Page 1 of 1

[新闻]Women Are Becoming Less Happy; Men Happier

Posted: 2007-11-24 23:15
by Jun
Economic Scene
He’s Happier, She’s Less So
By DAVID LEONHARDT

Last year, a team of researchers added a novel twist to something known as a time-use survey. Instead of simply asking people what they had done over the course of their day, as pollsters have been doing since the 1960s, the researchers also asked how people felt during each activity. Were they happy? Interested? Tired? Stressed?

Not surprisingly, men and women often gave similar answers about what they liked to do (hanging out with friends) and didn’t like (paying bills). But there were also a number of activities that produced very different reactions from the two sexes ― and one of them really stands out: Men apparently enjoy being with their parents, while women find time with their mom and dad to be slightly less pleasant than doing laundry.

Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist working with four psychologists on the time-use research team, figures that there is a simple explanation for the difference. For a woman, time with her parents often resembles work, whether it’s helping them pay bills or plan a family gathering. “For men, it tends to be sitting on the sofa and watching football with their dad,” said Mr. Krueger, who, when not crunching data, enjoys watching the New York Giants with his father.

This intriguing ― if unsettling ― finding is part of a larger story: there appears to be a growing happiness gap between men and women.

Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places.

Mr. Krueger, analyzing time-use studies over the last four decades, has found an even starker pattern. Since the 1960s, men have gradually cut back on activities they find unpleasant. They now work less and relax more.

Over the same span, women have replaced housework with paid work ― and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes.

These trends are reminiscent of the idea of “the second shift,” the name of a 1989 book by the sociologist Arlie Hochschild, arguing that modern women effectively had to hold down two jobs. The first shift was at the office, and the second at home.

But researchers who have looked at time-use data say the second-shift theory misses an important detail. Women are not actually working more than they were 30 or 40 years ago. They are instead doing different kinds of work. They’re spending more time on paid work and less on cleaning and cooking.

What has changed ― and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends ― is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short.

Mr. Krueger’s data, for instance, shows that the average time devoted to dusting has fallen significantly in recent decades. There haven’t been any dust-related technological breakthroughs, so houses are probably just dirtier than they used to be. I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s.

Ms. Stevenson was recently having drinks with a business school graduate who came up with a nice way of summarizing the problem. Her mother’s goals in life, the student said, were to have a beautiful garden, a well-kept house and well-adjusted children who did well in school. “I sort of want all those things, too,” the student said, as Ms. Stevenson recalled, “but I also want to have a great career and have an impact on the broader world.”

It’s telling that there is also a happiness gap between boys and girls in high school. As life has generally gotten better over the last generation ― less crime, longer-living grandparents and much cooler gadgets ― male high school seniors have gotten happier. About 25 percent say they are very satisfied with their lives, up from 16 percent in 1976. Roughly 22 percent of senior girls now give that answer, unchanged from the 1970s.

When Ms. Stevenson and I were talking last week about possible explanations, she mentioned her “hottie theory.” It’s based on an April article in this newspaper by Sara Rimer, about a group of incredibly impressive teenage girls in Newton, Mass. The girls were getting better grades than the boys, playing varsity sports, helping to run the student government and doing community service. Yet one girl who had gotten a perfect 2,400 on her college entrance exams noted that she and her friends still felt pressure to be “effortlessly hot.”

As Ms. Stevenson, who’s 36, said: “When I was in high school, it was clear being a hottie was the most important thing, and it’s not that it’s any less important today. It’s that other things have become more important. And, frankly, people spent a lot of time trying to be a hottie when I was in high school. So I don’t know where they find the time today.”

The two new papers ― Mr. Krueger’s will be published in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity and the Stevenson-Wolfers one is still in draft form ― are part of a burst of happiness research in recent years. There is no question that the research has its limitations. Happiness, of course, is highly subjective.

A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago ― despite far more discrimination ― is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then.

But it does show just how incomplete the gender revolution has been. Although women have flooded into the work force, American society hasn’t fully come to grips with the change. The United States still doesn’t have universal preschool, and, in contrast to other industrialized countries, there is no guaranteed paid leave for new parents.

Government policy isn’t the only problem, either. Inside of families, men still haven’t figured out how to shoulder their fair share of the household burden. Instead, we’re spending more time on the phone and in front of the television.

This weekend, I think I may volunteer to do a little dusting.
真是隔行如隔山,搞经济学的、社会学的、和新闻记者,统统都需要学一点生物统计,医学常识,epidemiology之类。虽然数据可能是对的,但是解释起来就开始想当然耳地找理由了。

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/pa ... piness.pdf

Posted: 2007-11-25 1:46
by
没明白,如果不想当然耳的找理由,如果懂了生物统计,医学常识,epidemiology之类,这数据应该怎么解释?

