilled non-manual 191 19.5 107 10.9
Professional 68 7.0 132 13.4
Unemployed 76 7.8 52 5.3
Marital status: 6.92**
Never married 897 90.9 864 87.2
Married/cohabiting 90 9.1 127 12.8
Number of children: 3.49
No children 966 97.4 958 96.5
1 21 2.1 26 2.6
2 4 0.4 9 0.9
3 1 0.1 0 0.0

**p < .01, ***p < .001

 M. P. Matud et al.

Table 2 Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and comparisons for men and women for the well-being
subscales, eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction

Men Women t d

Variables M SD M SD

Self-acceptance 26.91 5.22 26.59 5.49 1.33 .06

Positive relations with others 27.99 5.52 28.20 5.61 −.81 .04
Autonomy 35.10 5.99 34.61 6.24 1.79 .08
Environmental mastery 26.47 4.57 26.62 4.38 −.74 .03
Purpose in life 27.14 5.23 27.79 5.26 −2.78** .12
Personal growth 28.71 4.33 29.58 4.20 −4.56*** .20
Eudaimonic well-being 172.32 23.62 173.39 23.99 −1.00 .04
Life satisfaction 24.32 5.98 24.46 6.11 −.52 .02

**p < .01, ***p < .001

For both groups, negative self-evaluation was significantly and negatively correlated
with eudaimonic well-being and with life satisfaction. Self-confidence, emotional and
instrumental social support and the masculine/instrumental trait were significantly and
positively correlated with eudaimonic well-being and with life satisfaction. The
feminine/expressive trait also correlated significantly and positively with eudaimonic
well-being and with life satisfaction in both the men and women groups, although the
magnitude of correlation coefficients with eudaimonic well-being was lower than those
for the masculine/instrumental trait. Although the magnitude of correlation coefficients
was small, the educational level was correlated positively with eudaimonic well-being

Table 3 Bivariate correlations of age, educational level, masculine/instrumental trait, feminine/expressive

trait, self-esteem and social support factors with eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction

Men Women

Variables Eudaimonic Life Eudaimonic Life

well-being satisfaction well-being satisfaction

Age .17*** .05 .10** −.04

Educational level# .13*** .09** .18*** .15***
Masculine/instrumental .39*** .24*** .41** .21***
trait
Feminine/expressive trait .16*** .19*** .12*** .16***
Negative self-evaluation −.69*** −.45*** −.73*** −.54***
Self-confidence .72*** .47*** .79*** .54***
Emotional social support .50*** .38*** .42*** .36***
Instrumental social .41*** .34*** .40*** .37**
support

# = This variable was analyzed with Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient

**p < .01, ***p < .001
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

and with life satisfaction; in addition, age was correlated positively with eudaimonic
well-being.

Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Eudaimonic Well-Being

Table 4 presents principal results of the hierarchical multiple regression with

eudaimonic well-being as the dependent variable for the men group, and Table 5 for
the women group. Results identified that, in both the men and women groups, R for
regression was significantly different from zero at the end of each Model. The
sociodemographic variables entered into Model 1 explained 4% of the variance in
the eudaimonic well-being in both groups. The addition of the masculine/instrumental
and feminine/expressive traits resulted in a significant increment in R2. In Model 2, for
the masculine/instrumental trait β = .38, p < .001 in the men group and β = .39,
p < .001 in the women group; and for the feminine/expressive trait β = .08, p < .01 in
the men group and β = .10, p < .001 in the women group. The changes in the coeffi-
cients from Model 2 to Model 3 revealed that self-esteem and social support factors
played important roles in the women’s and men’s eudaimonic wellbeing (R2
change = .48 in the men group and R2 change = .51 in the women group). Beta
values in Model 3, with all IVs in the equation, proved that higher self-confidence
was the variable most associated with women’s eudaimonic well-being (β = .43,
p < .001), followed by lower negative self-evaluation (β = −.34, p < .001). Both factors
were also the best predictors of men’s eudaimonic well-being, with β = −.37, p < .001
for negative self-evaluation and β = .36, p < .001 for self-confidence. Other statistically
significant variables in the men group were higher emotional social support, higher
score in masculine/instrumental trait, higher educational level, and higher score in
feminine/expressive trait. In the women group, other significant predictors were higher
score in masculine/instrumental trait, higher instrumental social support, higher emo-
tional social support, higher educational level (β = .08, p < .001), and higher score in
feminine/expressive trait. The final model accounted for a total of 68% of the variance
in eudaimonic well-being in the men group and 72% in the women group.

Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression Analyses Predicting Life Satisfaction

Table 6 presents the results of the hierarchical multiple regression with life satisfaction
as the dependent variable for the men group, and Table 7 for the women group. After
Model 1, with age and educational level in the equation, R2 = .01, p < .01 in the men
group and R2 = .03, p < .001 in the women group. Addition of masculine/instrumental
and feminine/expressive traits to the equation (Model 2) resulted in a significant
increment in R2. In Model 2, for the masculine/instrumental trait β = .22, p < .001 in
the men group and β = .20, p < .001 in the women group; and for the feminine/
expressive trait β = .15, p < .001 in the men group and β = .14, p < .001 in the women
group. The changes in the coefficients from Model 2 to Model 3 identified that self-
esteem and social support factors played important roles in women’s and men’s life
satisfaction (R2 change = .24, p < .001 in the men group and R2 change = .32, in the
women group).
Beta values in Model 3, with all IVs in the equation, indicated that lower negative
self-evaluation was the variable most associated with life satisfaction (β = −.27,
 M. P. Matud et al.

Table 4 Summary of the hierarchical multiple regression with eudaimonic well-being as the dependent
variable in the men sample

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE β B SE β B SE β

Age 1.14 .22 .16*** .97 .20 .14*** .11 .12 .02
Educational level 1.22 .34 .11*** 1.46 .31 .13*** 1.06 .20 .10***
Masculine/instrumental trait .66 .05 .38*** .18 .04 .10***
Feminine/expressive trait .16 .06 .08** .10 .04 .05*
Negative self-evaluation −.69 .04 −.37***
Self-confidence 1.09 .08 .36***
Emotional social support 1.22 .17 .19***
Instrumental social support .33 .19 .04
R2 .04 .20 .68
R2 Change .16*** .48***

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

p < .001 in the men group and β = −.33, p < .001 in the women group), followed by
higher self-confidence (β = .20, p < .001 in the men group and β = .24, p < .001 in the
women group). In the men group the third most relevant variable was emotional social
support (β = .13, p < .001), followed by higher score in feminine/expressive trait
(β = .12, p < .001), higher instrumental social support (β = .08, p < .05), higher educa-
tional level (β = .07, p < .01) and less age (β = −.07, p < .05). In the women group the
third most relevant variable was higher instrumental social support (β = .15, p < .001),
followed by higher score in feminine/expressive trait (β = .11, p < .001), less age (β =
−.11, p < .001), and higher educational level (β = .09, p < .001). The final model

Table 5 Summary of the hierarchical multiple regression with eudaimonic well-being as the dependent
variable in the women sample

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE β B SE β B SE β

Age .42 .24 .06 .30 .22 .04 .06 .13 .01
Educational level 2.25 .40 .18*** 2.18 .36 .18*** .96 .22 .08***
Masculine/instrumental trait .68 .05 .39*** .19 .03 .11***
Feminine/expressive trait .20 .06 .10** .10 .04 .05**
Negative self-evaluation −.61 .04 −.34***
Self-confidence 1.09 .08 .43***
Emotional social support 1.32 .18 .08***
Instrumental social support .72 .19 .09***
R2 .04 .21 .72
R2 Change .17** .51***

** p < .01, ***p < .001

Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

Table 6 Summary of the hierarchical multiple regression with life satisfaction as the dependent variable in the
men sample

