gender differences in responses to unemployment

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR 38, 65-77 (1991)

Gender Differences in Responses to Unemployment

CARRIE R. LEANA

University of Pittsburgh

AND

DANIEL C. FELDMAN

University of South Carolina

This study examined differences between 94 men and 63 women in how they perceived, coped with, and reacted to job loss. Contrary to gender stereotypes that portray women as less traumatized by job loss than men, the results showed no significant differences between men and women in psychological and behavioral distress symptoms. There were differences, however, in how each group coped with the job loss. Men relied more on problem-focused activities such as job search, while women relied more on symptom-focused activities such as seeking social support. Marital status had a significant effect on several types of coping behaviors and reactions, but it did not significantly interact with gender. The implications of the findings for research on women and job loss are discussed. 0 1991 Academic Press. Inc

Job loss refers to involuntary withdrawal from the workforce due to plant closures, layoffs, or other types of dismissals. Recent research in this area has uncovered a number of adverse effects of job loss such as psychological distress, long-term economic hardship, disruptions in family and social relations, and, in some cases, physiological problems (see Dooley & Catalano, 1988; Leana & Feldman, 1988, for recent reviews). This research, however, has largely concentrated on male job losers; women have seldom constituted a significant portion of the samples in these studies (Bartell & Bartell, 1985; Harris, Heller, & Braddock, 1988; Warr & Parry, 1982). To the extent that women have been represented in studies of job loss, they appear primarily in the role of wives to unemployed male workers (see, for example, Dew, Bromet, & Schulberg, 1987; Liem & Liem, 1988).

Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Carrie R. Leana, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. This research was supported by a faculty grant from the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh.

6.5

oool-8791191 $3.00 Copyright 0 IWI by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

66 LEANA AND FELDMAN

This lack of attention on women who lose their jobs may say much about common stereotypes regarding the importance of work for women. For example, married women, whose income is considered secondary to their husbands, traditionally are not seen to be as traumatized by job loss as are primary wage earners. This, in fact, is the rationale offered by many researchers for concentrating almost exclusively on unemployed men in their studies (Targ, 1983). Kasl and Cobb (1979), for example, justified their male sample on the grounds that “men are presumed to be, in the dominant U.S. culture, the primary breadwinners in the family; hence job loss in men should have more of an impact than in women” (p. 294). Similarly, Ferman (1981) acknowledged that women are particularly sus- ceptible to job loss, yet studied only male job losers because men “are responsible not just for themselves, but also for dependents.”

Women are also assumed to be better able to adjust to job loss because work is seen as less central to women’s identities than it is to men%. Work is only one of several roles for women; the traditional roles of wife and mother are assumed to be at least as important-if not of primary importance-in women’s lives. As Bartell and Bartell (1985) have suggested, men are seen as having little choice but to plan their lives around work; women have the additional option of planning their lives around home and family. Thus, financial considerations aside, women are assumed to fare better psychologically after a job loss than their male counterparts because their loss is not expected to be as complete.

Finally, women as a group are disproportionately represented at the bottom of authority, reward, and status hierarchies at work. When they lose these jobs, the loss is not seen to be as important as job loss is to men since the jobs themselves are not seen to be as important as traditional male jobs (Marshall, 1984).

Although these assumptions and stereotypes may describe some women in the workforce, they do not accurately represent many working women- those who are primary wage earners, those who are the sole support of dependent children, those who are recent entrants into nontraditional jobs, and those who value and enjoy their work for whatever reasons. For these women, job loss may be even more devastating than it is for their male counterparts since women generally fare worse than men in terms of both their financial resources and their abilities to replace lost jobs.

Poverty rates for women have long surpassed those for men, with women persistently at the bottom rung of the economic ladder (Donovan, Jaffe, & Pirie, 1987). Unemployment rates for women have also exceeded those for men in all but 2 of the last 40 years, indicating that women are more likely than men to be actively seeking work, yet unable to find it (U.S. Department of Labor, 1990). In addition, women as a group often have greater difficulty than men finding suitable alternate employment

RESPONSES TO UNEMPLOYMENT AND GENDER 67

once they have lost their jobs (Nowak & Snyder, 1983; Rosen, 1987). They tend to stay unemployed longer and, when new jobs are found, often work at replacement wages which are significantly lower than those of their male counterparts. In one study of a plant closing, for example, 49% of women who lost their jobs were still unemployed 1 to 2 years later, compared to 27% of the men. Those women who found new jobs- primarily in sales and service industries+arned on average only about 60% of their former wages, while reemployed males fared considerable better, reaching 85% of their former wage levels (Snyder & Nowak, 1984). Similarly, in a recent study of dislocated industrial workers, men who found new jobs were earning on average two-thirds of their former wages, while reemployed women were earning only half (Steel Valley Authority, 1990).