Posted: 2007-11-25 4:31
by CAVA
这篇文章给我一种缺乏论据,泛泛而谈的感觉,最终的论点也不新鲜。而且跟Economics有什么关系啊?

Posted: 2007-11-25 10:25
by Jun
不是我有更加可靠的“应该的解释”,而是我觉得好笑的是这一对经济学夫妻那么肯定就是妇女解放运动造成男女之间现代的微小的“happiness”差别。你看他们的原稿(链接中)就知道了。

从人群甲(70年代妇女)到人群乙(2007年妇女)的变化(self-assessed satisfaction),在其他一切条件相同之下,如果只有一个条件不同,那么这个唯一的条件才是罪魁祸首。在此案例,人群甲乙之间的差别多了去了,怎见得一口咬定就是妇女就业增加和社会地位提高?

跟医学和公共卫生不沾边的人,遇到这种课题想象力受到限制,我估计他们在找数据前就已经锁定“妇女解放运动”为解释一切变化的理由,数据出来就只在这个framework里打转转。医学和epidemiology里面见多了啥啥病的population prevalence change over time,人群现象和trends有很多可能的因素。

Off the top of my head, 我能立刻举出两个跟妇女解放不相干的原因:1. 2007年的美国人(和大多数其它国家人)比70年代人要肥胖很多。或许肥胖才是导致妇女幸福感下降的根源,因为男人虽然也比过去肥,但他们没有受到同样的body image压力。2. 2007年美国人群中得忧郁症的prevlance比三四十年前要高很多很多,过去几十年内,一直急速上升。而且我们从各个国家的数据中知道,得忧郁症的比例是女比男2比1。你去调查1500人到4500人的幸福程度,肯定撞上女比男多的临床忧郁症,如果不statistically account for这一因素,那平均数据肯定女比男低啊。

当然也可以把忧郁症的数据上升,尤其是女比男多一倍,归罪于妇女解放,但是我觉得不太可能。妇解运动在发达各国的贯彻和程度都不一样,但是忧郁症的发病率中男女比例却惊人的相似,基本上都是1比2,说明有生理因素在里面,而且发病率在男人中也是升高趋势,说明升高的趋势是全国性的到处都有。

70年代到现在,还有很多其他生理,健康,社会,和经济方面的巨大变动。一口咬定是因为妇女在工作等等,是想当然耳的。

在Freakonomics这本书里举的犯罪率下降的例子,所有的理论都集中在明显的直观的原因上:警察数目增加,监狱增加,法律更严苛,关起来的人更多。人的想象力有限,尤其是挖掘深埋的和时间长久的原因。

象这样的Academics玩票搞搞社会心理学,很可能会把自己的亲身经历和认识的局限带到解释general population上面去,他们缺乏认识的是广大人民群众的生活方式和处境可能跟他们大大的不同。在他们的中产阶级里肯定觉得现在的人民经济情况普遍比70年代强,但是随着美国贫富悬殊的程度拉大,在中底层的人民或许生活比过去更艰难,而我们知道女性收入比男人普遍低很多。

70年代跟现在的一个巨大差别是婚姻的变化。我可以跟你打赌,现在的单亲率比70年代要高很多倍,而且单亲抚养儿女的绝大多数是妈妈,而且他们的收入比男人低很多。当然你也可以把离婚和单亲率上升归罪到妇女解放头上,我却更倾向于把这个现象归罪于离婚法庭偏向父亲,判给单亲妈妈的补偿不够公平,以及追讨抚养费等等补偿不力。

就今年的人群统计数据还出来说,成年人中独居人比例第一次超过同居者。这又是一个可能的原因。

可能的原因多了去了,这俩经济学家一口咬定是妇女地位提高的错,还草率地要求public policy采取措施什么的,真让人害怕。。。

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:08
by tiffany
A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago ― despite far more discrimination ― is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then.
这话说得挺有道理啊。
不过也是因为经济原因吧?经济不好的时候,工作不好找,大家乃想起来妇女归家的事情了,只要广大妇女自己别给忽悠了就行。 :mrgreen:

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:17
by
这俩是夫妻俩么?男的是个大帅哥,一点不比明星逊色。放狗搜了一下那女的,可不漂亮。

文章我没全看,看了discussion,扫了一遍图表。貌似这文章主要是描述这么个事实,就是00年代女性的幸福感不如70年代高。描述事实的篇幅很大,跟分析原因沾边的只有figure 11和12,而且还不深入。比如从表格里能看出来yourself一项的满足感,女的比男的升高的少,但是并没有相关性的分析比如这跟收入,家庭组成,健康,等等,有没有关系。

作者挑70年代的数据来比较当然就是希望看妇女运动的作用,但是他没办法把别的因素的作用去掉,所也不能肯定这样的变化就是妇女运动造成的。所以从这些图出发,最后discussion里他给出了三条可能的解释,Jun提出的肥胖和抑郁症都能包括进他这三条的第一条里。另外两条的一个是人民对幸福的主观评价并不一定反应他们的客观幸福程度――这是虽然新但是已经被广泛接受的理论,例子是一个每个人觉得自己在人群中前百分之多少富的调查。最后一条才是妇女运动。妇女运动使得女性对自己生活质量和成就的预期提高了,所以她们更难感到幸福。这跟简单的说是“妇女地位提高的错”一样么?

