How Does Living Alone or With A Partner

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 influence
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 satisfied with their life than those living with a partner (Jakobsson et al.,
2004). It may therefore seem paradoxical that women report being satisfied
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 influence 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: gaymu@ined.fr
Population-E, 67 (1), 2012, 43-70
J. GAYMU, S. SPRINGER
men who do not have, or no longer have, a spouse and who invest in the family
sphere, and to women who find themselves without the financial 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 benefit
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-today tasks. They also have greater difficulty 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 financial 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
44
LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE
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 influence 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 first 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,
Table 1. Sample sizes by living arrangement (alone or with a partner),
by gender and by country
People who answered the life satisfaction question
Total sample
Alone
Sweden
With a
Total*
partner
Living alone
Living with a partner
Total*
Men Women Total
Men Women Total
Men Women
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
373
558
0,970
78
165
243
220
194
414
309
369
DK
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.
(2) Multigenerational co-residence, which concerned 2,236 respondents, could not be analysed on
account of the low sample numbers, especially in northern countries.
45
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 first
wave of SHARE was, Are you satisfied with your life in general?, with four
possible answers: very satisfied, relatively satisfied, relatively dissatisfied and
very dissatisfied. Since only 1.4% of people aged 60 or over said they were very
dissatisfied, the last two categories were merged and the variable used has
three response categories: very satisfied, relatively satisfied and dissatisfied
(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 flexible than an ordered logit model that only allows
a single coefficient 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
justifies the use of a model that can relax the hypothesis: the model is more
flexible 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.
46
influence of each independent variable, first on the probability of being very

or relatively satisfied (compared with the likelihood of being dissatisfied) and
then on the odds ratio of being very satisfied (compared with the probability
of being relatively satisfied or dissatisfied). The odds ratios are identical in
both cases if the hypothesis of parallel slopes is respected. If not, the influence
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 coefficient i may vary with the significance level
of the dependent variable.
P (Yi ! j) =
exp (Dj + X1i E 1 + X2i E 2 + X3i E 3j)

, j = 1, 2,M 1
1 + ^exp (Dj + X1i E 1 + X2i E 2 + X3i E 3j)`
When the hypothesis of parallel slopes is respected, an OR that is significant

and above one indicates that the variable has a positive influence on the
probability of being satisfied with life. If this hypothesis is relaxed, interpretation
is more complex and nuanced. The variable may then have a significant influence
for the first level of comparison (dissatisfied versus very or relatively satisfied),
but not on the second (dissatisfied or relatively satisfied versus very satisfied).
The direction of this influence may itself be different.
Contrasting the two levels of comparison reveals the high consistency of
the findings. The odds ratios are generally higher and more strongly significant
for the variables affecting the probability of being relatively or very satisfied
(as opposed to dissatisfied). For these reasons, this is the model that was
analysed in detail for this article. When some variables only influence the odds
of being very satisfied with life (versus relatively satisfied and dissatisfied),
these cases are still mentioned.
In line with the literature on the topic, the three main factors influencing
older adults subjective well-being (i.e. family, health and financial 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 justified 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
47
Table 2. Description of the variables used in the multivariate analysis
Scale
Respondent
Life
satisfaction
Ordinal
Selfadministered
questionnaire
Age
Living
arrangement
Description
Categories
(reference category
in bold)
Are you satisfied with life?
Dissatisfied (very
dissatisfied, relatively
dissatisfied) relatively
satisfied, very satisfied
Interval
60 years and over; mean age: 70.8 years;

standard deviation: 7.10
Years
Nominal
The living with others category may

Alone, with partner,
include couples who live with other people with others
Marital status Nominal
Widowed, single,
divorced/ separated
Gender
Nominal
Education
Nominal
Based on ISCED classification: 0-2 = low,

3 = medium, 4-6 = high, other = NR
Man, women
Low, medium, high
Health
Nominal
Limitations in activities of daily living
Severe, moderate,
none
Income
Nominal
Respondent
for household
finances
Home-owner
Nominal
Respondent
from the
household
Residential
environment
Nominal
Respondent
from the
household
Urban = metropolitan areas, cities, suburbs Urban, rural

and city outskirts; Rural = rural areas,
villages and small towns
Transport and Nominal

services
Selfadministered
questionnaire
Availability of transport and services

(shops, doctor, pharmacy)
Child(ren)
and contact
Nominal
Respondent
from the
household
Combination of having children or not and No children, child(ren)

frequency of contact (all types)
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
Nominal
Respondent
from the
household
Highest frequency of contact (all types)