Thus, women’s responses to job loss may be even more negative than those of men, depending on their personal and occupational circumstances. As Bartell and Bartell (1985) have suggested, the effects of unemployment on women are at least as complex as those on men, and probably even more so due to mediating factors such as family status, alternate income sources, and shifting societal expectations. Women who are married or secondary wage earners, for example, may not react as negatively to job loss as men, while women who are single or recent entrants into traditional male jobs may respond even more negatively due to the cen- trality of the jobs to their lives (Warr & Parry, 1982), their greater difficulty in finding suitable replacement jobs (Nowak & Snyder, 1983), or their sole responsibility for dependent children.

There is some literature which also suggests that women may use different methods of coping with job loss than men. For example, Leana and Feldman (1988) have suggested that men may be more likely than women to cope through problem-focused activities-i.e., behaviors that attempt to directly eliminate the source of stress (here, job loss) such as job search, retraining, and relocation. In contrast, Harris et al. (1988) have suggested that women may be more likely to rely on social support from friends or family to help them cope with job loss. This type of coping is termed symptom-focused by Leana and Feldman (1988) since the em- phasis is on eliminating the symptoms of stress (e.g., loneliness, anxiety) rather than on eliminating the source of stress (i.e., job loss).

Although there has been no lack of theorizing about supposed differences between men’s and women’s responses to job loss (see, for example, Bartell & Bartell, 1985; Targ, 1983; Warr & Parry, 1982), research studies on this topic are limited to a very small number, which have not produced definitive findings and have invariably concluded with calls for further research (see, for example, Harris et al., 1988). As Marshall (1984) has correctly noted, “one has to look long and hard at the material on unemployment to find any reference to the experiences (as opposed to the


mere numbers) of jobless women” (p. 235). Thus, the research to be reported here is exploratory in nature in examining the potentially different experiences of men and women facing unemployment.

This study focuses on three issues in particular. First, we explored the differences between men and women in their perceptions and in the level of psychological and behavioral distress they experienced in response to job loss. Both theory and what little empirical research exists on this point are mixed. Traditionally, women are thought to be buffered from the negative effects of job loss because they are less psychologically attached to their jobs and more financially supported by spouses. As we have suggested, however, women may be more vulnerable than men to the negative effects of job loss because of their lesser ability to replace a valued job and the income it produced.

Second, we examined the differences between men and women in the types of coping they engaged in after losing their jobs. The research on gender and coping with stressful life events is inconsistent. Some studies (e.g., Stone & Neale, 1984) support traditional gender stereotypes which suggest that men take a more active stance toward their environments, and are more likely to use coping strategies that eliminate stressors (i.e., problem-focused coping), while women are more passive when faced with stressful events, and are more likely to engage in symptom-focused coping (e.g., talking to friends). Other studies, however, do not support these assumptions (e.g., Hamilton & Fagot, 1988; Shinn, Rosario, March, & Chestnut, 1984) and suggest instead that both instrumental and expressive coping strategies are used by both men and women.

Third, we investigated the differences between married and single men and women in how they reacted to, and coped with, job loss. Previous theoretical work has implicitly or explicitly assumed that married women are more buffered from the negative effects of unemployment because of their spouses’ income (cf. Kasl & Cobb, 1979) and/or their greater options in life roles (Warr & Parry, 1982). However, given that over two-thirds of married women today are in the labor force, and that many two-career families are heavily dependent on both incomes to sustain their standards of living, the differences between married and single women may not be as pronounced as this literature seems to suggest.

METHOD

Research Site and Procedures

Data were gathered for this analysis as part of a larger study of individuals in Brevard County, Florida, who lost their jobs after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986. As a result of the disaster, over 2500 employees were laid off in the area. Layoffs affected engineers, managers, technical support personnel, and clerical workers in the aerospace indus- try, with some secondary layoffs in the real estate and tourism industries.


