IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v59y2004i9p1925-1936.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender differences in the relationship of partner's social class to behavioural risk factors and social support in the Whitehall II study

Author

Listed:
  • Bartley, M
  • Martikainen, P
  • Shipley, M
  • Marmot, M

Abstract

In most countries health inequality in women appears to be greater when their socio-economic position is measured according to the occupation of male partners or spouses than the women's own occupations. Very few studies show social gradients in men's health according to the occupation of their female partners. This paper aims to explore the reasons for the differences in social inequality in cardiovascular disease between men and women by analysing the associations between own or spouses (or partners) socio-economic position and a set of risk factors for prevalent chronic diseases. Study participants were married or cohabiting London based civil servants included in the Whitehall II study. Socio-economic position of study participants was measured according to civil service grade; socio-economic position of the spouses and partners according to the Registrar General's social class schema. Risk factors were smoking, diet, exercise, alcohol consumption, and measures of social support. In no case was risk factor exposure more affected by the socio-economic position of a female partner than that of a male study participant. Wives' social class membership made no difference at all to the likelihood that male Whitehall participants were smokers, or took little exercise. Female participants' exercise and particularly smoking habit was, in contrast, related to their spouse's social class independently of their own grade of employment. Diet quality was affected equally by the socio-economic position of both male and female partners. Unlike the behavioural risk factors, the degree of social support reported by women participants was in general not strongly negatively affected by their husband or partner being in a less advantaged social class. However, non-employment in the husband or partner was associated with relatively lower levels of positive, and higher negative social support, while men with non-working wives or partners were unaffected. Studying gender differences in health inequality highlights some of the problems in health inequality research more broadly. We are brought face to face with the fact that the development of conceptual models that can be applied consistently to aetiology in both men and women are still at an early stage of development. Closer attention is needed to the different processes behind material power and 'emotional power' within the household when investigating gender differences in health and risk factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartley, M & Martikainen, P & Shipley, M & Marmot, M, 2004. "Gender differences in the relationship of partner's social class to behavioural risk factors and social support in the Whitehall II study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 1925-1936, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:9:p:1925-1936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(04)00098-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lei Jin & Felix Elwert & Jeremy Freese & Nicholas Christakis, 2010. "Preliminary evidence regarding the hypothesis that the sex ratio at sexual maturity may affect longevity in men," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(3), pages 579-586, August.
    2. Cleland, Verity & Ball, Kylie & Crawford, David, 2012. "Socioeconomic position and physical activity among women in Melbourne, Australia: Does the use of different socioeconomic indicators matter?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(10), pages 1578-1583.
    3. Gisselmann, Marit Dahlén, 2006. "The influence of maternal childhood and adulthood social class on the health of the infant," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1023-1033, August.
    4. Skalická, Vera & Kunst, Anton E., 2008. "Effects of spouses' socioeconomic characteristics on mortality among men and women in a Norwegian longitudinal study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 2035-2047, May.
    5. Adler, Nancy & Singh-Manoux, Archana & Schwartz, Joseph & Stewart, Judith & Matthews, Karen & Marmot, Michael G., 2008. "Social status and health: A comparison of British civil servants in Whitehall-II with European- and African-Americans in CARDIA," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(5), pages 1034-1045, March.
    6. Lisa Harryson & Mattias Strandh & Anne Hammarström, 2012. "Domestic Work and Psychological Distress−What Is the Importance of Relative Socioeconomic Position and Gender Inequality in the Couple Relationship?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-7, June.
    7. Zang, Emma & Zheng, Hui, 2018. "Does the sex ratio at sexual maturity affect men's later-life mortality risks? Evidence from historical China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 61-69.
    8. Nystedt, Paul, 2006. "Marital life course events and smoking behaviour in Sweden 1980-2000," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 1427-1442, March.
    9. Susan P Phillips & Anne Hammarström, 2011. "Relative Health Effects of Education, Socioeconomic Status and Domestic Gender Inequity in Sweden: A Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-6, June.
    10. Bartley, Mel & Head, Jenny & Stansfeld, Stephen, 2007. "Is attachment style a source of resilience against health inequalities at work?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 765-775, February.
    11. Dustin Brown & Robert Hummer & Mark Hayward, 2014. "The Importance of Spousal Education for the Self-Rated Health of Married Adults in the United States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 33(1), pages 127-151, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:59:y:2004:i:9:p:1925-1936. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.