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE β B SE β B SE β

Age .08 .06 .04 .04 .05 .02 −.12 .05 −.07*
Educational level .24 .09 .09** .27 .08 .10** .19 .07 .07**
Masculine/instrumental trait .10 .01 .22*** .01 .01 .03
Feminine/expressive trait .08 .02 .15*** .06 .02 .12***
Negative self-evaluation −.13 .02 −.27***
Self-confidence .16 .03 .20***
Emotional social support .22 .06 .13***
Instrumental social support .16 .07 .08*
R2 .01 .09 .33
R2 Change .08*** .24***

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

accounted for a total of 32% of the variance in life satisfaction in the men group and
41% in the women group.

Discussion

This study investigated the relevance of gender in psychological well-being

(eudaimonic well-being and life satisfaction) in emerging adulthood, a period between
adolescence and young adulthood characterized by identity explorations, instability,

Table 7 Summary of the hierarchical multiple regression with life satisfaction as the dependent variable in the
women sample

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variables B SE β B SE β B SE β

Age −.15 .06 −.08* −.17 .06 −.09** −.22 .05 −.11***
Educational level .53 .10 .17*** .53 .10 .17*** .29 .08 .09***
Masculine/instrumental trait .09 .01 .20*** −.01 .01 −.01
Feminine/expressive trait .08 .02 .14*** .06 .01 .11***
Negative self-evaluation −.15 .02 −.33***
Self-confidence .19 .03 .24***
Emotional social support .10 .07 .05
Instrumental social support .31 .07 .15***
R2 .03 .09 .42
R2 Change .07*** .32***

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

 M. P. Matud et al.

self-focus and possibilities (Arnett, 2015). A second aim was to know the relevance of
self-esteem and perceived social support in the psychological well-being of women and
men in this life stage. Emerging adulthood is important inasmuch as it prepares for the
responsibilities and roles of adulthood (Arnett, 2015) and “the capacity of young people
to successfully take up adult roles as they transition to adulthood is of great social and
economic importance to individuals, communities and societies” (O'Connor et al.,
2011, pp. 860–861). When analyzing the sociodemographic characteristics of the study
sample, we found that the vast majority were single and without children. In the women
group the mean age was 22.65 years (SD = 3.15) and of 22.92 years (SD = 3.37) in the
men group. Although these differences were not statistically significant (p = .06) it is
likely that if the sample had been larger, statistically significant differences would have
been found. In any case, it is important to bear in mind that the magnitude of the
differences in age between women and men is less than 3 months, so it seems to have
little practical significance. Very frequently they were students and almost 8% were
unemployed, thus agreeing with the conclusions drawn by several authors (Arnett,
2000, 2015; Lane et al., 2017) who posit that emerging adulthood is a period in which
people complete their education, start working and try different life options. Although
the number of study’ participants unemployed is not high, this may be due to the fact
that access to the majority of the sample was through work and educational centers. Our
analysis also revealed that emerging adult women were more frequently students and
had university studies that emerging adult men. These results coincide with the findings
obtained globally across OECD countries indicating that the number of women grad-
uating from a higher education institution has progressively overtaken that of men
(Cortland & Kinias, 2019).
The first study’s hypothesis predicting that men would score higher than women
on self-acceptance and autonomy, while women would score higher than men on
positive relations with others was not supported. In the present study, only two
statistically significant differences between women and men were found in psycho-
logical well-being: in purpose in life and in personal growth, with emerging adult
women scoring higher in both than emerging adult men, although the effect size of
the differences was small. Though research conducted in several countries (Ahrens
& Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011; Lindfors et al., 2006; Ryff & Keyes, 1995)
including Spain (Matud et al., 2019) have evidenced that men scored higher than
women in autonomy and women scored higher than in men in positive relations
with others, these studies were conducted with adults, so these differences may not
apply to emerging adulthood, since evidence supports age being relevant in psy-
chological well-being (Karasawa et al., 2011; Lindfors et al., 2006; Ryff & Keyes,
1995; Ryff & Singer, 2008). While another study on these two dimensions of
psychological well-being (Lindfors et al., 2006) has reported higher scores in
women, research has not by and large supported any gender differences in such
dimensions (e.g. Ahrens & Ryff, 2006; Karasawa et al., 2011; Li et al., 2015; Ryff,
1995; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Score difference between women and men with respect
to purpose in life and personal growth found in this study could be explained by a
higher frequency of women students or women reporting university studies, since
there is evidence associating a higher educational level with eudaimonic well-being,
with the association being especially pronounced for purpose in life and personal
growth (Ryff & Singer, 2008).
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