Data were collected from mail surveys. In the aftermath of the Chal- lenger disaster, a placement service was set up at a local community college to assist laid-off aerospace workers. The Kennedy Space Center itself and major defense contractors sent the names and addresses of employees recently laid off to the community college center. Questionnaire packets for this study were mailed to the names and addresses on these lists. Each packet contained a questionnaire, a cover letter from a community college administrator encouraging them to complete the questionnaire, and a postage-paid envelope for returning the completed questionnaire directly to the researchers. The response rate was 36%-low in comparison to experimental research in psychology but quite acceptable for a mail survey of this type (see Dillman, 1978). The response rate was affected by potential respondents moving from their last known addresses-some of them out of the area-as a result of their terminations.

Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of 157 laid-off employees of the Kennedy Space Center or related defense contractors. Ninety-four of the respondents were male; 63 were female. Approximately 25% of the total sample were engineers or engineering managers, 60% were technical support workers (e.g., computer analysts or operators, mechanical or payload technicians), and 15% were clerical workers (e.g., secretaries, data entry personnel). Eighty percent were still unemployed at the time of the study, for a mean length of time of 4 months (SD = 3.83; range = less than 1 month to 12 months).

The mean age of the sample was 38 years (SD = 11.83; range = 21 to 60 years); 90% were Caucasian. All but one respondent had graduated from high school, while 43% had completed some college and 26% had college degrees. Seventy-four percent were married (81% of men; 67% of women); 45% had children (59% of men; 40% of women).

Instrumentation

Perceptions of the job loss. Respondents’ perceptions of the job loss were measured on three dimensions suggested by Kelly’s (1973) work on causal attributions: (1) the degree to which the job- loss was perceived as externally caused, i.e., due to circumstances outside of the individual’s control; (2) the degree to which the job loss was perceived as reversible; and (3) the degree to which the job loss was perceived as intense in terms of disruption to their lives. Two items were used to measure each dimension. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item on five-point scales with anchors ranging from (I) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Mean responses for each dimension were used to indicate perceptual reactions to the layoff. Alpha coefficients


for the scales were .65 for external causality, .74 for reversibility, and .77 for intensity.

Coping strategies. In examining the types of behaviors individuals engage in to cope with losing their jobs, we followed Pearlin and Schooler’s (1978) research on coping with stressful life events. They suggest that a distinction should be made between individual coping strategies which try to change the environment to eliminate the source of the stress (problem- focused coping) and coping strategies which try to decrease the isolation or hardship often associated with stressful life events (symptom-focused coping). In the context of job loss, examples of problem-focused coping include job search activities or getting retraining in a new occupation; symptom-focused coping might include getting involved in social support groups or talking to others about problems (Leana & Feldman, 1988).

To assess individual coping in this study, respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they engaged in several types of problem- and symptom-focused behavior since becoming unemployed. Six items (three problem-focused and three symptom-focused) were measured on four-point scales with anchors ranging from (1) “not at all” to (4) “a lot.” The problem-focused activities included following up on job leads, looking for jobs in different geographical areas, and seeking training for a new profession. The symptom-focused activities were aimed at getting social support and included seeking professional counseling, talking to friends about problems, and becoming active in community efforts to aid the unemployed.

Reactions to the job loss. Respondents were asked to report on several measures of adjustment or distress which are commonly included in studies of job loss. Psychological distress was measured using the twelve-item version of Goldberg’s (1972) General Health Questionnaire (four-point scales: 1 = “not at all”; 4 = “much more than usual”; Cronbach’s (Y = .87). We also asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they felt passive, tired, depressed, and apathetic--common responses to job loss. These items were measured on four-point scales (1 = “not at all”; 4 = “a lot”) and summed to give an overall rating of depressed affect (Cronbach’s (Y = .74).

Feelings of life satisfaction were assessed using Warr’s (1978) fifteen- item measure (five-point scales: 1 = “very dissatisfied”; 5 = “very sat- isfied”; Cronbach’s cr = .83). Physiological distress was measured using Brett and Werbel’s (1980) sixteen-item scale of psychophysiological dis- orders (Cronbach’s a! = .90). These included sleeping irregularities, head- aches, stomach aches, changes in weight, dizziness, rashes, coughing and colds, shorteness of breath, and pounding heart, and were measured on four-point scales with anchors ranging from (1) “not at all” to (4) “a lot.”

We also asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they engaged in habits and behaviors detrimental to physical well-being (Be-


havioral Distress). These were adapted from Gurin, Veroff, and Feld’s (1960) behavioral categories and ranged from smoking and drinking more than usual to eating irregularities, to taking aspirin, sleeping pills, and other medication. Altogether there were eight such items measured on four-point scales with anchors ranging from (1) “not at all” to (4) “a lot” (Cronbach’s (Y = .74).

