1986 - Verburgge - Role Burdens and Physical Health of Women and Men

This article was downloaded by: [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY]
On: 15 March 2015, At: 14:29

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Women & Health

Publication details, including instructions
for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwah20
Role Burdens and Physical

Health of Women and Men
a
Lois M. Verbrugge PhD
a
Associate Research Scientist, Institute of
Gerontology, The University of Michigan
Published online: 02 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Lois M. Verbrugge PhD (1986) Role Burdens and Physical
Health of Women and Men, Women & Health, 11:1, 47-77, DOI: 10.1300/
J013v11n01_04
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J013v11n01_04
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.
Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by
Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use
of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 14:29 15 March 2015
Role Burdens and Physical Health
of Women and Men
Lois M. Verbrugge, PhD
ABSTRACT. This article looks at role burdens experienced by

women and men, asking if heavy burdens are linked with poor physi-
cal health status and frequent health care. The role burden variables
refer to job schedule, feelings about roles and life, time constraints
and pressures, family dependency, and levels of role involvement
and responsibility, The data source is the Health In Detroit Study,
which has health items from a retrospective interview and prospec-
tive health diaries. Results show that dissatisfaction with roles/life
and feelings of very great.or very little time pressure are associated
with poor health. To a lesser extent, very low or very high objective
time constraints, irregular and short job schedules, no or high family
dependency, and very low or very high income responsibility are
' linked with poor health. By contrast, having numerous roles is
associated with good health. Some of these results point toward
social causation (how the quantity and quality of roles influence
health) and others to social selection (how health influences role in-
volvements). The relationships are similar for women and men. But
women are more at risk of poor health because, more often than
men, they tend to have few roles (especially nonemployment), more
dissatisfaction with their main role and life, low time constraints,
low income responsibility, and irregular job schedules. In conclu-
sion, role burdens may lie more in subjective feelings about one's
activities than in their objective characteristics. Having low quality
roles may jeopardize health, whereas having numerous ones can
help maintain or enhance it.
The author is Associate Research Scientist at the Institute of Gerontology, 300 North In-
galls, The University of Michigan,.Ann Arbor, MI 48109. This article was presented at the
American Sociological Association meetings, Washington D.C., August 1985, and at the
conference Modern Woman: Managing Multiple Roles, Yale University, May 1984. Confer-
ence papers are forthcoming in F. Crosby ( 4 ) . Modem Woman: Managing the Dual Roles.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. The research was funded by a Research Grant
(MH29478) from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies, National Institute of Mental Health,
and facilitated by a Research Career Development Award (HDOM41) from the National In-
stitute of Child Health and Human Development. The author thanks Paul Cleary, Peggy
Thoits, and reviewers for their comments.
This article is dedicated to the author's father, Frank Verbrugge, who was an important
mentor for her and who died in 1985, far too soon.
Women &Health, Vol. 11(1), Spring 1986

O 1986 by The Haworth Press, Inc. ,411 rights reservcd. 47
48 WOMEN & HEALTH
INTRODUCTION
Social roles bring obligations and pressures to adult life, but also
resources and pleasures. Hypotheses about roles and health have
often emphasized the former, that is, how the duties and responsibil-
ities of adult roles increase stress and can diminish mental and phy-
sical health. The popular expectation has been that women with tri-
ple roles (employment, marriage, and parenthood) suffer poorer
health than their less involved peers. In fact, they have the best
health profile of all role groups. This has urged researchers to con-
sider also the positive aspects of role involvements, namely, how the
resources and supports secured through roles may help maintain or
even enhance health.

The full story of how role involvements affect health will need to
take both pressures and satisfactions into account. Real life roles en-
tail some of both. It is the balance between negative and positive
aspects of each role, and the subjective importance of one's roles,
that may be key determinants of health outcomes for individuals.
This article considers a few pieces of the large story. It looks at
aspects of job and family life that are ostensibly burdensome. Are
heavy role burdens associated with poor physical health status and
frequent health care? Are these relationships the same for women
and men? The role burden variables refer to job schedule, feelings
about roles and life, time constraints and pressures, family depen-
dency, and levels of role involvement and responsibility. Some of
them measure objective aspects of roles, and others subjective
aspects. The dependent variables measures health in two time
frames, based on a retrospective health interview and a prospective
health diary. This allows us to see if role burdens affect long term
and short term health in the same way.
The analysis is exploratory. It considers how role burdens one by
one are associated with physical health. The aim is to identify facets
of job and family roles that are detrimental to health or surprisingly
(contrary to hypothesis) propitious for health. The result can help
researchers choose items for studies that scrutinize more closely the
pressures, rewards, and value of adult roles.
RESEARCH REVIEW
Most research to date has been on how role occupancy (being em-
ployed or married or a parent) is related to health. Information on
Lois M. Verbnigge 49
how specific role characteristics are related to health is less abun-

dent.
ROLE OCCUPANCY
The relationship between employment and good physical health is

now well documented (Marcus and Seeman, 1981a; Marcus,
Seeman, and Telesky, 1983; Nathanson, 1980; Rice and Cugliani,
1979; Verbrugge, 1982a, 1983; Waldron, 1980; Welch and Booth,
1977; Woods and Hulka, 1979). So is the link between marriage and
good physical health (Gove and Hughes, 1979; Marcus and
Seeman, 1981b; Verbrugge, 1979a, 1982a). Parenthood also is

weakly associated with good health (Marcus and Seeman, 1981b;
Verbrugge, 1983). People with none of these key roles tend to have
the worst health profile. By contrast, people with multiple roles (a
mix of job and family roles), especially those who are employed
married parents, have the best health profiles (Hibbard and Pope,
1983; Verbrugge, 1983; Verbrugge and Madans, 1985; Welch and
Booth, 1977). .
Research about parenthood effects has sometimes considered the
number and ages of children. Typically, women only are studied.
The findings are variable but they aim toward these generalizations:
Women with no children or many children have more health prob-
lems than those with a few children (Haynes and Feinleib, 1980;
Muller, 1986; Woods and Hulka, 1979), and women with young
preschool children have more health problems and curative behav-
iors than those with older children (Geersten and Gray, 1970;
Thompson and Brown, 1980; Welch and Booth, 1977; Woods and
Hulka, 1979). These results are sometimes modified or even re-
versed for specific employment and marital statuses (see Muller,
1984).
ROLE CHARACTERISTICS
Structural characteristics of roles are objective aspects of the

tasks or positions. Research shows that the following are related to
poor health: low financial responsibility (Marcus and Seeman,
1981a; Marcus et al., 1983), having an ill child or ill spouse
(Muller, 1986; but Woods and Hulka, 1979, have some contrary ev-
50 WOMEN & HEALTH
idence), and high role density as measured by indexes about em-

ployment, marriage, numberlages of children, and illness of family
members (Thompson and Brown, 1980; Woods and Hulka, 1979).
Role quality depends on both subjective and objective aspects of
roles, such as marital satisfaction or frequency of social interaction
on the job. Empirical research shows the following are linked to
poor health: role dissatisfaction (Hauenstein, Kasl, and Harburg,
1977; Verbrugge, 1982b), few job changes (Haynes and Feinleib,
1980; but Hauenstein et al., 1977, have some contrary evidence),
little social support and integration at work (Hibbard and Pope,
1985), and having a nonsupportive boss (Haynes and Feinleib,
1980).
Finally, some personality characteristics such as suppression of