The second study’s hypothesis predicting that the masculine instrumental trait would
be more associated with psychological well-being than the feminine/expressive trait in
both women and men was only partially confirmed. Although the bivariate correlations
results revealed that the association between gender traits with eudaimonic well-being
was greater for the masculine/instrumental trait than for the feminine/expressive trait
both in women and in men, the bivariate correlations coefficients of both traits with life
satisfaction were more similar. Regression analyses predicting eudaimonic well-being
proved that both traits were statistically significant in Model 2 and in Model 3, when
the factors of self-esteem and social support were also included in the equation
regression. But when the criterion to predict was life satisfaction, the variable that
was statistically significant in the final model, both in the women and men groups, was
the feminine/expressive trait. Therefore, these data do not endorse the traditional
congruence model stating that femininity is best for women and masculinity best for
men (Lubinski et al., 1981; Whitley, 1983, 1985). Against gender stereotypes that
characterize women and men as complementary, whereby women are perceived to be
communal and expressive but not agentic and men believed to be agentic and instru-
mental but no communal (Kahalon et al., 2018), the present results suggest that these
two sets of characteristics are important for the psychological well-being of both
emerging adult women and men. So, emerging adult women and men whose self-
concept includes both masculine/instrumental and feminine/expressive characteristics
have greater psychological well-being.
Hypothesis 3, which predicted that emerging adult women and men reporting
greater self-esteem and social support would experience greater psychological well-
being, was supported, although the effect size was greater for self-esteem than for social
support. The results of the present study converge with and expanded on existing
literature on the relevance of self-esteem and social support in psychological well-being
as concerns emerging adulthood (Calvo et al., 2012; Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2018; Orth
et al., 2008; Saikkonen et al., 2018; Santini et al., 2015). In the present study, another
significant variable for women’s and men’s psychological well-being was the educa-
tional level, as a higher educational level is associated with greater eudaimonic well-
being and life satisfaction; our findings converge with those obtained in other studies
(Diener & Ryan, 2009; Olenik-Shemesh et al., 2018; Ryff & Singer, 2008).

Limitations

The present study presents some limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional design, so no

cause-effect relationships can be established. Moreover, all respondents resided in
Spain, which could restrict the results, as they would not apply for emerging adults
from other countries. Another limitation is that the data was obtained through self-
report, which could lead to possible biases.

Conclusions

In conclusion, despite the aforementioned limitations, the present study findings show
that gender is important in the psychological well-being of people in emerging adult-
hood, although self-esteem and instrumental social support are, in both, emerging adult
 M. P. Matud et al.

women and men, the most important predictors of psychological well-being. More
specifically, the traditional point of view associating wellbeing with gender typing, that
is, high score in masculinity/instrumental trait for men but not for women, and high
score in feminine/expressive trait in women but not in men, does not seem to be
working in emerging adulthood. On the contrary, both, masculine/instrumental and
feminine/expressive traits are good predictors of wellbeing in young men and women.
Going further in our conclusions, it is precisely the female/expressive trait the more
relevant for the life satisfaction component of wellbeing in emerging adulthood for
both, men and women, whereas both masculine/instrumental and feminine/expressive
are good predictors of eudemonic wellbeing, although the masculine/instrumental trait
is more relevant. Therefore, gender typification should be avoided.
The results of this work are important for the design of policies and programs aimed
at promoting greater mental health and well-being at emerging adulthood, a critical
period within the developmental lifespan. The promotion of social support and increas-
ing self-esteem should be part of any mental health preventive intervention in emerging
adulthood, accompanied by a careful avoidance of any gender stereotype.