RESULTS

The correlations among the variables are reported in Table 1. To examine the effects of both gender and marital status on responses to job loss, 14 analyses of covariance were conducted. The design was a 2 x 2 factorial with gender (male, female) and marital status (single, married) as the independent variables. The dependent variables were the perceptions, coping strategies, and reactions already described.

We also wanted to account for the possibility that it is the differences between men’s and women’s jobs-rather than between men and women per se-that may explain differences in responses to job loss (see Marshall, 1984). In the sample, over 80% of the managerial and professional jobs were held by men, while women held nearly 70% of the clerical jobs. To control for these differences, job classification was entered as a covariate in the analyses. Due to unequal cell sizes, a regession approach was used in the analyses so that all effects were assessed simultaneously. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 2.

Perceptions

As indicated in Table 2, perceptions of the job loss were influenced by both gender and marital status. Women were significantly more likely to attribute the cause of the job loss to external factors beyond their control (women K = 4.63; men X = 4.46), as were respondents who were married (married X = 4.62; single Z = 4.23). Single respondents viewed the job loss as significantly more intense than did their married counterparts (married K = 1.90; single x = 2.44). There were no significant differences between men and women in perceptions of intensity or reversibility.

Coping Strategies

Men and women responded differently in terms of the behaviors they engaged in to cope with the job loss. In line with gender stereotypes concerning the diminished importance of work, women were significantly less likely than men to follow up on job leads (women x = 2.89; men x = 3.86) and were less willing to relocate to find new jobs (women x = 2.18; men K = 2.79). Women were significantly more likely than men to talk to friends about their problems (women x = 2.69; men P = 2.14). These findings suggest that men generally showed coping patterns that were focused on alleviating the stress by solving the problem of unem-

TABL

E 1

Pear

son

Pro

duct

-Mom

ent

Cor

rela

tions

- D

emog

raph

ics

1. G

ende

f 2.

M

arita

l st

at&

3. J

ob ty

pe’

Perc

eptio

ns

1. E

xter

nal

attri

butio

n 2.

Rev

ersi

bilit

y 3.

Int

ensi

ty

Pro

blem

-focu

sed

copi

ng

1. F

ollo

w-u

p on

jobs

2.

Loo

k ou

tsid

e ar

ea

3. S

eek

train

ing

Sym

ptom

-focu

sed

copi

ng

1. S

eek

coun

selin

g 2.

Tal

k to

frie

nds

3. A

ctiv

e in

com

mun

ity

Rea

ctio

ns

1.

. .

Psvc

holo

nica

l dis

tress

07

-1

6 02

-1

4 -3

0 45

Dem

ogra

phic

s Pe

rcep

tions

1 2

3 1

2 3

-17 24

-0

8

10

14

17

-07

03

01

09

05

-22

-02

-03

-36

- 18

-0

8 -1

1 -1

1 -0

9 2.

5 -2

6 -2

1 06

-0

9 08

16

-0

3 01

13

06

02

-0

1

-06

-17

-;:

it-J

-14

08

05

14

03

16

-07 02

-0

2 08

2. D

epre

ssed

affe

ct

28

-09

13

-14

-23

35

3. L

ife s

atis

fact

ion

-05

28

-09

11

33

-42

4. P

hysi

olog

ical

dis

tress

24

-1

5 11

-0

6 -2

4 43

5.

Beh

avio

ral

dist

ress

17

-1

7 04

-0

6 -3

8 49

Cop

ing

stra

tegi

es

Prob

lem

- Sy

mpt

om-

focu

sed

focu

sed

Rea

ctio

ns

1 2

3 1

2 3

1 2

3 4

40

02

-02

-2

07

-06

-05

-04

01

06

06

05

04

-06

13

4;

kz

-11

17

06

03

-03

10

14

03

68

-16

-03

-22

03

- 18

-5

0 -4

3 13

12

08

09

14

01

68

71

-4

4 19

16

07

01

11

03

55

58

-5

0 69

Not

e. C

orre

latio

ns g

reat

er t

han

13: p

<

.05;

cor

rela

tions

gre

ater

tha

n 18

: p

< .O

l. *

Mal

e =

1; fe

mal

e =

2.

’ Si

ngle

=

1; m

arrie

d =

2.