Daily contact/ less
during the last 12 months with all reported frequent contact
children
Distance
from childs
residence
Nominal
Respondent
from the
household
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).
Source: SHARE survey, wave 1, version 2.0.1.
48
Based on gross household income,

Low, medium, high
corrected using the OECD equivalence
scale, terciles calculated on a national basis
No, yes
Not satisfactory,
satisfactory
Less than 1 km, more

than 1 km
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 reflect respondents diverse
socioeconomic contexts: educational level, based on the International Standard
Classification 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 findings associated with these variables are sometimes
mentioned, this article presents only the most significant 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 influential 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.
49
50
41.9
Very satisfied with life
* Significant male/female X2 difference.

37.5
Has a leisure activity
71.8
Adequate transport
and services
36.3
76.9
Home-owner
Child less than 1 km away
50.6
Low educational level
7.6
27.0
Low income
47.2
28.6
Gives help
Daily contact
18.5
Receives help
No children
14.0
Severe disabilities
Widowed
18.2
11.0
14.4
17.4
2.3
7.1
13.4
28.7
5.1
11.5
4.8
3.8
6.7
Standard
deviation
Men
50.8
Mean
%
Divorced
Single
70 years and over
Characteristics (%)
0.43
0.29
0.40
0.37
0.30
0.10
0.17
0.57
0.19
0.40
0.26
0.27
0.13
Coefcient
ofvariation
39.6*
36.2
36.3
47.1
8.1
71.1
75.9
64.3*
26.3
26.8
20.4*
13.4
45.0*
Mean
%
18.5
13.3
14.4
17.9
2.3
6.9
13.7
21.4
5.9
8.5
4.7
4.6
4.7
Standard
deviation
Women
0.47
0.37
0.40
0.38
0.29
0.10
0.18
0.33
0.22
0.32
0.23
0.34
0.1
Coefcient
ofvariation
31.2
32.8
30.8
37.6
33.6
72.6
53.5
55.7
29.7
24.9
33.7
17.2
51.0
23.2
25.8
61.0
Mean
%
13.5
11.8
12.4
16.1
8.8
8.5
19.2
26.8
14.0
10.6
5.3
9.0
5.7
9.9
8.2
7.1
Standard
deviation
Men
0.43
0.36
0.40
0.43
0.26
0.12
0.36
0.48
0.47
0.42
0.16
0.52
0.11
0.43
0.32
0.12
Coefcient
ofvariation
28.0*
34.8
37.9*
49.0*
21.0*
70.9
50.9
67.9*
41.7*
20.9*
46.8*
22.4*
74.3*
13.5*
12.2*
73.6*
Mean
%
Living alone
Table 3. Objective living conditions of persons aged 60 and over depending

on whether they live alone or with a partner, by sex (all countries)
13.5
11.7
15.4
14.0
4.0
5.1
22.8
17.9
14.5
7.5
6.4
7.5
5.9
7.0
4.0
4.9
Standard
deviation
Women
0.48
0.34
0.40
0.29
0.19
0.07
0.45
0.26
0.35
0.36
0.14
0.34
0.08
0.52
0.32
0.07
Coefcient
ofvariation
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 financial 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 financial
situation thanks to the extra income from their spouse. This living arrangement
also has a beneficial 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 reflects 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). Benefiting 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.
51
Figure 1. Disparities in the living conditions and life satisfaction of men

and women who live alone, by country (female/male percentage ratio)
3.0
Ratio
Ined 2012
Severe disabilities
2.5
Low educational level

Daily contact with a child
2.0
Very satisfied with life
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
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 coefficient of variation (Table 3). Among
people living alone, the sociocultural context has a lesser effect for women,
whose coefficients 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 coefficients 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 wellbeing is relatively close to that of men. Whatever the living arrangement,
women are less frequently very satisfied 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 satisfied reaching 40% and 42%,
respectively. Moreover, the coefficient of variation for this indicator is particularly
high, reflecting the strong influence 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
52
terms of health or personal finances enhances well-being. When living alone,

38% of women with no disabilities say they are very satisfied with their life,
versus only 19% of women with severe disabilities. These figures 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 satisfied 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 satisfied)
Living alone
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
Significant difference with respect to the first category.

