The Differential Exposure Perspective

The differential exposure perspective suggests that gender is an exogenous variable that predicts workplace stressors. This perspective rests on the assumption that differences in the way men and women are socialized and the roles they are traditionally expected to inhabit in society influence their work (and nonwork) situations, which in turn exposes them to different types of stressors or to different levels of the same stressors (Jick & Mintz, Reference Jick and Mitz1985). For example, women might be more likely than men to experience stressors that are related to their upward career mobility as occupations associated with higher pay and greater opportunities for career advancement are often dominated by men (e.g., mechanical engineers are 91.3% male, surgeons are 73.7% male; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), while women are overrepresented in caregiving and administrative roles (e.g., nurses are 87.4% female, administrative assistants are 72.7% female; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021) that tend to offer fewer opportunities for upward mobility (Cohen, Reference Cohen2013; International Labour Organization, 2019; Stroh & Reilly, Reference Stroh, Reilly and Powell1999). Gender differences in the levels of the same stressors can stem from the fact that different occupations are associated with varying levels of work stressors. To the extent that these occupations are stratified by gender, it may appear there are gender differences in mean levels of work stressors when, in actuality, this relationship is due to characteristics of the types of occupations men and women tend to hold. For example, Mazzola et al. (Reference Mazzola, Schonfeld and Spector2011) found clerical workers (e.g., administrative staff) experience particularly high levels of stress in the form of low job control, while engineers tend to experience stress much more frequently in the form of underload (too few job demands). Given that there is a gender skew in each of these occupations, one could falsely draw the conclusion that women experience low job control, when in reality it is people in certain types of jobs, regardless of gender, who experience low job control.

The Psychological/Coping Perspective

The psychological/coping framework suggests that gender influences experiences of work stress not by influencing the type and frequency of stressors men and women experience, but instead through the way in which they cope with these stressors. In other words, gender acts as a moderator in the stress process, altering the strength of the relationship between a stressor and strain outcome. Two prevalent theories within this framework include gender socialization theory and role constraint theory. Although these two theories predict similar patterns of gender-based coping (that men generally use problem-focused coping and women generally use emotion-focused coping), they suggest that different mechanisms underlie coping differences between men and women (Narayanan et al., Reference Narayanan, Menon and Spector1999; Tamres et al., Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002).

Gender socialization theory (sometimes referred to as the socialization hypothesis or the dispositional hypothesis) proposes that men and women are socialized from a young age to cope with stressors in different ways. The theory suggests men are taught to deal with problems in an active manner and therefore tend to use problem-focused or action-oriented coping strategies (Tamres et al., Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002). On the other hand, because women are taught to be more passive and to engage with their emotions, they will tend to use socially or emotionally oriented coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, Reference Folkman and Lazarus1980).

Role constraint theory, which was first conceptualized (albeit informally) by Folkman and Lazarus (Reference Folkman and Lazarus1980) and later expanded by Rosario et al. (Reference Rosario, Shinn, Mørch and Huckabee1988), takes a slightly different approach. Gender socialization still influences coping behavior. However, this perspective argues that it primarily influences the types of jobs men and women hold, and these jobs are associated with different environments and situational factors that constrain the coping behaviors that are possible and/or acceptable in a given work context. According to this perspective, women have historically occupied jobs that lend themselves towards more emotion-focused coping, while men have historically occupied jobs in which problem-focused coping is more appropriate (Rosario et al., Reference Rosario, Shinn, Mørch and Huckabee1988). For example, an individual (most likely a woman) whose job is in childcare may have a greater tendency to use emotion-focused coping strategies at work as it may be futile to try to deal with the regular stressors associated with taking care of small children (e.g., tantrums) solely through problem-focused coping strategies. In contrast, in other types of jobs (i.e., those that tend to be male-dominated) such as consulting, it may be more effective to deal with stressors encountered on the job (e.g., delivering to clients on a tight timeline) with problem-focused coping. Role constraint theory would suggest that gender differences in coping strategies will persist to the degree that men and women are differentially represented in these two types of roles. Gender differences in coping should disappear as men and women engage in the same societal roles (i.e., are equally represented across professions) (Sigmon et al., Reference Sigmon, Stanton and Snyder1995).

Biological Sex Differences Perspective

The biological sex differences perspective postulates that males and females have biological differences in their reactivity at the neuroendocrine level. Specifically, this perspective emphasizes that by virtue of the levels of varying hormones in the male and female body or by direct genetic effects stemming from the X and Y chromosomes, there is a biologically determined difference in how the body deals with stressors. Although there is a large body of research on biological differences in stress reactivity in the medical and biological sciences (Kajantie & Phillips, Reference Kajantie and Phillips2006), the topic has not been studied extensively in the workplace context specifically. One issue in this area of research generally is that it is difficult to isolate the role of biological sex; measurable differences in physiological stress reactivity for men and women could be attributed to the different psychological or social factors they have experienced throughout life as a result of their sex.