anger (Haynes, Feinleib, and Kennel, 1980) are associated with
poor health outcomes.
For further discussion of the research on role structure, role
quality, and personality links to health, see Haw (1982).
HYPOTHESES ABOUT ROLE BURDENS
Role burdens are pressures, demands, and dissatisfactions en-

countered in job and family roles. They can be objective or subjec-
tive, brief or enduring, occurring within a role or across roles. We
use the term role burden in a simple and inclusive way. Social
theory has delineated such concepts as role strain, role overload,
and role conflict, and they may underlie some of the specific bur-
dens studied here. The survey we use was not designed to study role
strain, etc. but instead more general aspects of roles and time.
Our role burden variables center on these potentially stressful as-
pects: unusual or long job schedules, dislike for one's joblhouse-
workllife, time constraints and feelings of time pressure, high family
dependency due to children or elderly members, and overall extent
of role commitments. Six hypotheses will be tested:
1. Jobholders with irregular or long schedules have poorer health

than those with conventional schedules.
2. People who dislike their roles or who are upset about life over-
all have poorer health than happier people.
Lois M.,
Verbrugge 51
3. People who have many objective time constraints each week or

who feel constantly time pressured have poorer health than
less pressured peers.
4. People with high family dependency, due to several preschool
children or many total dependents, have poorer health than
those with moderate dependency. Prior research on the same
data showed that parenthood per se is weakly associated with
good health (Verbrugge, 1983). This masks the great variation
in dependency that parents experience due to ages and number
of children. Now we look more closely at those aspects and
also at the number of elderly dependents. If Hypothesis 4 is
correct, we will sometimes see curvilinear patterns, so people
with no dependency and high dependency have poorer health

than those with a modest level.
5. The more numerous one's roles and greater one's role respon-
sibilities, the worse health is. We state this in the popular fash-
ion. However, research evidence is disproving it for mental
health (Spreitzer, Snyder, and Larson, 1979; Thoits, 1983),
and the same is likely to be true for physical health. Prior re-
search on the same data set looked at role combinations, that
is, which roles people have (Verbrugge, 1983). Now we con-
sider quantity indicators such as the number of roles and extent
of commitments.
6. Women and men are similar in how role burdens are related to
their health. If so, the results for Hypotheses 1-5 should be
similar for both sexes. Although the frequency of burdens may
differ for women and men, their impact on health might well
be the same.
Relationships between roles and health can come about in two

ways. On one hand, role burdens may increase stress for people and
ultimately provoke health problems. This is a social causation no-
tion-how aspects of roles influence health. On the other hand, poor
health reduces people's ability to enter roles or stay in them, and
thereby experience the associated burdens, while good health fosters
role involvements and accumulation of burdens. This is a social se-
lection notion-how health influences roles. In interpreting results,
we need to keep both processes in mind. We shall, in fact, find that
some results tally best with social causation and others with social
selection.
WOMEN & HEALTH
METHODS
Data Source
The data source is the Health In Detroit Study, a survey of white
adults (ages 18+) residing in the Detroit metropolitan area in Fall
1978. A multistage probability sample of households was selected.
In each household, one adult was chosen as the study respondent by
a random procedure. An Initial Interview was conducted at the
household covering such topics as current health status, health ac-
tions in the past year, health attitudes, life style behaviors, stress,
social roles, time constraints, and other sociodemographic informa-

tion. Following the interview, respondents kept Daily Health
Records for six weeks. Each day they answered questions about
their physical well-being, specific symptoms, curative and preven-
tive actions, mood, and special events. At the end of the six weeks, a
Termination Interview was conducted by telephone with questions
about health status, changes in health attitudes during the diary
period, and reactions to the diary task. More details about the study
design are in Verbrugge (1979b, 1980).
There are 714 respondents (412 women, 302 men) who com-
pleted an Initial Interview. Among them, 589 (346 women, 243
men) kept at least one week of Daily Health Records. This analysis
relies on information from the 714 interviews and 589 diaries.
Details about response rates and respondent selectivity are in
Vergbrugge (1980, 1984). Information for daily-keepers who quit
the study before the full six weeks is inflated to 42 days for this
analysis.
Variables
Dependent Variables
The term health is used here to encompass physical health status

and therapeutic health behaviors. From the large array of health
variables in the study, nine are analyzed. Five come from the Initial
Interview: self-rated health status, number of chronic condi-
tions/symptorns in the past year, number of restricted activity days
due to illnesslinjury in the past year, index of job limitations due to
health problems, and number of medications/treatrnents currently
used for chronic problems. Four come from the Daily Health
Lois M. Verbrugge 53
Records: daily physical feeling, and numbers of health problems ex-

perienced in six weeks, restricted activity days in six weeks, and
prescription drugs taken in six weeks. Coding details and averages
for these variables are in Table 2, Footnote a.
Predictor Variables
Twenty-six indicators of role burdens are 'studied. There are eight

items about job schedule for currently employed persons: regularity
of work hours (same hours each day), starting time, length of work
day, regularity of work week (same days each week), number of
weekend days worked, number of weekdays worked, and total work
days each week. Feelings about roles and life are in four items: feel-
ing about job (employed people), feeling about one's main role
whether that is a job or housework (everyone), feeling about both
roles (employed women), and rating of life in the past year, or
general well-being (everyone). There are five items on time con-
straints and pressures for everyone: number of hours of constrained
time per week, how often feel rushed, how often have time on
hands, if involved in too many things, and how often worn out at
day's end. Four items about f&ily dependency are for people under
age 65: number of own children in household. number of res school
ckldren in household (for parents), index of own child d&ndency
(for parents), and index of total dependency based on own children
plus elderly persons. Role involvements and responsibilities have
five items; number of roles (job, marriage, parenthood), number of
activities (includes volunteer work and other regularly scheduled ac-
tivities as well as the three roles just named), index of role respon-
sibility, income fraction (for people who worked in the past year),
and index of income burden (same). Coding details for these are in
Table 1 notes.
Sex is also treated as a predictor in the analysis.
Control Variables
There are four control variables. (1) Respondent's age appears.in

all models. (2) In models that predict health behaviors, we include a
control for morbidity. The specific item varies (for Initial Interview
items: number of chronic problems in the past year; for restricted
activity days in six weeks: number of symptomatic days in that
period; for drugs taken in six weeks: number of health problems in
WOMEN & HEALTH
that period). (3) In models with time constraintlpressure and family

dependency predictors, we control for employment status (currently
employed, nonemployed). Employed people have more time con-
straints and dependents than nonemployed people, so the role
burdens' solo effects are visible only with the control. (4) Occupa-
tional status determines many aspects of job schedule. We control
for it (upper white collar, lower white collar, upper blue collar,
lower blue collar) in models with job schedule predictors.
Procedures
Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) was used to estimate the

effects of predictors and controls on health (Andrews, Morgan,
Sonquist, and Klem, 1973). For MCA, all independent variables
must be categorical and the dependent variables must be interval
scaled. We condensed original scores of independent variables into
categories when necessary. All dependent variables were interval to
start with.
For each role burden predictor, three models were estimated:
(o)? = f[Age, Other Controls] Control Model