’ M

anag

emen

t/pro

fess

iona

J =

1; T

echn

ical

sup

port

= 2;

Cle

rical

=

3.


TABLE 2 Analysis of Covariance of Perceptions, Coping, and Reactions

Dependent variable

Marital Gender status G x MS

(df = 1) (df = 1) (df = 1) -

Perceptions External attributions

MS F

Reversibility MS F

Intensity MS F

3.13 6.21 2.42 4.63** 9.18** 3.58

.07 .45 .90

.05 .32 .64

.Ol 7.20 .48

.Ol 5.63* .38

Problem-focused coping strategies Follow-up on job leads

MS F

5.54 3.32 .69 4.74* 2.84 .59

Look for jobs outside area MS F

15.04 14.86 12.68** 12.52:’

Seek training for new job MS F

.05 .15

.06 .16

Symptom-focused coping strategies Seek professional counseling

MS .21 1.95 F .66 6.04*

Talk to friends MS 9.44 .80 F 9.94** .84

Active in community groups MS .95 1.39 F 3.45 5.05*

Reactions Psychological distress

MS .Ol 1.33 F .03 5.39*

Depressed affect MS 1.63 .29 F 3.45 .61

Life satisfaction MS .03 8.82 F .04 12.30**

Physiological distress MS .70 .51 F 3.29 2.39

Behavioral distress MS .35 1.07 F 1.47 4.51*

.02

.Ol

1.11 1.22

.24

.74

.20

.21

3.72 13.53**

.17

.68

1.74 3.68

.ll

.15

.19

.88

.28 1.19

Error (df = 144)

.68

1.41

1.28

1.17

1.19

.91

.32

.95

.28

.25

.47

.72

.21

.24

* p < .05. ** p -c .Ol.


ployment (e.g., looking for new jobs), while women’s coping was aimed more at alleviating stress symptoms (e.g., talking to others).

Marital status did not have a strong effect on coping strategies. It was significantly related only to relocation efforts with single respondents more likely to look for jobs in different areas (married K = 2.39; single x = 3.00). There was one significant gender by marital status interaction in coping strategies: single women reported the greatest degree of involve- ment in community efforts to aid the unemployed.

Reactions

Although women showed higher levels of depressed affect and physiological distress than men, these differences were not statistically significant. Single respondents reported significantly more psychological and behavioral distress and lower life satisfaction than married respondents, a finding not at odds with studies of satisfaction among the population as a whole.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study enhance our understanding of differences between men and women facing unemployment, as well as among women experiencing job loss. The strengths of these results are somewhat tem- pered by methodological considerations in the current design, yet none- theless suggest new avenues for research.

First, these results indicate that previous researchers’ purposeful exclu- sion of women from studies of job loss is not justified. Here, when job classification is controlled, there were no significant differences between men and women in their reactions. Thus, it is at best questionable to exclude women as a group in future studies of the unemployed because of stereotypes regarding the presumed secondary importance of work- and thus reduced trauma of unemployment-to them.

Second, women appeared to cope with job loss differently than men. Those behaviors aimed most directly at rectifying the situation---e.g., job search, relocation-were used less by women than men. Instead, women seemed to rely more on symptom-focused coping--e.g., talking to friends, getting involved in group activities-that may alleviate stress but do little to solve the problem. This may partially account for women’s traditional difficulty in securing suitable reemployment.

While in the past this difference in coping may have been attributed- either explicitly or implicitly-to women’s reduced trauma as a result of job loss and therefore reduced motivation to find reemployment, women may instead be more pessimistic about their opportunities. Both govern- ment unemployment statistics and previous research on women’s success in gaining reemployment (e.g., Nowak & Snyder, 1983) indicate that this


pessimism may unfortunately be warranted, and that special efforts may be necessary to facilitate women’s reentry into the workforce.

Third, these results regarding gender difference-r lack of them- were found after accounting for the effects of both job classification and marital status. There was only one gender by marital status interaction on coping behavior and none on perceptions or reactions. Thus, although there were several significant differences between single and married job losers, these differences were not particular to women.

Fourth, marital status had a pronounced effect on both genders’ perceptions, coping behaviors, and reactions. Our data suggest that being married may act to buffer both male and female job losers from distress symptoms, and support earlier research on the beneficial effects of social support in reducing stress and strain (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984; Doherty & Jacobson, 1982). The important implication with regard to the literature on women and unemployment, however, is that there is no evidence from our data to support the assumption that unemployed women derive more benefit from spousal support than do unemployed men.