Summary

Within the industrial-organizational literature, most of the research regarding gender differences in workplace stress has been guided by the differential exposure and psychological/coping perspectives. Relatively less attention has been paid to potential biological explanations that align with the biological sex differences perspective. However, it is important to note that, while generally studied independently, each of the perspectives covered are not mutually exclusive. Each proposes a different mechanism responsible for gender differences in workplace stress. Because these mechanisms impact the stress process at different stages – some directly influencing men and women’s exposure to stress, others influencing how individuals cope with and appraise stressful experiences, and still others influencing the body’s physiological reaction to stress – it is possible that several of these perspectives, taken together, could explain gender differences in the stressor–strain relationship.

Work–Family Conflict

Out of all the work-related stressors, gender differences are perhaps most frequently discussed and studied in the context of work–family conflict, a stressor that occurs when work and family are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, Reference Greenhaus and Beutell1985). This is not surprising given the historically gendered nature of social roles involved in the work and family domains. In this section, we discuss theoretical ideas put forth to explain gender differences in mean levels of work–family conflict specifically before diving into empirical analyses of mean differences as well as the veracity of these theoretical perspectives. First, it is important to note that work–family conflict can occur in two distinct directions – work-interference-with-family (WIF) and family-interference-with-work (FIW) – and most theories and research have focused on each direction distinctly.

The rational view (Gutek et al., Reference Gutek, Searle and Klepa1991) proposes that work–family conflict is largely due to the amount of time spent in a given domain; the more hours spent in a particular role, the higher the chance that conflict will occur. Because men tend to spend more time in the work domain, they should experience greater WIF than women. On the other hand, women should experience more FIW than men because they typically spend more time in the family domain. Alternatively, the sensitization perspective (also called the gender role view; Pleck, Reference Pleck1977, Reference Pleck1979) posits that males and females differentially value work and family roles in accordance with gender socialization processes. Gender norms suggest that in comparison to women, men’s identities are more closely tied to their work roles than to their family roles. Accordingly, men should place a greater value on the work role and be more sensitive to intrusions into this role, specifically FIW, because these intrusions pose a threat to a highly valued identity (Stryker, Reference Stryker1968, Reference Stryker1980). The inverse of these relationships is true for women, such that the family role is a highly valued and integral aspect of their self-concept so women would be expected to perceive and recall more instances of WIF.

According to the asymmetrical boundary perspective, women construct stronger boundaries around the family domain and subsequently experience less WIF than men, while men form stronger boundaries around the work domain, which would reduce the amount of FIW they experience in comparison to women (Pleck, Reference Pleck1977). However, other researchers have suggested women tend to have more permeable boundaries across all roles, and men are better able to separate their various life roles (Andrews & Bailyn, Reference Andrews, Bailyn and Hood1993; Crosby, Reference Crosby1991). This perspective is referred to as the male segmentation perspective and would suggest women experience greater WIF and FIW compared to men due to the weaker boundaries they form around both the work and family domains.

In summary, these perspectives often conflict and predict various patterns of gender differences. As a way to bring consensus to the field, Shockley et al. (Reference Shockley, Shen, DeNunzio, Arvan and Knudsen2017) used meta-analytic path analysis to test competing hypotheses based on the various theoretical perspectives described above. In line with the rational view, results indicated support for mediated models that suggested gender did relate to time spent in a given domain (work/family), which in turn related to WIF/FIW. There was also partial support for the asymmetrical boundary perspective in that gender (being female) related to stronger boundaries around family, which was associated with lower WIF. Counter to this theory, results revealed women also created stronger boundaries around the work domain, which was negatively related to FIW. The mediated models suggested no support for the sensitization nor the male segmentation perspective. However, these findings must be interpreted in light of the main effects. The overall effect sizes for gender differences in WIF and FIW were very small (rs = −.011 for WIF and −.015 for FIW). This was despite the fact that the rational view and the asymmetrical boundary perspective were supported and thus there should have been gender differences. It ultimately implies there are other unmeasured factors at play that have not been clearly implicated in work–family theory, essentially canceling out these effects.