(l)Y = f[Age, Other Controls,
Sex, Role Burden] Main Effects Model
(2)q = f[Age, Other Controls,
Sex X Role Burden] Interaction Model
i e e l . n a r about r o l e s an0 l l t c
reel>ng a o o v ~ j o b d (A)
UnqvdllrlPd l l h
Ouallfm l>ie
Some I l k e l and lome d l r l l i e 5
O l i l ~ k r .~ l s d l .D ' u n q v d l .
F e e l l n g a l o v l main r o l e I j o o or h o u r e k o r k l e
U n q u d l l f ! e d like
odiilee ltir
some l ~ k r and l some 6 1 r l 1 k c r
O l s l ~ i e , w a l . 0'. u n w d l .
~ e e i ~ naaoui g b o t h r o l e i f ~ t r n o i ~ ~i o
e dm e n . ~ ~
O e f i n l t e l y l l t e both l l r o r e 21
M o s t l y l ~ r easln 111
o e f ~ n i t ~ dl yi t l r k e born ( 7 . 1 0 1
L r f e I " %sf yearlCenerd1 w e l l b e i n g 9

i e l r l b l e ~ I L O ~ 1-41
P
Good ( 7 - 8 )
wonderful I 1 0 1
i e c l ru5"ed1
AIw1y1
Often
Never
58 WOMEN & HEALTH
TJO~CI Icon,.)
Time 0,) handsJ

l l r r v r or O f t e n
Involved ~n t o o many Ih7nprk

100 "Mny
Just r19ni
Y W l d Ilk. more
Numbcr o f a c l l u i h e r ( j o b . s ~ ~ u l epa'ent.
.
U ~ I W rpgularly ~ r h r d u f ~
d <dt 1 ~ 1 t l e 5 ! ~
3
e l l tlve
Imp.
a S ~ g m f > c a n c ea f Chi-square f o r f u l l p e r c e n t a g e d i r t r i b u n o n (see N o t e r below).

N5 19 n o n l i g m f ~ c a n tI P 1 . 0 5 1 .
. I r ~1.05. '. I S P1.01.
b i e t t e r s e-F i n d i c a t e t h a t a rubxanple 1 5 used ~n a n a l r r ~ r o f t n r . r o l e bvraen v o r i r b l r . No l e t t e r

means I n a t a l l rerponeentr are i n c l u d e d .
c S e l e t t p d categories f o r the r o l e burden v a r i a b l e s a r e shown. F u l l p e r t m l a g e distdbut,ons are a v a i l a b l e
from t h e aumor.
d " P C O P ~ Cf e e l d a f f e r e n t l y about r n e i r j o b r . some look on t l t e l r Jobs ar j u s t ramerhing mcy have to 0 0 .
omerr mallye n j o y i h e i r JODI. HOW YOU! Aport from the m n e y , how do you f e e l about your j o b ? "
open-ended a n w e r r coded > " t o f > v e c a t e g a r l e r .
e 'Feeling about j o b i r u x d tor employed mn. ' e e l ~ n g obout housework 1 3 used f o r nonemnloyed women.
( . ' m ? f e r e n t p e o p l ~f e e l d ~ f i e r e n r ls~m u t taking r a r e o f a heme. I d o n ' t m a n r a h n g rare o f c n r l d r e n .
bur rh,ngr l i k e cooking, rer~ng,an6 keeping house. some people look on the3e ar l v r t a 3 0 1 t h d t has
10 be done; o t h e r p e o r l e r e a l l y e n j o y me. HOW do you f e e l about t h i r 7 " ) Employed wmcn were p r i e d
about D O L ~JOB and nourrvori an6 ~ h i r hwle more important t o them; t h e i r f e e l i n g about t h e mre Imoor-
t a n 1 r o l e Ir v i e d here. N m e w l o y e d men (n-16) are excluded: l h e l r f e e l i n g about nOuleuDrt was no1 a r t e a .
Lois M. Verbrugge
Table 1 i c 0 n f . l
Sumed i c a r e a for f e e l i n g about j o b and f e e l i n g about hourexork.
''Th<nk about y l v r IlfP d u r i n g the p a s t y e a r . On t h i s s c a l e f r o m I l o 10 where I means the warst l l f e

you c o u l d expect and 10 mnnr t h e b e s t l l t e you c o u l d expect. w h ~ r l >number would you g i v e your l t f e
I" rhc mrr year?"
TOC sum 0 5 hours p e r week wen: a! a p a i d j o b . commutlng t o and from J O D . d o ~ n gh o u r e h o l d c ~ l r e l / e r r s n d 5 /

c h i l d c a r e , v o l u n l c c r work, an, other r ~ g t l l a r l y scheduled a c : i u i f l e r *urn i r c l u b s and ~ p o r t r .
'DO you f e e l you a r e \ n v a l v r d i n t o 0 many t m n g s , o r would you ltte t o be i n v o l v e d i n more!"
.wow o f t e n a r c YOY r o m p l e t e i y worn oui rnen you are i l a ~ r h p dw i c n your ~ o r kor h o u r e h a ~ d t a s k s ! uavia
you say ~ t i s r w r y day. o f t e n , s o m e t ~ m e ~r,a r e l y , or never!"
Om c h i l d r e n are Lhc r e l p o n d e n f ' r by b l r t h o r a d o p t i o n .

For p a r e n t 5 Preschool 1 s under age 6.
For o a r e n r r .
.
Th? index a s v m e r t h a t young children r e g u ~ r emre rime and care ~ h a no l d e r ones. I f
w e l q n t r C h l l d r e n b y t h e i r age 8s f o i l o u r : [ I r no. p r e l r h o o l e r r l
+ [ I I no, teenagers r g c d 11-171.
12 r no. y o u n g i l c r s W e d 6:121
Based on own r h < l o r e n an0 o l d e r perronr a g e l 65.. not c o u n t i n g t h e respondent ~f h c l r h e i s 651.

The index dsivlnei f h a i o l d e r p e r s o n i r e q u i r e s i m i l a r tlme and c a r e a s teenage c h t l d r e n . lt is:
[own c h i l a dependency] t [no. o l d e r perron.1.
I ~ P last I f e m i s : ' A r e t h e r e any o t h e r t n l n g l on your r e e r l y schedule t h a t you do. I mean t h a l always

t a l e ram? o i Your fine, Ilk clubs, Church work, hobbies, e l < . ? "
The indea I r bared on employrent r t a t u r , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and f o t a l dependency. These a r e werghfed

t o r e f l e c t l e v r l o f c o m i t m e n t , Far e m p l o y w n r . f u l l t l m c i 3 5 t hours p e r * e e k l ~ l O , p a r t t i m e (20.34
h 0 ~ 1 1 1 = 7 ,p a r t time (under 20 h e u r r ) = l . n o t c u r r e n t l y employed=O. For m a r i t a l s t a r m . c u r r e n t l y
marrled.5, i ~ v ~ w n iqt h p a r t n e r o f olhrr sex-4. s e p a n t e d = l , d i v o r c e d - I . mdowed o r n e v e r m r r l e d - 0 .
r o f @ l dependency l r e e a b o v e ) w e ~ g h t r own c h i l d r e n and o l d e r p e r r o n r . The t h r e e components a r e i u m e d .
Percent o f m a 1 n o u r e h o l d income earned b y t h e respondent ~n the p a s t year.
r h c i n d e r afwmes f h a r Income b w d e n r l r e r * ~ t hh o u i e h o l d 1 1 2 e . I t n w i t i i l l i e l the lniow f r a c t i o n I t )