* Significant male/female chi difference.
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 satisfied 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 satisfied with their life than the youngest, even
though their living conditions are generally less favourable (Schilling, 2006; Lelkes, 2007).
53
associated with lower satisfaction among women (24%) and higher among men
(33%). In a couple, the strength of family ties barely influences well-being.
Whatever the frequency of contact, slightly less than 40% of men and women
are very satisfied 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 wellbeing. The use of multivariate analyses will allow us to explore these links
more fully.
3. The determinants of life satisfaction
The influence of living arrangements
For comparable living conditions, women are less likely to be satisfied

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 influence. As a general rule, the
probability of not being satisfied 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 satisfied
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 influence; giving help to others has no significant
effect on life satisfaction.
Living in certain countries strongly influences 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 significantly different from Austria (AT, used as the reference).(11)
This hierarchy, in perfect agreement with other research findings on the subject,
illustrates the strong tendency of people in northern European countries to
be satisfied 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 satisfied with life is even higher (4.9).
54
Table 5: Determinants of life satisfaction by living arrangement

multivariate analyses
Category
Total population
Living with apartner
Living alone
Variable
Reference
Sex
Men
Other
Women
Age (years)
Living
arrangement
Living alone
j=1
j=2
j=1
j=2
j=1
j=2
0.9
0.78*** 0.93*
0.75*** 0.94
0.9
1.02*** 1.01***
1.01*
102*** 1.02***
With
a partner
1.48*** 1.48***
With other
people
1.11
1.01*
1.12
Limitations in
activities of
daily living
Severe
Moderate
None
2.51*** 1.38***
4.68*** 2.46***
2.92*** 1.52***
5.23*** 2.45***
Help received
No
Yes
0.78*** 0.78***
0.53*** 0.77***
0.87
0.89
Help given
No
Yes
1.08
1.40**
0.99
0.99
Educational
level
Low
Medium
High
1.16*** 1.16***
1.42*** 1.42***
1.07
1.35**
1.07
1.35**
Income level
Low
1.08
Medium
1.12**
High
1.31*** 1.31***
1.12**
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.44*** 1.44***
2.35*** 1.20
4.35*** 2.42***
1.18**
1.18**
1.06
1.06
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
Transport and
services
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
activities
Country
No
Yes
1.52*** 1.18***
1.42*** 1.08
1.42*** 1.42***
Austria
Germany
0.88
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***
0.11
0.1156
0.0867
10,440
6,071
2,615
Pseudo R
N
0.88
0.91
Note: j = 1: first level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied versus satisfied or very satisfied); j = 2: second level of
the dependent variable (dissatisfied or satisfied versus very satisfied).
(a)
urban = cities; (b) rural = towns and rural areas.
Significance levels: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
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 influence
on life satisfaction (OR = 0.8) only within couples. For people living alone,
55
gender does not have a significant 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
satisfied with life, as observed on a descriptive basis.
Only persons living with a partner mention the positive effect on wellbeing of specific 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 difficult 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 influenced 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 influence (0.6 and 0.7). A few factors are
significant 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 influence 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
influence 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 significant for the probability of being very satisfied with
life.
(14) Significant only for the probability of being very satisfied with life.
56
Table 6. Determinants of life satisfaction by living arrangement and gender

multivariate analyses
Living alone
Category
Variable
Men
Reference
Other
j=1
Age (years)
1.00
Marital
status
Widowed
Limitations in
activity
Severe
Help received
No
Help given
Women
j=2
1.00
j=1
j=2
Men
j=1
Women
j=2
1.014** 1.014** 1.06*** 1.01
j=1
j=2
1.02*** 1.02***
Single
2.22*** 2.25*** 1.12
1.12
Divorced
0.97
0.91
0.97
Moderate
4.55*** 1.68*** 2.17*** 1.34*
None
6.78*** 2.61***
Yes
0.55*** 0.80**
0.70*** 0.70*** 0.83
0.83
0.91
0.91
No
Yes
1.18*
1.18*
1.09
1.00
1.00
1.00
Educational
level
Low
Medium
0.94
0.94
1.37*** 1.37*** 1.47**
1.45**
0.99
0.99
High
1.32**
1.32**
1.61*** 1.61*** 1.61*** 1.59*** 1.32*
1.32*
Income
Low
Medium
1.15
1.15
1.22**
High
Yes
Homeowner
No
2.50*** 1.10
0.63**
2.37*** 1.19
4.5*** 2.23*** 5.39*** 1.78*** 4.23*** 2.63***