Moreover, various work and family characteristics (e.g., part-time vs. full-time employees, parental status) can have a substantial impact on how one deals with work–family conflict and may vary systematically by gender. Thus, holding these characteristics constant within subsamples could alter the strengths of the gender–work–family conflict relationships. Accordingly, Shockley et al. (Reference Shockley, Shen, DeNunzio, Arvan and Knudsen2017) also tested for moderating variables that might alter the strengths of the relationships between WIF and FIW among various subgroups. While there were no gender differences in samples consisting of only full-time employees, they found evidence for several small effects in other subgroups. Among samples where men and women were employed in the same job (i.e., studies that included all people in the same occupation), there were no differences in FIW, but women experienced slightly more WIF than men. Parent-only samples, where family demands and gendered division of labor may be exacerbated due to the presence of children, only exhibited gender differences in FIW, such that mothers reported higher conflict than fathers. Among the last type of subgroup, samples of matched dual-earner couples (i.e., the men and women were a part of the same couple, allowing some family factors to be held constant), women reported slightly more FIW than men, but men reported slightly more WIF than women. Lastly, given arguments in the work–family literature that the broader social and cultural context can influence work–family experiences, Shockley and colleagues evaluated whether cultural values and publication date moderated their findings. However, neither cultural gender egalitarianism nor publication date was found to be a significant moderator of the relationships between gender and WIF or FIW.

What this comprehensive review of gender and work–family conflict suggests is that contrary to popular perception, men and women tend to experience similar levels of work–family conflict, with some situational factors causing slight variation in effect sizes. With that being said, we encourage readers to consider the manner in which work–family research is generally conducted and interpret the previous statement in light of this. The meta-analysis is only as strong as its primary studies and the manner in which work–family conflict is typically measured (through subjective Likert scales with questions such as “My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like”). The meta-analysis was not able to tease apart if gender socialization has caused men and women to interpret similar work–family conflict situations differently. For example, a woman and man might face very similar situations but respond differently when translating these experiences to a Likert scale response. Women are socialized to anticipate work–family conflict (Weer et al., Reference Weer, Greenhaus, Colakoglu and Foley2006) and may have become accustomed to it over time, distorting their perceptions of it. In that case, a woman might describe one situation as translating to “a fair amount” of work–family conflict, whereas a man would consider the same situation as representing “a great deal” of conflict. These response patterns would in turn distort any true differences. More nuanced research with different types of measurement is needed to test the veracity of these ideas. Episodic research where men and women report work–family conflict situations as they occur, describe them, and report their well-being reactions would be useful. Experimental research where men and women are exposed to similar work–family stressors and their reactions are measured could be enlightening as well.

The Nature of Work

Aspects of the job related to the demands and stress imposed on workers as well as employees’ abilities to control how they complete their work have been a point of focus throughout the literature. This is due in large part to the connections between job demands and job autonomy with one’s general physical and mental health (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Pike, McManus, Harris, Bebbington, Brugha, Jenkins, Meltzer, Weich and Stansfeld2012; Nixon et al., Reference Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Krueger and Spector2011). Researchers who have focused on gender differences in these specific job characteristics typically invoke the differential exposure perspective noted above, arguing that men and women’s tendencies to inhabit different types of jobs impact the nature of their work and their subsequent stress experiences.

Work Hours

A common source of work-related stress pertains to the amount of time one spends working. Working excessive hours detracts from the time spent in other life roles and activities and can negatively impact one’s physical and mental health (Wong et al., Reference Wong, Chan and Ngan2019). Despite women’s increasing participation in the labor force, many researchers continue to find evidence that, compared to men, women spend fewer hours in paid labor (e.g., Erosa et al., Reference Erosa, Fuster, Kambourov and Rogerson2017; Lozano et al., Reference Lozano, Hamplová and Bourdais2016). These findings can be attributed in part to differences in employment status (e.g., part-time vs. full-time), as women are much more likely than men to be employed part-time (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). However, even among full-time employees, women work fewer hours than men (Beckhusen, Reference Beckhusen2019; Haines et al., Reference Haines, Bilodeau, Demers, Marchand, Beauregard, Durand and Blanc2019). Additionally, even though women are more likely than men to take a second job, male multiple jobholders are more likely to be employed full-time across all jobs, whereas female multiple jobholders are more likely to be employed part-time across all jobs (Beckhusen, Reference Beckhusen2019). Men may average a higher number of work hours because they are more likely to work more overtime (Bolotnyy & Emanuel, Reference Bolotnyy and Emanuel2018; Li et al., Reference Li, Yang and Cho2006) or have employers who require longer hours (whether it be in the form of requiring a willingness to work overtime, unpredictable schedules, or constant availability; Grönlund & Öun, Reference Grönlund and Öun2018) compared to women.