b y t h e no. o f people ~n the h o u A o l d .
Model 1 is used for Hvvotheses 1-5. We assess the effects of role

burdens by looking at pGerns of coefficients and the' increments in
RZ from Model 0 to 1. Readers will note that the R2 increment in-
cludes sex as well as a role burden. Test runs of various models
(with sex first then role burden; with role burden first then sex; with
numerous role burdens and also sex) showed that sex has very small
effects net of role burdens. Based on this, we chose Model 1 for the
full analysis because of its simplicity and basic symmetry with
Model 2, assured that sex was a small component of the R2 incre-
ment. All facets of this analysis have supported that conclusion.
In Model 2, Sex x Role Burden is a single variable which crosses
the two sex categories with the n role burden categories. It encom-
passes main plus interaction effects of the predictors. Model 2 is
used with Hypothesis 6. It the R2 increment from Model 1 to 2 is
significant, this signals that role burden effects differ for women and
60 WOMEN & HEALTH
men, and we must examine the MCA coefficients to locate the dif-
ference.
The three models were repeated for all nine dependent variables.
Altogether a total of 26 x 9 = 234 sets of Models 0-2 are evaluated
here.
In this analysis, the term effect refers to statistical relationships
between predictors and dependent variables, not to demonstrated
causal connections.
HOW DO WOMEN AND MEN DIFFER

IN THEIR ROLE BURDENS?
Women have lower role burdens than men in most objective

aspects of daily activities and time; namely, by shorter and fewer
work days for employed women, fewer time constraints each week,
fewer key roles and activities, and lower responsibility for household
income. But when subjective aspects are considered, women often
look more burdened by their roles and lives than men. They have
less satisfying lives in the past year and they like their main role a bit
less. Despite fewer objective time constraints, they feel just as time
pressured as men. And, employed women's greater tendency to
have irregular work days means more disruption of daily routines.
We now present the details. Table 1 shows the relative frequency
of role burdens by sex. in the summary below," is p < .01,* is
p < .05, and NS is nonsignificant (P 2 .05).
Job Schedule
Most employed women and men work the same hours each day,
so there is no sex difference in that schedule aspect (NS). But length
of work day does differ: Men tend to begin work earlier in the day
than women ("); the sexes are similar in their stopping times (NS).
Overall then, more men have long work days of 10 hours plus (").
Regularity of work days differs by sex; men tend to work the same
days each week, while women have more irregular schedules (").
More men work on the weekend (') and all five weekdays ("), mak-
ing their total number of work days greater than women's ("). A
key reason for women's shorter and less regular schedules is their
tendency to have part-time jobs (34%of employed women vs. 8%
of employed men).
Lois M. Verbrugge
Feelings About Roles and Life
Women and men differ slightly in their feelings about roles, and
much more in overall evaluations of life.
Working women like their jobs more often than working men do
(visible in Table 2 but NS). The men are not more dissatisfied; they
simply tend to have qualified positive and mixed feelings more
often. When homemakers are included and we ,consider feelings
about one's main role, whether that is a job or housework, the bal-
ance tips and men like their main activity a little more than women
do (visible but NS). Now women show more qualified positive or
mixed feelings. The shift occurs because homemakers are less en-
thusiastic about their work than employed men and women.

Employed women usually like housework less than their jobs. So
their combined feeling about both roles tends to be more muted than
about job alone.
Men view their lives in the past year as generally good, eschew-
ing very negative or very positive evaluations. By contrast, more
women view their lives in polar ways, as either terrible or wonder-
ful r*). On the average, women's general well-being is slightly
lower than men's.
Time Constraints and Pressures
In the Detroit survey, objective time constraints were measured

broadly to include time devoted to job, commuting, household
chores and childcare, volunteer work, and other regularly scheduled
activities. Men have more total time constraints each week than
women do ("), principally because of their greater job involvement
(job hours plus commuting). Women spend more time on household
chores and childcare. (On the issue of total work-at job plus at
home-the Detroit data tally with other time budget research
(Szalai, 1972): Employed women have the largest number of total
work hours, employed men are intermediate, and nonemployed
women have the fewest.) The sexes are similar in hours spent on
volunteer work and activities such as clubs and sports.
Nevertheless, feelings of time pressure are very similar for the
sexes. Men and women feel comparably rushed, devoid of idle
time, and worn out at the end of the day (all NS). Men are a little
more likely to feel involved in too many activities, while women
more often feel their number of activities is just right C). (For
62 WOMEN & HEALTH
women by employment status: Employed women feel more rushed

and have less idle time than nonemployed ones. Homemakers more
often yearn for additional activities in their lives. The two groups do
not differ in feeling worn out at day's end.)
Family Dependency
Dependency due to children and older persons at home is similar

for women and men. The number of own children, number of pre-
schoolers, and two dependency indexes are about the same for the
sexes (all NS). These items measure basic household structure and
responsibility, not caretaking activities for dependents (which do in-

deed differ for women and men; see Pleck and Rustad, 1980;
Szalai, 1972).
Role Znvolvements and Responsibilities
Men are much more likely to have the triple roles of job holder,
spouse, and parent than women are ("1. Women more often have
two roles (typically spouse plus parent) or none of the roles (mostly
older widows). Men's number of principal activities exceeds
women's ("), mostly because of greater employment rather than
differences in the other four activities. Role responsibility (as
measured by an index about employment, marriage, and family de-
pendency) is greater for men than for women r). Men have higher
responsibility for household income than women do: Among people
who worked in the past year, men have earned a much larger frac-
tion of household income C'). The majority earned 100%, whereas
the majority of women earned under 50%. Men's income burden
(an index based on income fraction and family dependency) is larger
(") due to the higher income fraction they earn.
HOW ARE THE CONTROLS AND SEX

RELATED TO HEALTH?
Control Variables
(1) As age increases, health status worsens and health problems