另外跟government policy拉上关系,貌似是那报道的事儿,而且他们寻求的policy也是增加带薪产假,而不是让妇女回到70年代之前的厨房去。

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:19
by Knowing
放句狠话说:就算妇女普遍不幸福我也在乎,反正妇女解放我是受益者,不然我这种不爱做饭带孩子的假小子脾气得被憋死。

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:23
by

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:38
by tiffany
是,迄今在美国妇女中还没有听到妇女解放乃是对劳动妇女的双重压迫的调调,我要是个愤青,就该感慨还是美国人奸,知道到手的好处万万不能撒手的道理。可惜我老乃科学工作者,只能说也可能是因为跟人美国妇女交情不够深,没有聊到这个话题。

这个人长的也就一般嘛,也就一assistant professor嘛,我很unimpreseed的说。 :mrgreen:

Posted: 2007-11-25 12:47
by
还是小白您见多识广 :speechless001:

Posted: 2007-11-25 13:48
by Jun
我忘记在哪儿的报道里看到他俩是一对儿。

过去几年在医学和epidemiology里出现好几个大规模科学研究摆乌龙的例子,让我现在看什么都持怀疑态度。Naturalistic 的试验实在很难得出可靠的结论。一个轰动的例子是Women's Health Initiatives 对于更年期后补充雌性激素的问题,过去二十年靠了那么两三个大规模自然对照试验,一会儿发现补充好,一会儿发现补充不好,搞得几百万的人都吃激素,然后发现错了,吃激素让人得心脏病死掉的机会比防止骨折的更厉害。早先哪儿想到了啊。

最近又发现原来胆固醇跟心脏病的关系没那么紧密,大家这些年都使劲吃降血脂药,恐怕也是误解。。。这还都是比较中立的医学研究,没有什么preconceived bias 或者先下结论的研究呢。数据也比普通社会学心理学之类的研究要庞大很多很多倍。就这样还摆乌龙,更别提了。想当然耳地随便拉上关系甚至因果关系的结论让我很害怕的,一不小心就广为流传,以讹传讹,呼啦啦唬倒一大片。

钱多,社会地位高,同幸福满意感的确不是线性关系,这个在很多survey里都被反复证实。但是你让我因此安贫乐道不去追求更多的socioeconomics 好处,我也不干哪。。。

Posted: 2007-11-25 16:02
by 笑嘻嘻
这人真的长得一般,一张脸上小下大,显得有点傻。

那我是不是可以得出结论说00男性比70更有幸福感是因为妇女解放的缘故?因为他们比较的基础突然大了许多,而且这多出来的比较基础基本都比他们收入低。 :artist: 哇,我真聪明。 :frog:

Posted: 2007-11-25 16:22
by Jun
笑大你真聪明。 :super:

Posted: 2007-11-25 17:17
by Knowing
或者是因为男人现在不用年轻轻的结婚养家糊口了。搁了我也得觉的幸福。

Posted: 2007-11-25 20:28
by 豪情
和那时比没有征兵的危险, GAY可以出柜,也许也是原因?

Posted: 2007-11-25 22:47
by tiffany
说道吃激素那个研究,吃激素貌似/没有被证伪确乎对中老年女性骨质疏松有益,这个发现的乃是激素可能对心脏不好。吃药这个东西一向是有好处有坏处,总的来说,都是要看好处/坏处比的。
其实这个科学论文哈,不管哪一科,结论一般下的都比较谨慎,尤其是助教级别的,尚不敢乱说乱动。至于对于社会啊,舆论影响啊什么什么的,乃是记者报纸电视报道的时候一般比较喜欢抓眼球的题目,天大个帽子,下面没那么大头,其实。

Posted: 2007-11-25 23:20
by
哼我就觉得这种阳光型很帅!