Career Concerns

Changes in the nature of work and the broader composition of the workforce have prompted concerns regarding employees’ job prospects (Chui et al., Reference Chui, Manyika and Miremadi2016; Davis, Reference Davis2013). Such concerns can be studied in the context of job insecurity. There are two types of job insecurity: quantitative job insecurity, which reflects a threat to the continuity of the job itself, and qualitative job insecurity, which reflects a threat to the continuity of important features associated with the job (Hellgren et al., Reference Hellgren, Sverke and Isaksson1999). Recent comprehensive meta-analytic work did not find evidence for gender differences in mean levels of overall job insecurity, quantitative job insecurity, or qualitative job insecurity (Jiang et al., Reference Jiang, Xu and Wang2020; Keim et al., Reference Keim, Landis, Pierce and Earnest2014). In addition to investigating gender differences in mean levels of job insecurity, another major point of focus in this area of literature has been on gender differences in the reaction to job insecurity. Gender differences in the reaction to job insecurity stem from gender role theory. However, gender role ideologies would suggest there is not a straightforward influence of gender on one’s reaction to this stressor. The male gender role is strongly associated with employment and their role as a provider (Kimmel, Reference Kimmel1993, Reference Kimmel1996). Because men’s identities are so intertwined with work, it has been suggested that men should have a more negative response to job insecurity than women. However, men also tend to have greater occupational mobility and pay than women (Bukodi & Dex, Reference Bukodi and Dex2010; Graf et al., Reference Graf, Brown and Patten2019; Hughes, Reference Hughes2019). This could mean they perceive job insecurity as less distressing than women because men might be more financially secure or have more optimistic job prospects (see job dependence perspective; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, Reference Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt1984). Given these competing arguments, it is not surprising that evidence has been found for men having a stronger negative reaction to job insecurity (e.g., Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Chen, Chen and Chiang2005; Rugulies et al., Reference Li, Yang and Cho2006; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Lesage, Schmitz and Drapeau2008) and women having a stronger negative reaction (e.g., Rosenblatt et al., Reference Rosenblatt, Talmud and Ruvio1999; Rugulies et al., Reference Rugulies, Aust, Burr and Bültmann2008), as well as no gender differences in the response to job insecurity (e.g., Cheng & Chan, Reference Cheng and Chan2008; László et al., Reference László, Pikhart, Kopp, Bobak, Pajak, Malyutina, Salavecz and Marmot2010). Future research focused on identifying the factors that make one more or less vulnerable to the impact of job insecurity and the resources one utilizes to cope with job insecurity would be helpful in delineating these discrepant findings.

Gender Influences on the Relationship of Stressors with Strain and Well-Being Outcomes

Having reviewed the evidence for mean gender differences in specific work stressors, we now turn our attention to the various ways gender can influence the process through which stressors effectuate strain and well-being. There are several paths by which gender might influence this relationship: gender may influence how certain stressors are perceived, men and women may cope with the same stressors differently, or there may be sex differences in the biological response to stress.

Gender Differences in the Perception of Stressors

The basis for this argument is built primarily on gender socialization theory and the social roles that men and women are prescribed. This perspective argues that one’s experiences and expectations are so intertwined with the gendered nature of social roles that men and women react differently to workplace stressors (Bem, Reference Bem1981; Davis et al., Reference Davis, Burleson, Kruszewski, Contrada and Baum2011). Theoretically, this can manifest in a few ways. First, men are socialized to be tough and stoic, and reacting to stressors may be viewed as a sign of weakness or a threat to masculinity (e.g., Pleck, Reference Pleck1976; Vandello & Bosson, Reference Vandello and Bosson2013), especially when those stressors originate in the workplace, a traditionally masculine domain. On the other hand, women are socialized to be more expressive (Brody & Hall, Reference Brody, Hall, Lewis, Haviland-Jones and Barrett2008). As such, when examining self-report reactions to job stressors, we may see a stronger strain reaction in women compared to men. The main way researchers have tested this idea is by examining the moderating role of gender in the relationship between job stressors and strain reactions. Because of the variety of specific stressors as well as specific strain outcomes that have been examined, this literature is difficult to synthesize. However, some insights can be gleaned from meta-analytic work. Specifically, Fila et al. (Reference Fila, Purl and Griffeth2017) meta-analyzed the relationships between job demands (broadly defined to include numerous types of demands) and job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion and conducted subgroup analyses by gender. The trend was such that the relationships were stronger for women than men, suggesting women are more reactive to job demands; however, the statistical significance of this effect depended on how it was tested meta-analytically (overlapping confidence intervals vs. meta regression).