prompt more restricted activity, limitation, and drug use. Zero
order effects (eta2, the proportion of variation in Y explained by X)
range from ,023 to ,194 across the nine health measures. (2) Mor-
bidity propels curative health actions and causes limitations. The
link is strongly monotonic. Eta% range from .077 to .412; the high
value for current medications taken for chronic problems. (3)
Employed people have notably better health than nonemployed
ones. Fulltime employed people are healthiest, followed by part-
time workers, then by unemployed/laid off people, and lastly by
people not in the labor force. The key split is whether a person is
employed or not; this markedly separates good health adults from
poor health ones. The eta2srange from ,029 to .126. (4) As occupa-
tional status rises, health tends to be better. Upper white collar
workers have the best health profile, followed by lower white collar
ones, then by upper blue collar workers, and lastly by lower blue
collar ones. The relationship is consistent across the health items but
weak (eta2s range only from .007 to .017.)
These relationships concur with other studies. They persist clear-
ly in MCA coefficients of Models 0 and 1 (with the exception of oc-
cupational status whose initially weak links to health diminish fur-
ther).
Sex
Women show uniformly worse health than men in the zero order
differences: number of chronic problems in past year (4.52 for
women, 3.69 for men, **), number of current medications for chronic
problems (1.74, 1.00, "), daily physical feeling (3.02,2.74, '), and
numbers of health problems in six weeks (27.1, 17.1 "), restricted
activity days in six weeks (4.6, 3.3, *), and prescription drugs taken
in six weeks (26.0, 17.3, *). Nonsignificant differences aim in the
same direction: self-rated health status (2.10, 1.86, NS), number of
restricted activity days in past year (20.2, 17.4, NS), and job lirnita-
tions due to health problems (1.33, 1.28, NS). Despite the visual
size and frequent significance of these sex differences, eta% are
small (.001-.030) simply because the sex variable has just two
categories.
The situation changes greatly when controls are introduced.
Women tend to have precisely the characteristics that are linked to
poor health and more health actions; that is, they are slightly older
than men in the population, are employed much less often, and are
in lower status occupations. When these factors are controlled in
MCAs (Model 1, including morbidity for health behavior items),
64 WOMEN & HEALTH
the sex differences narrow greatly. In fact, they reverse for several
items and show more health troubles among men: Men have more
restricted activity days per year, more restricted activity in the six
week diary period, and more job limitations due to health problems.
This suggests that men have more serious health problems, though
less frequent ones, compared to women. In sum, when just a few
sociodemographic differences between the sexes are taken into ac-
count, women's poorer health situation fades and men show similar
or even worse health.
HOW ARE ROLE BURDENS RELATED

TO PHYSICAL HEALTH?
We assess the effects of role burdens net of controls and sex.

MCA coefficients were evaluated for all 234 Model 1's and are
summarized below. Selected MCAs are presented in Table 2 to il-
lustrate that summary. We emphasize the pattern of effects and their
consistency here, giving attention to statistical significance in the
next section.
Job Schedule
Job schedule effects are small but very consistent across the
MCAs. People with unusual or short schedules have poorer health
than other workers. Specifically, those with irregular hours (differ-
ent ones each day), irregular work weeks (different days each
week), no weekend days of work, and fewer total work days report
poorer health. People with poor health are conventional in just one
respect, being more likely to start their work day between 8 a. m.
and noon, while those with good health have more variable starting
time. Good health is also associated with late stopping time and long
work days. One predictor has no visible relationship to health; it is
number of weekdays worked. (These effects are controlled for age,
occupational status, sex, and where appropriate, morbidity.)
The results point towards a social selection explanation-that peo-
ple with poor health make accommodations in their job schedule,
while healthy people are able to have regular schedules and long
work days. A social causation explanation, that unusual job
schedules cause poor health, is plausible but less likely.
Lois M. Verbrugge
Feelings About Roles and Life
The effects are large and very consistent across the dependent
variables. They are all monotonic: The more people dislike their job
or main role, the poorer their health. This is especially clear for job
dislike. People who state any dislikes at all about their job tend to
have distinctly worse health than those who state just likes. For em-
ployed women, health declines as liking for the two roles of job plus
housework does. Women who definitely dislike both roles stand out
sharply, with much poorer health ,than the adjacent group who ex-
press mild dislike. Lastly, as general well-being in the past year
declines, health worsens sharply. (Effects are controlled for age,
employment status, sex, and where appropriate, morbidity.)

Social selection and social causation are both plausible here. Pw-
ple in poor health may become depressed about life and their roles,
which may have changed to accomodate the health problem. Alter-
natively, dissatisfaction with roles and life may affect health nega-
tively. The first explanation notes how somatic distress radiates to
mental distress, and the second to how mental distress radiates to
somatic distress. The link between role satisfaction and health is ex-
amined in more detail elsewhere (Verbrugge, 1982b).
Time Constmints and Pressures
Effects are moderate in size and consistency compared to other

predictors. Intriguing curvilinear patterns appear for three of the
five time variables: People with very few (0-24 hours) or very many
(70+) time constraints each week have poorer health than those
with moderate constraints. The same is true for people who never
feel rushed or always feel rushed, and for those who would like
more things to do or who feel involved in too many things.
Monotonic relationships appear for time on hands and worn out, so
that health worsens with increasing idle time and frequent fatigue at
day's end. (The effects are net of age, employment status, sex, and
where appropriate, morbidity.)
There are clues of both social causations and social selection
here. Very high time pressures, whether objective or subjective,
may harm health and propel extra health care for symptoms. This is
one pole of the curvilinear effects. In addition, people with poor
health drop out of activities and end up with few time constraints and
pressures. This is the other pole. Selection may also operate for time
66 WOMEN & HEALTH
on hands since illtinjured people who have reduced their comrnit-

ments have more idle time.
What about worn out? It is most likely a poor reflection of time
pressures, but instead a good one of health problems themselves.
The item has larger correlations with health status than with the
other four time items. (By contrast, those four time items have
larger intercorrelations than with health.) Further, in MCAs for
health status, worn out is the strongest independent variable, even
more than age and other controls. This is unusual (see coming sec-
tion on the relative importance of controls and role burdens). We
conclude that people with poor health tend to become fatigued, and
that is what the worn out item measures.
Family Dependency
The family dependency effects are small and less consistent than
for other predictors. (The preschool item is an exception, with pro-
nounced and quite uniform effects.) People with the lowest and
highest dependency burdens have the poorest physical health. For
all people under age 65, we find poorest health for those with no
+
children or 3 children, and for those with very low or very high
total dependency. Among just parents, we find poorest health for
those with 2 + preschoolers, and those with very high own child de-
pendency. (Effects are controlled for age, employment status, sex,
and where appropriate, morbidity .)
Underlying the cuwilinearity may be both social causation and
social selection. People with high dependency burdens feel more
pressure to earn income and must also spend more time caring for
others at home. Both factors might weaken their physical stamina
and lead to more morbidity and extra health care for symptoms. In
addition, people in poor health may be unable to have dependency
obligations so they find ways to avoid or relinquish them. Thus,
social causation could account for one end of the curvilinear effect
(the high end) and social selection the other (the low end).
Role Znvolvement and Responsibilities

The effects for role number and responsibility are large and very
consistent across the health variables. Income burdens have small
and inconsistent effects. (Effects are controlled for age, sex, and
where appropriate, morbidity .)
As role involvements increase, health improves. Specifically, as
Luis M. Verbrugge 67
the number of key roles, number of key activities, and overall role
responsibility diminish, health status worsens and health actions
become more frequent. The bottom group-with none of the three
roles, none of the five activities, and lowest role responsibil-
ity-stands out with especially poor health. There is no sign what-
soever of cuwilinearity here, that the group with most roles and
responsibilities suffers any health debit for being so involved.
The link between high role involvement and good health probably
comes from two processes. First, having several roles gives people
opportunities to express their diverse skills and also gives them ac-
cess to social supports, resources, and social stimulation. All of
these may be health enhancing (social causation). Second, people
with long term health problems cannot engage in numerous roles

and they make accommodations to do just the things they can man-
age comfortably (social selection).
For income burdens, there is a small tendency for people who
have earned very little (1-19%) or all (100%)of household income
to have poorer health than those who earned a moderate amount.
The income burden index is virtually unrelated to health, except for
the lowest group (low burden) who tend to have worse health than
others. (This lack of relationship is not surprising. We found cur-
vilinear effects for the component variables, income fraction and
family dependency. They become muddled when the items are
multiplied for the index, and only the bottom group with low values
on both retains an effect.) We suspect that people with low income
responsibility have health problems which limit their earning ability,
and also that some who earn all of household income may be stressed
by that high burden. Once again, both social selection and social
causation are plausible explanations for the observed results.
HOW IMPORTANT ARE ROLE BURDENS