Data, Materials and/or Code Availability The authors have had full control of all the primary data and are
willing to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

Authors’ Contributions M. Pilar Matud conceived the study, conducted statistical analyses and interpre-
tation of the data, and drafted the manuscript; Juan Manuel Bethencourt participated in conceiving the study,
helped to draft the manuscript and critically revised the manuscript; Ignacio Ibañez participated in data
collection, in statistical analyses and interpretation of the data; Demelza Fortes participated in data collection
and helped to draft the manuscript; Amelia Díaz participated in data collection, in interpretation of the data and
critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain [grant
reference PSI2015-65963R, MINECO/FEDER, UE].

Declarations

Ethics Approval The study was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Research and Well-Being of
the University of La Laguna (study approval number 2015–0170).

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Ahrens, C. J. C., & Ryff, C. D. (2006). Multiple roles and well-being: Sociodemographic and psycho-
logical moderators. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 55(11–12), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-006-9134-8.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties.
American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.
Arnett, J. J. (2015). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

Arnett, J. J., Žukauskienė, R., & Sugimura, K. (2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29
years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S2215-0366(14)00080-7.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender. Yale University Press.
Bonnie, R. J., Stroud, C., Breiner, H., & committee on improving the health, safety, and well-being of young
adults, board on children, youth, and families, Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council (Eds.).
(2015). Investing in the health and well-being of young adults. National Academies Press.
Calvo, R., Zheng, Y., Kumar, S., Olgiati, A., & Berkman, L. (2012). Well-being and social capital on planet
earth: Cross-national evidence from 142 countries. PLOS ONE, 7(8), Article e42793. 10.1371/
journal.pone.0042793.
Cortland, C. I., & Kinias, Z. (2019). Stereotype threat and women’s work satisfaction: The importance of role
models. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000056.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. The
American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and
longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.
2010.01045.x.
Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South Africa Journal of
Psychology, 39(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900402.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Dluhosch, B. (2021). The gender gap in globalization and well-being. Applied Research Quality Life, 16, 351–
378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09769-2.
Ferguson, L. J., & Gunnel, K. E. (2016). Eudaimonic well-being: A gendered perspective. In J. Vittersø (Ed.),
Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being (pp. 427–436). Springer.
Helgeson, V. S. (2015). Gender and personality. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of
personality and social psychology (Vol. 4., pp. 515–534). American Psychological Association.
Heppner, W. L., & Kernis, M. H. (2011). High self-esteem: Multiple forms and their outcomes. In S. J.
Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds), Handbook of Identy Theory and Research (pp. 329–355).
Springer.
Hollifield, C. R., & Conger, K. J. (2015). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life
satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2167696814561544.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic
review. PLOS MED, 7(7), Article e1000316. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540–
545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889.
Kahalon, R., Shnabel, N., & Becker, J. C. (2018). Positive stereotypes, negative outcomes: Reminders of the
positive components of complementary gender stereotypes impair performance in counter-stereotypical
tasks. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 482–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12240.
Karasawa, M., Curhan, K. B., Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S. S., Love, G. D., Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D.
(2011). Cultural perspectives on aging and well-being: A comparison of Japan and the United States.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 73(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.
73.1.d.
Kushlev, K., Drummond, D. M., & Diener, E. (2020). Subjective well-being and health behaviors in 2.5
million Americans. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-being, 12(1), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/
aphw.12178.
Lane, J. A., Leibert, T. W., & Goka-Dubose, E. (2017). The impact of life transition on emerging adult
attachment, social support, and well-being: A multiple-group comparison. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 95(4), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12153.
Li, R. H., Kao, C. M., & Wu, Y. Y. (2015). Gender differences in psychological well-being: Tests of factorial
invariance. Quality of Life Research, 24 (11), 2577–2581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0999-2.
Lindfors, P., Berntsson, L., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Factor structure of Ryff’s psychological well-being scales
in Swedish female and male white-collar workers. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1213–
1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.016.
 M. P. Matud et al.

Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The relationship between androgyny and subjective
indicators of emotional well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(4), 722–730.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.4.722.
Matud, M. P. (1998). Social Support Scale [Database record]. PsycTESTS. 10.1037/t12441-00.
Matud, M. P, Ibañez, I., Marrero, R. J., & Carballeira, M. (2003). Diferencias en autoestima en función del
género [Gender differences on self-esteem]. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 29(123), 51–78. http://
hdl.handle.net/11162/20952
Matud, M. P., López-Curbelo, M., & Fortes, D. (2019). Gender and psychological well-being. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), Article 3531. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16193531.
Norona, J. C., Preddu, T. M., & Welsh, D. (2015). How gender shapes emerging adulthood. In J. J. Arnett
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of emerging adulthood (pp. 62–81). Oxford University Press.
O'Connor, M., Sanson, A., Hawkins, M. T., Letcher, P., Toumbourou, J. W., Smart, D., Vassallo, S., &
Olsson, C. A. (2011). Predictors of positive development in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40(7), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9593-7.
Olenik-Shemesh, D., Heiman, T., & Keshet, N. S. (2018). The role of career aspiration, self-esteem, body
esteem, and gender in predicting sense of well-being among emerging adults. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 179(6), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2018.1526163.
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2008). Low self-esteem prospectively predicts depression in
adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 695–708. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.695.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Barry, C. M., Carroll, J. S., Madsen, S. D., & Nelson, L. J. (2008). Looking on the
bright side: The role of identity status and gender on positive orientations during emerging adulthood.
Journal of Adolescence, 31(4), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.001.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.52.1.141.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.
6.1069.
Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4),
99–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to
psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-
Being, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0.
Saikkonen, S., Karukivi, M., Vahlberg, T., & Saarijärvi, S. (2018). Associations of social support and
alexithymia with psychological distress in Finnish young adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
59(6), 602–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12478.
Santini, Z. I., Koyanagi, A., Tyrovolas, S., Mason, C., & Haro, J. M. (2015). The association between social
relationships and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175, 53–65. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.049.
Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life-span
perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on
Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(3), 236–255. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2004). The construct validity of Ryff’s scales of psychological well-being and its
extension with spiritual well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 629–643. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00122-3.
Van Dierendonck, D., Díaz, D., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Blanco, A., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2008). Ryff’s
six-factor model of psychological well-being, a Spanish exploration. Social Indicators Research, 87(3),
473–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9174-7.
Whitley, B. E. (1983). Sex role orientation and self-esteem: A critical meta-analytic review. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.765.
Whitley, B. E. (1985). Sex-role orientation and psychological well-being: Two meta-analyses. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 12(1–2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288048.
Worell, J. (1978). Sex roles and psychological well-being: Perspectives on methodology. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4), 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.46.4.777.
Gender Differences in Psychological Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood

Yoo, J., & Ryff, C.D. (2019). Longitudinal profiles of psychological well-being and health: Findings from
Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2746. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02746.
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). The importance of self-esteem. In V. Zeigler-Hill (Ed.), Self-esteem (pp. 1–20). Taylor
& Francis Group.
Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis.
The American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

M. Pilar Matud 1 & Juan Manuel Bethencourt 1 & Ignacio Ibáñez 1 &
Demelza Fortes 1 & Amelia Díaz 2
1
Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychobiology and Methodology, Universidad de La Laguna, La
Laguna, Spain
2
Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatments, Universidad de Valencia,
Valencia, Spain