There are some methodological design issues which temper the con- clusiveness of our findings, and suggest that replications are necessary for broad generalizations. First, some variables were not included in this study which might interact with gender in predicting reactions to job loss or coping strategies. For example, our study had a homogeneous sample in terms of race, and there may be interaction effects between race and gender. We also did not have a measure of the percentage of family income the job loser had contributed, nor enough variance in terms of marital status and dependent children to examine these relationships. Finally, in future studies a comparison group of employed men and women may be included to assess potential differences between employed and unemployed women, as well as between working women and men.

Despite--or perhaps because of-these unanswered questions, the results of this study indicate a need for more, rather than less, research on unemployed women. In addition, the data here suggest that because of their greater reliance on symptom-focused rather than instrumental activities, women may need more, not less, assistance than men in terms of retraining, outplacement, and counseling to effectively cope with job loss and to be successfully integrated back into the workforce.

REFERENCES Bartell, M., & Bartell, R. (1985). An integrative perspective on the psychological response

of women and men to unemployment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 6, 27-49. Brett, J. M., & Werbel, J. D. (1980). The effects of job transfer on employees and their

families. Washington, DC: Employee Relocation Council. Campbell, K. E., & Rosenfeld, R. A. (1985). Job search and job mobility: Sex and race

differences. In Research in the Sociology of Work (Vol. 3, pp. 147-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Cooke, R., & Rousseau, D. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252-260.

Dew, M. A., Bromet, E. J., & Schulberg, H. C. (1987). A comparative analysis of two community stressors’ long-term mental health effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 167-184.

Dew, M. A., Penkower, L., & Bromet, E. J. (1991). Effects of unemployment on mental health in the contemporary family. Behavior Modification, in press.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York: Wiley. Doherty, W. J., & Jacobson, N. S. (1982). Marriage and the family. In B. B. Wolman

(Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 667-680). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Donovan, R., Jaffe, N., & Pirie, Y. N. (1987, July-August). Unemployment among Iow- income women: An exploratory study. Social Work, pp. 301-305.

Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (1988). Recent research on the psychological effects of unemployment. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 1-12.

Ferman, L. (1981). Family adjustment to unemployment. In E. Corfman (Ed.), Families today: A research sampler on families and children (pp. 413-439). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Goldberg, P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. (1960). Americans view their mental health. New York: Basic Books.

Hamilton, S., & Fagot, B. J. (1988). Chronic stress and coping styles: A comparison of male and female undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, X(5), 819-823.

Harris, M. M., Heller, T., & Braddock, D. (1988). Sex differences of psychological well- being during a facility closure. Journal of Management, 14, 391-402.

Henwood, F., & Miles, I. (1987). The experience of unemployment and the sexual division of labour. In D. Fryer & P. Ullah (Eds.), Unemployed People (pp. 94-110). Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press.

Kasl, S. V., & Cobb, S. (1979). Some mental health consequences of plant closing and job loss. In L. Ferman & J. Gordus (Eds.), Mental health and the economy. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Kelly, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107- 128.

Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. (1988). Individual reactions to job loss: Perceptions, reactions, and coping behaviors. Journal of Management, 14, 375-389.

Liem, R., & Liem, J. H. (1988). Psychological effects of unemployment on workers and their families. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 87-105.

Marshall, G. (1984). On the sociology of women’s unemployment, its neglect and signifi- cance. Sociological Review, 32, 234-259.

Nowak, T. C., & Snyder, K. A. (1983). Women’s struggle to survive a plant shutdown. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 11, 25-44.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.

Rosen, E. I. (1987). Bitter choices; Blue collar women in and out of work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shinn, M., Rosario, M., March, H., & Chestnut, D. (1984). Coping with job stress and burnout in the human services. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 864-876.

Snyder, K., & Nowak, T. C. (1984). Job loss and demoralization: Do women fare better than men? International Journal of Mental Health, 13, 92-106.


Steel Valley Authority (1990). Economic development employment survey: Final report. Pittsburgh, PA.

Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary results. Journnl of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 892-906.

Targ, D. B. (1983). Women and the new unemployment. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 10, 41-60.

U.S. Department of Labor (1990, February). Employment and earnings. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Warr, P. B. (1978). A study of psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 111-121.

Warr, P. B., & Parry, G. (1982). Paid employment and women’s psychological well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 498-516.

Received: March 30. 1990

gender differences in responses to unemployment

Documents