IN PREDICTING HEALTH?
Evidence about importance of variables comes from R2, incre-
ments in R* across models, and betas (a measure of relative impor-
tance for each independent variable in a model; see Andrews et al.,
1973). Table 3 presents summary statistics for the entire analysis.
Prediction Strength
The R2s for Model 1, which includes controls and main effects of
sex and a role burden, range widely from .025 to .468. R2 is gener-
70 WOMEN & HEALTH
ally higher for the health behavior items because they are heavily af-
fected by morbidity, included as a control. The RZs are: ,379-,468
for current medications for chronic problems, .262-.361 for
restricted activity in six weeks, .208-.364for prescription drugs in
six weeks, and .214-.339for job limitations. (Restricted activity in
past year is an exception, with R2s from .080-.148. This may be due
to poor recall over a year period, which introduces high random
variation in the item.) Health status items generally have lower Rzs:
.031-.I92 for self-rated health status, .037-.I68 for chronic prob-
lems in past year, .025-.201 for daily physical feeling, and
.052-.092for health problems in six weeks.
R2 Increments
Increments in R* from Model 0 to Model 1, which adds in role

burdens, range from .001 to ,096. (An anomalous high value of
.I67 is noted in the Table.) Fifteen percent (36 of 234) of them are
statistically significant. The increments are typically larger and
more often significant for health status than health behaviors. Thus,
role burdens act mostly to spur morbidity and are lesser prods for
health care once a person is ill. This interpretation tallies with cur-
rent theories that life stresses-role burdens being some-are key
determinants of disease, while other psychosocial factors (attitudes
about physicians, access to care, etc.) are prominent determinants
of health actions taken for morbidity.
The Most Important Role Burdens
The results repeatedly point to level of role responsibility and

feelings about rolesflife as the most important role burdens for
health. Feelings of time pressure rank after that. Relatively little im-
pact comes from objective aspects of job and family life (time con-
straints, job schedule, family dependency, income responsibility).
These statements are limited, of course, to the 26 items in this
analysis.
This conclusion is supported in two ways. First, of the 36 signifi-
cant increments from Model 0 to Model 1: life in past year and worn
out each contribute 6; number of activities, 5; number of roles and
and role responsibility index, 4 each; feeling about job, 3; feeling
rushed, time on hands, and income fraction, 2 each; feeling about
main role and income burden, 1 each. The other role burden vari-
ables contribute no significant increments. (These increments in-

clude sex as well as role burdens, but sex is the smaller factor of the
two, as noted earlier and in the next section.) Second, in accord with
this, Model 1 coefficients are largest and most consistent for feel-
ings about roles and life, number of roles and activities, and index of
role responsibility. They are moderate in size and quite consistent
for time constraints and pressures. The other role burdens have
small or inconsistent effects.
Role Burdens Compared to the Controls and Sex

Ranking betas in the Model l's, we find: (1) Age is often the most
important determinant of health status, with employment status

next. For health behaviors, morbidity is understandably the top rank
predictor, employment status is second, and age has middle or low
;a&. Thus, although age is an important detehnant of morbidity,
it does not prod health actions much once morbidity is taken into ac-
count. (~cdu~ational status proves to be an unimportant control; used
only in models for employed persons, it takes low or middle ranks.)
(2) Role burdens typically have middle ranks just below the con-
trols. (3) Sex often has the smallest importance. Though there are
clear zero order sex differences in health, they are readily explained
by male-female differences in age, employment status, and role
burdens.
ARE ROLE BURDEN EFFECTS ON HEALTH THE SAME

FOR WOMEN AND MEN?
We assess this question by comparing Model 2 (Interaction) with

Model 1 (Main Effects). The results are extremely simple. Of the
234 tests for the RZ increment from Model 1 to 2, none is statistical-
ly significant. The increments are numerically very small, ranging
from .000to ,031 (Table 3). (Being so small, they prompted a
reviewer to ask if Model 2 was constructed properly; we assure
readers this is so.)
Thus, involvements in roles and pressures due to roles operate the
same way for women's and men's health in the Detroit data. There
is no evidence that burdens influence their physical health different-
ly, or that women and men change their responsibilities and role
feelings differently in the presence of poor health. Yet, a broad con-
R WOMEN 6 HEALTH
clusion that the processes of causation and selection for roles and
health are always similar for men and women is not warranted.
Other research suggests that social selection does differ (women
with serious health problems abandon employment more rapidly
than comparable men (Chirikos and Nickel, 1984; but see also
Brown and Rawlinson, 1977). We suspect there are more similari-
ties than differences in the processes, but that is a hypothesis which
needs more testing.
DO ROLE BURDENS AFFECT BOTH LONG

TERM AND SHORT TERM HEALTH?
For this analysis, we chose parallel health variables from the Ini-
tial Interview and the Daily Health Records on four topics: general
health status, symptomlcondition experience, restrictedllirnited ac-
tivity, and drug use. The results show that regardless of the time
frame, the role burden effects on a health outcome are similar in
sign, pattern, and relative importance.
We take this similarity as evidence that social causation is operat-
ing. The rationale is: (1) If selection were the principal process, it
would lead to nil or very weak relationships for the diary items and
stronger ones for the interview items. This is because health prob-
lems in a six week period are unlikely to make people alter their
basic roles and responsibilities; but that will occur for persistent
problems over the long run. So, finding similar effects points
toward causation, that role burdens trigger short term symptoms
(acute conditions and also flareups of chronic ones) and also contri-
bute to the development of chronic problems. (2) The role burden
items were measured before the diary health events occurred.
Parallel results in the before-after relationships (diary health) and
the cross section ones (interview health) imply that the role burdens
are causal factors.
This does not eliminate social selection as a factor in the results.
The point here is that we find some evidence that causal processes
are also at work.
CONCLUSIONS
How have the initial hypotheses about role burdens fared?
Hypothesis 1 receives partial support (irregular job schedules are
associated with poor health as hypothesized, but long work hours
and long work weeks are not); these effects are consistent but statis-
tically nonsignificant. Hypothesis 2 is supported, with some signifi-
cant effects. Hypothesis 3 has partial support (people with very low
as well as very high time constraintslpressures have worse health
than people with moderate ones), with some significant effects.
~ ~ ~ o t h4eis~weakly
is supported; effects are in the hypothesized
direction but are small and not significant statistically. Hypothesis 5
is not supported (health impro;es with increasing roie involve-
ments), and some of these effects are significant. Hypothesis 6 is
supported. Our conclusions will rely on both the consistency of pat-
terns and their statistical significance.
In rank order of strength, these factors are linked to poor health:
few roleslactivities and little role responsibility, dissatisfaction with