Second, men and women might perceive job stressors differently based on the stressors they are also experiencing in other life roles (Vagg et al., Reference Vagg, Spielberger and Wasala2002). In support of this, using a large sample of Swedes matched on occupational level, age, and parental status, Krantz et al. (Reference Krantz, Berntsson and Lundberg2005) found women’s physical health symptoms were best predicted by an interaction of conditions at work and at home (i.e., high workload in each role), whereas men’s physical health was best predicted by only work conditions. Similarly, also based on Swedish data, Boye (Reference Boye2010) found that time spent on housework explains part of the observed gender differences in psychological distress. In a less direct but nonetheless informative test of this idea, Backhans et al. (Reference Backhans, Lundberg and Månsdotter2007) found that as indicators of equality (i.e., similarity in percentage of men and women in part-time jobs, income similarity) increased in a given Swedish municipality, health outcomes for men and women also became more similar.

Third, women are socialized to be empathetic and nurturing, meaning they may place significant value on interpersonal relationships (Cross & Madson, Reference Cross and Madson1997; Stewart & Lykes, Reference Stewart and Lykes1985). Therefore, women may be more sensitive to interpersonal conflict in the workplace and subsequently report this particular stressor more often or as more distressing than men. On the other hand, men often ascribe to the male breadwinner role, which may provoke greater feelings of the associated “breadwinner burden” (Gerson, Reference Gerson1993; Gilbert, Reference Gilbert1985; Meisenbach, Reference Meisenbach2010). The breadwinner aspect of their identity would be threatened if they were unemployed, meaning men may perceive job insecurity, job loss, or lack of promotion as more stressful and experience more severe well-being outcomes compared to women. These findings are in line with gendered social norms which suggest men are primarily concerned with factors related to their provider role and ability to work, while women tend to focus on interpersonal relationships.

We highlight a few empirical studies that support these claims. In a qualitative study of types of stressors experienced by men and women in academia and sales (Narayanan et al., Reference Narayanan, Menon and Spector1999), women in both professions cited interpersonal conflict as the most frequent source of stress, and it was significantly higher than men’s reports of stressor frequency. For sales associates, men reported lack of reward and recognition as the biggest stressor and it was significantly higher than female sales associates’ reports. In a sample of police officers, Violanti et al. (Reference Violanti, Fekedulegn, Hartley, Charles, Andrew, Ma and Burchfiel2016) compared how stressful men and women perceived different stressors to be. Significant differences were observed for situations requiring use of force, insufficient manpower to adequately handle a job, fellow officers not doing their job, inadequate support by supervisor, and inadequate or poor-quality equipment. In all cases, female officers perceived these stressors are more distressing. Although not all deal with interpersonal situations, several do (i.e., the support-related topics). Lastly, as noted in the section on career concerns, there is some evidence that men may demonstrate a more negative reaction to unemployment (Artazcoz et al., Reference Artazcoz, Benach, Borrell and Cortes2004; Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Chen, Chen and Chiang2005; Rugulies et al., Reference Li, Yang and Cho2006; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Lesage, Schmitz and Drapeau2008). Interestingly, Gaunt and Benjamin (Reference Gaunt and Benjamin2007) extended this idea to also consider the gender ideology (the extent to which one endorses traditional gender roles) of men and women. They found the relationship between job insecurity and three types of stress were positive for egalitarian and traditional men as well as egalitarian-minded women. However, they were not significant for traditional women, potentially suggesting women with traditional gender role ideologies do not internalize their view as a breadwinner and thus are not as affected by threats to it.

Gender Differences in Coping

Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts that an individual makes in response to a stressor (Folkman & Lazarus, Reference Folkman and Lazarus1980). There are many different coping strategies one may choose from, but each strategy serves two main functions: “[to manage or alter] the person–environment relationship that is the source of stress (problem-focused coping) and [to regulate] stressful emotions (emotion-focused coping)” (Folkman & Lazarus, Reference Folkman and Lazarus1980, p. 223). When faced with a stressor, the selection of a particular coping strategy as well as the efficacy of that strategy can depend on individual and contextual characteristics (Edwards, Reference Edwards1992; Mauno & Rantanen, Reference Mauno and Rantanen2013; Nandkeolyar et al., Reference Nandkeolyar, Shaffer, Li, Ekkirala and Bagger2014). This suggests no one strategy is inherently more effective than another; rather, the efficacy of a strategy depends on the alignment between the demands imposed by the stressor and a combination of the coping strategy, the individual, and the situation (Edwards, Reference Edwards1992; Thoits, Reference Thoits1995).