1.09
0.93
0.93
1.11
1.11
1.33*** 1.33*** 1.04
1.47*** 1.12
1.12
1.23*
1.23*
1.18*
1.27**
1.27**
1.12
1.12
1.52*** 1.07
0.94
0.94
1.17*
1.22**
1.00
Environment
Urban
Rural
0.79
1.1
1.10
1.10
1.16
1.16
Transport
and services
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
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
0.89
0.93
Germany
0.89
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
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
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***
0.93
5.63*** 2.89*** 2.89*** 4.47*** 4.47***
0.26*** 0.88
Pseudo R
0.1141
0.1257
0.0954
0.091
3,254
2,817
681
1,934
Note: j = 1: first level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied compared with satisfied or very satisfied); j = 2: second
level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied or satisfied compared with very satisfied).
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: financial security (a high income) does not influence their well-
57
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 satisfied 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 satisfied with life, all other things
being equal. The specific living conditions of Italian, French and Greek men
who live alone therefore explain their lesser probability of being satisfied with
their lives, as previously observed.
The effect of geographical location
Given the strong influence 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 influence on the determinants of womens life satisfaction? Does this
influence 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 influence 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, financial aspects do not
influence 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 financial 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.
58
Table 7. Determinants of womens life satisfaction by living arrangement

and sociocultural context multivariate analyses
North: SE, NL, DK
Category
Variable

Reference
Other
Age (years)
Limitations in activity
Severe
j=1
j=2
Living alone
j=1
j=2
Age
0.99
0.99
1.08***
Moderate
1.16
1.16
2.49*
1.01
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
Income
Low
Medium
1.83***
1.83***
1.04
1.04
High
1.31
1.31
1.10
1.1
Medium
1.17
1.17
2.68*
1.07
High
1.24
1.24
1.18
1.18
1.53**
Home-owner
No
Yes
1.11
1.11
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
1,002
522
Centre: AT, BE, DE

Category
Variable

Reference
Age (years)
Severe
Other
Living alone
j=1
j=2
j=1
j=2
Age
1.03**
1.03**
1.00
Moderate
2.02***
2.02***
2.44***
1.24
None
3.47***
3.47***
2.60***
2.60***
0.78
1.00
Assistance received
No
Yes
0.72*
0.72*
0.78
Assistance given
No
Yes
1.25
1.25
1.28
1.28
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
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
1,000
757
Note: j = 1: first level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied compared with satisfied or very satisfied); j = 2:
second level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied or satisfied compared with very satisfied).
59
Table 7 (contd): Determinants of womens life satisfaction by living

arrangement and sociocultural context multivariate analyses
South: GR, ES, FR, IT
Category
Variable

Reference
Age (years)
Severe
Other
j=1
Living alone
j=2
j=1
j=2
1.03**
Age
1.00
1.04***
1.03**
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
Assistance given
No
Yes
0.92
0.92
0.79
0.79
Educational level
Low
Income
Low
Medium
3.18***
1.03
0.81
0.81
High
1.28
1.28
1.35
1.35
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*
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***
Pseudo R
N
1.55***
0.052
0.0603
815
655
Note: j = 1: first level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied compared with satisfied or very satisfied); j = 2:
second level of the dependent variable (dissatisfied or satisfied compared with very satisfied).
having leisure activities also has a positive incidence (OR = 1.7). For women
living with a partner, it is financial 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 satisfied with their lives (OR = 0.5).
This observed geographical heterogeneity in the determinants of older
womens subjective well-being is consistent with the findings of other studies
on the elder population as a whole (Fagestrm et al., 2007; Von dem Knesebeck
et al., 2005; Noll, 2007).
60
III. Discussion
In descriptive terms, women report being satisfied with life less often than
men, whether they live with a partner or alone. Multivariate analyses qualify
this finding, 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 significantly affect the
likelihood of being satisfied with life for those living alone. Within couples,
however, women remain less frequently satisfied 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 finding perhaps also reflects
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, influence only womens subjective well-being. For men, the
existence of a child has an effect. These differences revolve around family
relationships and financial 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 finding 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 financial 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 financial insecurity (Zick and Smith, 1998), and these
changes undoubtedly influence their definition 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.
61
for other life-satisfaction indicators (Delhey, 2004; Fagestrm et al., 2007).