rolesllife, very few or very many time constraints and pressures, ir-
regular and short job schedules, no or high family dependency, and
very low or very high income responsibility. Possibly the most
interesting results are the curvilinear patterns for time con-
straintslpressures and also family dependency.
For all of these links, social selection and social causation are
probably both at work. Social selection can account for one pole of
curvilinear results. Poor health urges people to avoid or drop obliga-
tions and they end up with few time constraints, low income burden,
and low family dependency. Selection also resides in the monotonic
results. Poor health makes people upset about their roles and life and
it forces them to reduce their activities. Lastly, selection may large-
ly explain the link between health and short or irregular job
schedules, since health problems force people to reduce work in-
volvement and devise special schedules.
Social causation can account for the other pole of curvilinear
results. People with high time constraints and pressures, high in-
come burden, and high family dependency might lose some stamina
and experience more health troubles. Causation also reinforces the
monotonic results, producing the same differentials as selection.
Dissatisfied and inactive people may be more vulnerable to illness
and injury and also more likely to take curative actions for their
health problems. To a small extent, causation may operate in job
schedule results if irregular work hours and work days cause enough
stress to harm health.
We think this is a reasonable and parsimonious interpretation of
the results. On the causal side, it suggests that numerous roles and
activities, high role responsibilities, -satisfaction
- with roles, moder-
74 WOMEN & HEALTH
ate time pressures and time constraints, moderate responsibility for

dependents and household income may all bode well for health. The
most important factors are stated first.
Role burdens affect health status more than they do health behav-
iors. What does this mean? Taking the causal perspective, role
pressures and problems act mainly to increase people's vulnerability
to illness and diminish their physical well-being. Once people are
ill, role burdens are an additional small prod for health care. This
may occur because people with role pressures or inactivity have
more severe illnesses, because highly involved people want release
from their obligations, or because minimally involved people have
the time to devote to care. (And it could be that morbidity is not suf-
ficiently controlled in our MCAs, so the link between burdens and

behaviors is spurious. But the perpetual presence of the links using a
variety of morbidity controls suggests to us that they are real.)
Women and men differ in their role burdens but not in the health
outcomes of a given burden. Women are more at risk of poor health
from their roles and role feelings than men are. This is because
women tend to have fewer roles and activities (as measured here),
are less satisfied with their main role and life, have minimal time
constraints and minimal income responsibility more often, and have
less regular job schedules. Men are more at risk in only a few
respects: from maximal time constraints, overcommitment in activi-
ties, and maximal income responsibility. The sexes are equally at
risk from feelings of time pressure (with one exception just noted
for men), and from their family dependency burdens (as measured
here). The results show that men and women who experience a
given role burden tend to respond in the same way. Thus, women's
poorer physical health stems largely from their initial characteris-
tics-the kinds of role commitments and feelings they typically
have-not from greater physical responsiveness to risks.
Coming full circle, the results compel us to revise our notion of
just what role burdens are for adults. Burdens are not inherent in the
objective activities and responsibilities that adults have. Some of the
objective factors we studied have negligible effects on the health of
Detroit adults; others have very strong effects but in a positive
health-promoting direction. Instead, burdens reside in subjective
reactions to one's activities-from things like role dissatisfaction,
life unhappiness, and feelings of time pressure or idleness. To a
smaller extent, people with exceedingly great objective time con-
straints also suffer health debits. Most striking, we found no upper
Lois M. Verbnrgge 75
bound for the positive effect of role involvements and respon-

sibilities on health. It appears that inactivity, not high activity, puts
people at risk of health problems.
In sum, having plenty of roles and responsibilities may enhance
or maintain good health. But feelings of dissatisfaction and of high
time pressure put women and men at risk of diminished health. This
conclusion aligns with insightful theoretical work on how role ac-
cumulation can have very positive effects on well-being (Marks,
1977; Sieber, 1974; Thoits, 1983). The empirical results here imply
that it is perceived low quality of roles, not their high quantity, that
is a risk factor for poor health.
Some of the knotty questions that remain for research are: Is there
an upper bound to the number of key roles a person can have and
still enjoy health benefits? The array of roles studied here was
possibly too narrow to find such an upper bound. Are selection ef-
fects (how health influences roles) generally more powerful than
causal ones (how role involvements and attitudes influence health)?
What are the stresses of inactivity, and how do they exacerbate or
spur health problems?
Social issues also emerge. How can women become more satis-
fied about their activities? And how can they increase their formal
activities and commitments yet avoid extremely high time pres-
sures? How can men diminish their trouble with highly constrained
hours and their feelings of overcommitment? Not all of these chang-
es are up to individuals themselves as they strive for a good life, in-
cluding good health. Employers and spouses are important partners
in helping jobholders, wives, and husbands achieve the middle
ground of role obligations.
NOTE. For reasons of space, some analytic results are not shown in
the article: main effects (coefficients) for the Controls, and main ef-
fects for Role Burdens in all 234 Model 1's (Table 2 shows results
for 19). Readers may request additional statistics and more opera-
tional details about variables from the author.
REFERENCES
Andrews, F.M., Morgan, J.N., Sonquist, J.A., & Klem, L. (1973). Multiple classiJication
analysis. Second edition. Ann Arbor. MI: Institute for Social Research, The University
of Michigan.
Brown, J.S., & Rawlinson, M.E.(1977). Sex differences in sick role rejection and in work
performance following cardiac surgexy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 18.
276-292.
76 WOMEN & HEALTH
Chirikos, T.N.. & Nickel, J.L. (1984). Work disability from coronary bean disease in
women. Women and Health, 9, 55-74.
Geersten, H.R., &Gray, R.M. (1970). Familistic orientation and inclination toward adopt-
ing the sick role. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 638-646.
Gove. W.R., &Hughes, M. (1979). Possible causes of the apparent sex differences in phy-
sical health: An empirical investigation. American Sociological Review, 44, 126-146.
(See comments by Marcus and Seeman, 46, 119-123; Mechanic, 45, 513-514; and Ver-
bmgge, 45, 507-5 13.)
Hauenstein, L.S., Kasl. S.V., & Harburg, E. (1977). Work status, work satisfaction, and
blood pressure among married black and white women. Psychology of Women Quanerly,
1 . 334-339.
Haw, M.A. (1982). Women, work and stress: A review and agenda for the future. Journal
of Healrh and Social Behavior, 23, 132-144.
Haynes, S.G., & Feinleib, M. (1980). Women, work and coronary h e m disease: Prospec-
tive findings from the Framingham Heart Study. American Journal ofpublic Health. 70,
133-141.
Haynes, S.G., Feinleib, M., & Kannel, W.B. (1980). The relationship of psychological
factors to coronary heart disease in the Framingham S ~ d yPan . IU.American Journal of
Epidemiology. 111. 37-58.
Hibbard. J.H., & Pope, C.R. (1983). Gender roles, illness orientation and use of medical
services. Social Science and Medicine, 17. 129-137.
Hibbard, J.H., & Pope, C.R. (1985). Employment status, employment characteristics, and
women's health. Women and Healrh. 10. 59-77.
Marcus. A.C.. & Seeman, T.E. (1981a). Sex differences in repons of illness and disability:
A preliminary test of the 'fixed role obligations' hypothesis. Journal ofHealth and Social
Behavior, 22, 174-182.
Marcus, A.C., & Seeman, T.E. (1981b). Sex differences in health status: A reexamination
of the nurturant role hypothesis. American Sociological Review. 46, 119-123.
Marcus. A.C., Seeman, T.E., &Telesky, C.W. (1983). Sexdifferences in reports of illness
and disability: A further test of the fixed role hypothesis. Social Science and Medicine..
15, 993-1002.
Marks, S.R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and
commitment. American Sociological Review. 42, 921-936.
Muller, C. (1986). Health and Health Care of Employed Women and Homemakers: Family
Factors, Women andHealrh 11. (I), 1986.
Muller. C. (1986). Health and Health Care of Employed Adults: Occupation and Gender,
Women and Health 11, (I), 1986.
Nathanson, C.A. (1980). Social roles and health status among women: The significance of
employment. Sociul Science and Medicine. 14A, 463-471.
Pleck, J.H.. & Rustad, M. (1980). Husbands'and wives' rimes in family work andpaid work
in the 1975-76 study of rime use. Working Paper No. 63. Wellesley, MA: Center for
Research on Women, Wellesley Colle~e(02181).
Rice, D.P.. & Cugllmi, A S . (1979). ~ e a i t hstatusof American women. Proceedmgs afrhe
American Srarisrlcal Assnc~atron(Snciul Slarist~cvSecrion). 72-78. Washmgton. D.C.:
American Statistical Aswiation.
Sieber, S.D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review,
39, 567-578.
Spreitzer, E., Snyder, E.E., & Larson. D.L. (1979). Multiple roles and psychological
well-being. Sociological Focus. 12. 141-148.
Szalai, A. (Ed .). (1972). 7he use of'rime. The Hague: Mouton.
Thoits, P.A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and
test of the social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48, 174-187.
Thompson, M.K., & Brown, J.S. (1980). Feminine roles and variations in women's illness
behaviors. Pacipc Sociological Review, 23. 405-422.
&is M. Verbrugge 77
Verbmgge, L.M. (1979a). Marital Status and health. Journal of Marriage and the Fumily.
41, 267-285.
V e r b ~ g g e ,L.M. (197%). Female illness rates and illness behavior: Testing hypotheses
about sex differences in health. Women and Health. 4, 61-79.
Verbmgge, L.M. (1980). Health diaries. Medical Care, 18, 73-95.
Verbmgge, L.M. (1982a). Women's social roles and health. In P. Berman & E. Ramey
(Eds.), Women: A developmental perspective @p. 49-78). NlH Publ. No. 82-2298. Be-
thesda, MD.
Verbmgge. L.M. (1982b). Work satisfaction and physical health. Journal of Community
Health, 7,262-283.
V e r b ~ g g e L.M.
, (1983). Multiple roles and physical health of women and men. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior. 24, 16-30.
Verbrugge, L.M. (1984). Health diaries - Problems and solutions in study design. In C.F.
Camell& R.M. Groves (Eds.), Health survey research methods @p. 171-192). Research
Proceedings Series. DHHS Publ. No. PHS 84-3346. Rockville, MD.
Verbmgge, L.M., & Madans, 1.H. (1985). Social roles and health trends of American
women. Milbank Memoriul Fund Quanerly/Health and Society, 63(4), Fall issue.
Waldron, I. (1980). Employment and women's health: An analysis of causal relationships.
Internatio~lJournal of Health Services, 10. 435-454.
Welch. S., & Booth, A. (1977). Employment and health among married women with chil-
dren. Sex Roles, 3, 385-397.
Woods, N.F., & Hulka, B.S. (1979). Symptom reports and illness behavior among
employed women and homemakers. Journal of Community Healfh, 5 , 36-45.