In light of these complexities, gender has been proposed to be a relevant individual difference factor that could influence the coping process (Thoits, Reference Thoits1995). Subsequent gender differences in well-being might occur as a function of variation in coping styles and resources. As discussed at length in the section on theoretical perspectives, differences in coping styles may stem from the unique ways in which men and women are socialized to cope with stress (i.e., the gender socialization hypothesis; Pearlin & Schooler, Reference Pearlin and Schooler1978). Alternatively, gendered differences in coping behaviors may be due to the different social roles men and women occupy, which determine the stressors one experiences and constrain coping behaviors (i.e., the role constraint hypothesis; Folkman & Lazarus, Reference Folkman and Lazarus1980). Empirical evidence comparing the two perspectives has been quite mixed, as both have received support (Ptacek et al., Reference Ptacek, Smith and Dodge1994; Rosario et al., Reference Rosario, Shinn, Mørch and Huckabee1988; Sigmon et al., Reference Sigmon, Stanton and Snyder1995).

Crucial to this discussion is the precise nature of the questions being asked regarding gender differences in coping. Researchers have compared gender differences in men versus women’s absolute use of a particular type of coping strategy (e.g., women engage in more emotional support-seeking than do men). Alternatively, researchers have also compared within each gender how much a given coping strategy is used relative to other coping strategies (e.g., women tend to use emotional support-seeking more than they use avoidance coping). These are distinct questions that have sometimes been muddied in the literature.

As referenced above, Tamres et al. (Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002) aimed to address both types of comparison through meta-analysis (although notably this only includes studies published between 1990 and 2000) and primary studies. In the meta-analytic part of their study, Tamres et al. compared mean gender differences in the use of 17 different coping strategies. They found women used 11 of these strategies (active problem-focused, seeking instrumental social support, general problem-focused coping, seeking emotional social support, avoidance coping, positive reappraisal, rumination, wishful thinking, positive self-talk, seeking nonspecific support, and religion) more often than did men and found no significant differences in the other six (planning, denial, isolation, venting, self-blame, and exercise). This suggests women generally tend to engage in more coping, regardless of the type of coping, than do men.

Using a sample of college students and a sample of cardiac patients, Tamres et al. (Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002) also examined whether there were relative differences in the types of coping strategies used. To do so, they subtracted the mean coping score across all 17 types for each individual from the coping score on an individual dimension. Thus, higher scores meant that relative to all other types of coping, a person used that method more. A different pattern emerged than in the meta-analysis. In the student sample, they found men were more likely than women to use active coping, denial, and distraction relative to other strategies (i.e., these were the strategies of choice more for men than women), whereas women were more likely to use seeking instrumental and emotional support ahead of other strategies. In the cardiac patients, men were more likely than women to use active coping, relative to other strategies, whereas women were more likely to seek emotional support and use religion ahead of other strategies. Taken together, these findings suggest it is important to examine precisely how gender differences are assessed in relation to the exact question being asked when drawing conclusions.

Additionally, Tamres et al. (Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002) aimed to use meta-analytic data to speak to the gender socialization versus role constraint debate. To do so, they examined whether the nature of the stressor influenced the type of coping that men and women used, which would be indicative of role constraint theory. In some cases, there was support for this – women engaged in more coping when facing personal health and others’ health stressors. These are stressors that women may experience more than men. On the other hand, other stressors where we might expect differential exposure did not show gender differences in coping. Moreover, the authors also claim to find some support for the gender socialization perspective. Specifically, men were more likely than women to use avoidant and withdrawal strategies to cope with relationship issues and others’ health, which may speak to the fact that men generally feel pressure to adhere to the masculine gender role by using strategies that do not convey a sense of control loss. Ultimately, it seems it is difficult to truly disentangle these perspectives.