Overall, individuals say they are satisfied with their life more often in northern
Europe than in the south. This finding has been the subject of much interpretation
and a large body of literature. Some researchers assert that this dichotomy
reflects 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 reflecting 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 finding, 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 financial 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 satisfied 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 reflect 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 significant factor) may
also be interpreted as a wish for independence from family.
62
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 multigenerational co-residence is more common, such women are certainly more
positively selected than elsewhere. Indeed, only the most autonomous, both
financially 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 finding reflect 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 specific 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 identified some sub-populations
who, because they risk being dissatisfied 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 financial 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-significance of some variables. Likewise, the positive
selection of respondents may explain the low (or non) significance 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).
63
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 BrschSupan and Jrges (2005).
64
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-specific 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 crossnational 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., R AVAUD 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, Office for Official 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.
65
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 unified 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.
H AKIM C., 2003, Models of the Family in Modern Societies: Ideals and Realities, Ashgate,
Aldershot, 282 p.
HOLDEN K., H ATCHER 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., H ALLBERG 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.
K ALOGIROU 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.
66
LELKES O., 2007, Happiness over the life cycle: Exploring age specific 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.
M ARTEL 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., R ENAUT 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, Influences 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.
R EHER 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.
67
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.
68
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 inuence 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 satised 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 satised 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 inuences 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 DES FEMMES GS EN EUROPE ?
Cet article tudie linuence 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 inuence 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 inuencia 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 inuencia 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 inuida 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.
69
Copyright of Population (16342941) is the property of Institut National d'Etudes Demographiques and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

How Does Living Alone or With A Partner

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

How Does Living Alone or With A Partner

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Jolle GAYMU* and Sabine SPRINGER**

How does Living Alone or with a Partner

* Institut national dtudes dmographiques.

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

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

or larger European region, has an incidence on the determinants of subjective

I. Data and Methodology

Living with a partner

Men Women Total

Men Women Total

Total 3,501 7,723

695 1,957 2,652 3,320 2,867 6,187 4,881 5,740

* Including multigenerational co-residence.

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

influence of each independent variable, first on the probability of being very

exp (Dj + X1i E 1 + X2i E 2 + X3i E 3j)

When the hypothesis of parallel slopes is respected, an OR that is significant

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

Are you satisfied with life?

60 years and over; mean age: 70.8 years;

The living with others category may

Marital status Nominal

Based on ISCED classification: 0-2 = low,

Limitations in activities of daily living

Urban = metropolitan areas, cities, suburbs Urban, rural

Transport and Nominal

Availability of transport and services

Combination of having children or not and No children, child(ren)

Received by a household member

Given by the individual to a family

Volunteer work, classes/training, sports

Switzerland was excluded because of its

AT, DE, SE, NL, ES, IT,

Highest frequency of contact (all types)

Geographical distance between the

Source: SHARE survey, wave 1, version 2.0.1.

Based on gross household income,

Less than 1 km, more

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

frequency of contact: no children, child(ren) and daily contact, and child(ren)

Very satisfied with life

* Significant male/female X2 difference.

Has a leisure activity

Child less than 1 km away

Low educational level

70 years and over

Living with a partner

Table 3. Objective living conditions of persons aged 60 and over depending

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

Figure 1. Disparities in the living conditions and life satisfaction of men

Low educational level

Very satisfied with life

Heterogeneity between countries varies depending on indicators and living

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

terms of health or personal finances enhances well-being. When living alone,

Living with a partner

No limitations in activities of daily living

Severe limitations in activities of daily living

Daily contact with a child

Non-daily contact with a child

Significant difference with respect to the first category.

For comparable living conditions, women are less likely to be satisfied

LIFE SATISFACTION AMONG OLDER MEN AND WOMEN IN EUROPE

1.014 1.014 1.06*** 1.01

2.22* 2.25* 1.12

4.55* 1.68* 2.17*** 1.34*

0.70* 0.70* 0.83

1.37* 1.37* 1.47**

1.61* 1.61* 1.61* 1.59* 1.32*

4.5* 2.23* 5.39* 1.78* 4.23* 2.63*

1.33* 1.33* 1.04

1.32* 1.32* 0.97

2.44* 2.44* 0.98

2.35* 2.35* 1.28

1.57* 1.57* 1.36* 1.36*

1.58* 1.58* 1.09

1.64* 1.64* 0.62

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

5.36* 5.36* 1.75

0.33* 1.67* 0.69

0.34* 0.33* 0.54*** 0.51

0.33* 0.34* 0.34*** 0.64

5.63* 2.89* 2.89* 4.47* 4.47***