1986 - Verburgge - Role Burdens and Physical Health of Women and Men

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1986 - Verburgge - Role Burdens and Physical Health of Women and Men

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY]

On: 15 March 2015, At: 14:29

Women & Health

Role Burdens and Physical

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J013v11n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of

ABSTRACT. This article looks at role burdens experienced by

Women &Health, Vol. 11(1), Spring 1986

even enhance health.

how specific role characteristics are related to health is less abun-

The relationship between employment and good physical health is

Seeman, 1981b; Verbrugge, 1979a, 1982a). Parenthood also is

Structural characteristics of roles are objective aspects of the

idence), and high role density as measured by indexes about em-

Finally, some personality characteristics such as suppression of

HYPOTHESES ABOUT ROLE BURDENS

Role burdens are pressures, demands, and dissatisfactions en-

1. Jobholders with irregular or long schedules have poorer health

3. People who have many objective time constraints each week or

with no dependency and high dependency have poorer health

Relationships between roles and health can come about in two

social roles, time constraints, and other sociodemographic informa-

The term health is used here to encompass physical health status

Records: daily physical feeling, and numbers of health problems ex-

Twenty-six indicators of role burdens are 'studied. There are eight

There are four control variables. (1) Respondent's age appears.in

that period). (3) In models with time constraintlpressure and family

Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) was used to estimate the

(o)? = f[Age, Other Controls] Control Model

L r f e I " %sf yearlCenerd1 w e l l b e i n g 9

Time 0,) handsJ

Involved ~n t o o many Ih7nprk

a S ~ g m f > c a n c ea f Chi-square f o r f u l l p e r c e n t a g e d i r t r i b u n o n (see N o t e r below).

b i e t t e r s e-F i n d i c a t e t h a t a rubxanple 1 5 used ~n a n a l r r ~ r o f t n r . r o l e bvraen v o r i r b l r . No l e t t e r

Sumed i c a r e a for f e e l i n g about j o b and f e e l i n g about hourexork.

''Th<nk about y l v r IlfP d u r i n g the p a s t y e a r . On t h i s s c a l e f r o m I l o 10 where I means the warst l l f e

TOC sum 0 5 hours p e r week wen: a! a p a i d j o b . commutlng t o and from J O D . d o ~ n gh o u r e h o l d c ~ l r e l / e r r s n d 5 /

'DO you f e e l you a r e \ n v a l v r d i n t o 0 many t m n g s , o r would you ltte t o be i n v o l v e d i n more!"

Om c h i l d r e n are Lhc r e l p o n d e n f ' r by b l r t h o r a d o p t i o n .

Based on own r h < l o r e n an0 o l d e r perronr a g e l 65.. not c o u n t i n g t h e respondent ~f h c l r h e i s 651.

I ~ P last I f e m i s : ' A r e t h e r e any o t h e r t n l n g l on your r e e r l y schedule t h a t you do. I mean t h a l always

The indea I r bared on employrent r t a t u r , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and f o t a l dependency. These a r e werghfed

Percent o f m a 1 n o u r e h o l d income earned b y t h e respondent ~n the p a s t year.

r h c i n d e r afwmes f h a r Income b w d e n r l r e r * ~ t hh o u i e h o l d 1 1 2 e . I t n w i t i i l l i e l the lniow f r a c t i o n I t )

Model 1 is used for Hvvotheses 1-5. We assess the effects of role

HOW DO WOMEN AND MEN DIFFER

Women have lower role burdens than men in most objective

Feelings About Roles and Life

thusiastic about their work than employed men and women.

Time Constraints and Pressures

In the Detroit survey, objective time constraints were measured

women by employment status: Employed women feel more rushed

Dependency due to children and older persons at home is similar

responsibility, not caretaking activities for dependents (which do in-

HOW ARE THE CONTROLS AND SEX

(1) As age increases, health status worsens and health problems

HOW ARE ROLE BURDENS RELATED

We assess the effects of role burdens net of controls and sex.

Feelings About Roles and Life

employment status, sex, and where appropriate, morbidity.)

Time Constmints and Pressures

Effects are moderate in size and consistency compared to other