Posted: 2007-11-26 0:04
by IF NOT
我怎么觉得大家把原文的意思读反了。作者没有任何贬低妇女解放的意思,相反,是在说妇女解放的还不够,光有工作了不行,还得颠覆很多传统中‘女人做的事’,比如家务,比如做‘hottie'。。。

文中观点固然没有经过充分论证,但是作为女性,我是很同意的。

Posted: 2007-11-26 3:10
by CAVA
女人对男人的要求不也高了?也许他们正偷偷郁闷呢。又要会赚钱,提供安全感,又要有情趣,还要勇于做家务,身材也要好。。。详情请参阅大多网络作品。

Posted: 2007-11-26 8:09
by Jun
其实这个科学论文哈,不管哪一科,结论一般下的都比较谨慎,尤其是助教级别的,尚不敢乱说乱动。至于对于社会啊,舆论影响啊什么什么的,乃是记者报纸电视报道的时候一般比较喜欢抓眼球的题目,天大个帽子,下面没那么大头,其实。
同意一半。在基础科学研究里,大家很明白而且习惯了自己研究项目和成果的局限性(一个蛋白也就是一个蛋白而已),所以下结论非常靠谱,非常谨慎。社科类,尤其是心理学什么的,一向就是极度sloppy的传统,大家看惯了天马行空的结论,同行也没科学界那么严格地进行批评和争论,学术气氛"宽松"。胡说八道无限扩大的倾向虽然没有新闻界那么厉害,相对于"真正的"科学还是差远了,经常有a theory in search of evidence的现象。

Posted: 2007-11-26 9:20
by ravaged
社科类的问题是过程不可复制,样本小而且研究对象和结论本身有互动的关系,但是我不同意学术气氛宽松这个说法。经济学就不说了,我知道的政治学和社会学这个世纪以来还是做了很多努力改进方法论,甚至到了矫枉过正的地步。我觉得学术界的局限很大,比如跨学科的研究很难归入现有的理论框架,但是说整个学科的态度不严肃就以偏概全了。the popular media would never cover the vast majority of research; only the controversial, easily accessible and politicized makes it.

公共政策这块是最政治化的,我觉得理论也相对薄弱一些,一部分是象你说的跨学科的知识比较少,另外也是太难摆脱价值考量。60年代有个著名的研究发现混合种族学校的学生成绩好,成为支持school desegregation/affirmative action的最有力证据。后来也发现它的结论有很多问题以至不成立,可是diversity本身的公平价值怎么算呢?对这类研究来说,可以说内容是次要的,政治角力才是主要的。

Posted: 2007-11-26 14:10
by atiti
社科类,尤其是心理学什么的,一向就是极度sloppy的传统,大家看惯了天马行空的结论,同行也没科学界那么严格地进行批评和争论,学术气氛"宽松"。
这个问题好像以前跟Jun讨论过,如果心理学不是有什么特指(譬如说你觉得cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, perception这些都不算心理学),就是泛指大学里面的psychology department的研究范围的话,那么不敢说之中没有某些研究方向是sloppy的,但是对整个领域下这个结论不能同意。

Posted: 2007-11-26 14:16
by tiffany
每个领域都有各自的传统和局限吧?

Posted: 2007-11-26 14:33
by Jun
当然对社会科学和心理学研究这些评价都是我自己的主观的个人的看法。经常可以看到心理学的发表文章和学术书籍里十几二十个人的试验,或者下让人疑心是wishful thinking的结论,或者没考虑到反证或confounding factors。总之还是很早期的科学研究的感觉。

Cognitive, behavioral psychology, neuropsychology, functional imaging, 我觉得是比较严谨的分类,有数据打底。学术界到现在还有专家宣传"回归"到原旨psychoanalysis,即Freud的初衷,让我真不知道说什么好。

Posted: 2007-11-26 16:57
by 幻儿
我觉得正相反呢。近些年心理学研究越来越偏重“生理学”方面,多数心理创伤最后都要找到生理上的脑损伤,快乐/痛苦都归于某种激素。纯粹“心理“/“精神“/“行为”意义上的研究占的比例越来越小。心理学界人士多数不满足于把心理学归到社科,都积极要把它变成hard science,因为这样才更有credibility,否则老显得神神道道的。不过,很多出现在大众面前的研究成果,已经由媒体作了各种编辑,看上去哗众取宠故作惊人之语而缺乏科学根据,可实际上并不是那样的。

学术论文有一个必要的部分是讨论drawbacks吧,可予人口实受人攻击的地方,作者一般都会未雨绸缪。像Jun讲的错误实在是太低级,发表出来的论文几乎不可能会犯的,这篇论文的作者也没有犯。可是这个错误又实在太难避免(世界上那么多因素,怎么可能一一排除),所以一般作者都会指出自己的方法的局限性,并提出改进办法。

这篇报道不尽不实,诸多臆测,而且很多段落分不清是记者的意思还是原文章作者的意思,也就是看个标题吧。