An additional point of focus in the coping literature has been on the role of social support. Social support has been conceptualized as three different types of support: instrumental, informational, and emotional support. Social support can originate from many different sources. Most relevant to this chapter is job support, or social support stemming from the work domain, and its impact on positive and negative indicators of employee well-being. It is commonly thought that women tend to have higher levels of job support and that job support has a more positive impact on well-being among women than among men. While some empirical evidence supports these ideas (Drummond et al., Reference Drummond, O’Driscoll, Brough, Kalliath, Siu, Timms and Riley2017; Haines et al., Reference Haines, Bilodeau, Demers, Marchand, Beauregard, Durand and Blanc2019; Olson & Shultz, Reference Olson and Shultz1994), evidence for mean gender differences in received job support is quite mixed, and apparent differences may be declining over time (Tausig et al., Reference Tausig, Fenwick, Sauter, Murphy, Corina, Perrewé and Ganster2004). In terms of coworker support, some researchers have noted higher mean levels among female employees (Hwang & Ramadoss, Reference Hwang and Ramadoss2017; Matijaš et al., Reference Matijaš, Merkaš and Brdovčak2018; Roxburgh, Reference Roxburgh1996; Thompson & Cavallaro, Reference Thompson and Cavallaro2007), while others have found no gender differences (Baruch-Feldman et al., Reference Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan and Schwartz2002; Haines et al., Reference Haines, Bilodeau, Demers, Marchand, Beauregard, Durand and Blanc2019; Li et al., Reference Li, Yang and Cho2006) or that men report higher levels of coworker support (Attell et al., Reference Attell, Kummerow Brown and Treiber2017; Ramadoss & Rajadhyaksha, Reference Ramadoss and Rajadhyaksha2012). Empirical findings on mean differences in supervisor support received has also been mixed but tends to favor either no gender differences (Baruch-Feldman et al., Reference Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan and Schwartz2002; Haines et al., Reference Haines, Bilodeau, Demers, Marchand, Beauregard, Durand and Blanc2019; Hwang & Ramadoss, Reference Hwang and Ramadoss2017; Li et al., Reference Li, Yang and Cho2006; Thompson & Cavallaro, Reference Thompson and Cavallaro2007) or that men encounter greater levels of supervisor support (Olson & Shultz, Reference Olson and Shultz1994; Ramadoss & Rajadhyaksha, Reference Ramadoss and Rajadhyaksha2012). However, there are apparent gender differences in the amount and types of support that are sought out (Tamres et al., Reference Tamres, Janicki and Helgeson2002). Compared to men, women tend to prefer to utilize support-seeking coping strategies more often than other coping behaviors. In particular, women are more likely to engage in emotional support-seeking behaviors.

Evidence regarding gender differences in the impact of job support on well-being have also been mixed and can vary widely according to the type and source of support as well as the well-being outcome of interest. For example, Perrewé and Carlson (Reference Perrewé, Carlson, Nelson and Burke2002) found job support was more positively related to work satisfaction among women than among men, while other researchers failed to find evidence that gender influenced the relationships between job support and burnout, satisfaction, productivity, and perceptions of the family environment (Baruch-Feldman et al., Reference Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Dayan and Schwartz2002; Thompson & Cavallaro, Reference Thompson and Cavallaro2007). These conflicting findings might be indicative of meaningful differences in the efficacy of job support depending on job characteristics as well as the type and source of support (Hwang & Ramadoss, Reference Hwang and Ramadoss2017; Vermeulen & Mustard, Reference Vermeulen and Mustard2000). As an example of this, Vermeulen and Mustard (Reference Vermeulen and Mustard2000) evaluated gender differences in the efficacy of social support across environments with varying levels of job control and psychological demands. They noted that in high strain (i.e., low job control and high psychological demands) and active (i.e., high job control and high psychological demands) work environments, a supportive work environment effectively mitigated psychological distress in women but not in men.

In summary, the question of whether there are gender differences in coping strategies is deceptively complex. In general, it appears that when compared to men, women tend to utilize more coping strategies overall. It is also clear that women engage in more support-seeking behaviors, particularly emotional support (see Greenglass, Reference Greenglass, Nelson and Burke2002, for a review). The assumed ideas involving men engaging in more problem-focused coping have not been generally supported meta-analytically in direct gender comparisons. However, there is some evidence that this may be the type of strategy men tend to use most, although women still use it in addition to other strategies. Beyond just examining gender differences in coping, what may be more informative in future work is to focus on whether there are gender differences in well-being because of differences in the usage of coping strategies. Said otherwise, are certain coping strategies more or less efficacious and does this efficacy differ by gender?

Sex-Based Differences in Biological Stress Reactions

Another consideration in understanding how stressor–strain relationships may be different for men and women is the role of biological sex. As touched upon earlier in our discussion of the biological sex differences perspective, research in the medical and biological sciences suggest there may be physiological differences in how men and women react to stress. Researchers have suggested that gender differences in the prevalence of stress-related diseases and disorders (e.g., hypertension, depression, anxiety) are likely, at least in part, due to these differences (Verma et al., Reference Verma, Balhara and Gupta2011). Below, we provide a general overview of the physiological stress process and describe a few studies from the small body of research that has examined gender differences in these processes in relation to the workplace.

In simplified terms, there are two neuroendocrine systems related to the stress response, the sympathetic adrenomedullary (SAM) system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis (Charmandari et al., Reference Charmandari, Tsigos and Chrousos2005; Koolhaas et al., Reference Koolhaas, Bartolomucci, Buwalda, de Boer, Flügge, Korte, Meerlo, Murison, Oliver, Palanza, Richter-Levin, Sgoifo, Steimer, Stiedl, van Dijk, Wohr and Fuchs2011). The SAM system is fast acting and responsible for the production of epinephrine and norepinephrine, catecholamines that are responsible for mobilizing energy in preparation for the “fight or flight” response to stressors. With the activation of these hormones comes associated increases in other physiological systems, including heart rate, blood pressure, and the galvanic skin response aimed at facilitating quick reactivity. The HPA axis also responds to stressors but is a much slower acting system and only responds when exposure is long term or more chronic. This system is responsible for triggering a biological process that ultimately triggers the adrenal release of cortisol, which facilitates energy to continue the fight or flight response. Researchers use indicators from this process, such as catecholamine levels, cortisol, blood pressure, heart rate, and galvanic skin response, to assess a participant’s stress reactivity (e.g., Eatough et al., Reference Eatough, Shockley and Yu2016).

Researchers have found some differences in physiological markers of stress in reaction to workplace stressors when comparing men and women. Frankenhaeuser et al. (Reference Frankenhaeuser, Lundberg, Fredrikson, Melin, Tuomisto, Myrsten, Hedman, Bergman-Losman and Wallin1989) measured blood pressure and norepinephrine levels, both indicators of stress, in male and female managers throughout the course of several days. Both male and female managers exhibited high blood pressure and norepinephrine during the day, but only for female managers did the levels remain high after work. This pattern was not observed on nonwork days. In a similar study, Lundberg and Frankenhaeuser (Reference Lundberg and Frankenhaeuser1999) found women had significantly higher norepinephrine levels during and after work, and men showed a quicker decline in the secretion of catecholamines after work. The authors attributed these differences to gender differences in responsibility for household duties; the women did not have the same opportunity to “unwind” as the men did.

There are considerably more studies, conducted both in lab and field settings, focused on cortisol. One review, which was not limited to work stressors, summarized the literature by stating that women appear more reactive to stressors involving social rejection, whereas men are more reactive to those that involve threats to achievement (Stroud et al., Reference Stroud, Salovey and Epel2002). In a study more specific to the workplace, Kunz-Ebrecht et al. (Reference Kunz-Ebrecht, Kirschbaum, Marmot and Steptoe2004) examined one type of cortisol reaction – the cortisol awakening response (the change in cortisol that occurs in the first hour after awakening from sleep, which is thought to capture the reactivity of the HPA axis) – and found results that paralleled those of Frankenhaeuser and colleagues noted above. Women exhibited a greater cortisol awakening response than men on workdays, but there were no gender differences on nonwork days. Interestingly, there are not marked gender differences in cortisol reactivity in young children, which further suggests these differences may be due to socialization and gender role fulfillment that tend to occur later in life, rather than a genetic predisposition based on X and Y chromosomes (cf. Theorell et al., Reference Theorell, Hammarström, Gustafsson, Hanson, Janlert and Westerlund2014).

Lastly, a study conducted on nonprofessional workers is worth mentioning. Persson et al. (Reference Persson, Hansen, Ohlsson, Balogh, Nordander and Ørbæk2009) focused on a small sample of 17 men and 20 women who were matched in terms of the precise tasks that were performed on the job (production work on an assembly line). They found no differences between men and women in any of the physiological indicators tested at the end of the day (cortisol, adrenaline, noradrenaline, and heart functioning). Thus, this study suggests there do not seem to be marked gender differences in reactivity stemming from tasks that are physical and routine, although this study did not measure reactivity in the evening to determine longer-term effects.

The results summarized above should be interpreted with a few caveats. First, some of these studies were conducted several decades ago, and the extent to which they replicate in the modern world of work and gender roles is unclear. Additionally, as with other areas of inquiry, isolating the biological role of sex is challenging given the number of covariates that must be taken into account. With research involving biomarkers, this is also made more challenging by methodological concerns. For example, eating, smoking habits, BMI, and even the hormonal status of study participants (e.g., phase of menstrual cycle) can impact physiological measurements, and perfect participant compliance with data collection procedures is challenging (e.g., Kudielka & Kirschbaum, Reference Kudielka and Kirschbaum2005). Nonetheless, isolating physiological reactions from subjective self-report reactions is an area we see as worthy of inquiry and one likely to continue to expand in the future with the advent of increasingly affordable and ambulatory measurement devices (cf. Eatough et al., Reference Eatough, Shockley and Yu2016).