IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i15p993-1002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sex differences in reports of illness and disability: A further test of the fixed role hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Marcus, Alfred C.
  • Seeman, Teresa E.
  • Telesky, Carol W.

Abstract

Data from a longitudinal study of adult health behavior (N = 1088) were used to test the 'fixed role' hypothesis as an explanation for sex differences in reports of illness and disability. According to this hypothesis, the traditional female excess in reported mobility is due to females having more flexible role obligations than men--thus making it easier for women to adopt the sick role. In this analysis, regression techniques were used to examine sex differentials in reports of both 'symptom episodes' and bed days, while controlling statistically for fixed roles such as employment status, head of household and % contribution to the total family income. Our findings showed that the three fixed role measures did not explain sex differences in reports of symptom episodes or total bed days (N = 1088). However, among people reporting at least one bed day (N = 503), such obligations did explain the female excess in reported bed days. These findings suggest that fixed role obligations may play a larger role in determining when to relinquish the sick role as opposed to its adoption. These analyses also suggest that role obligations associated with employment status have the major influence on such sick role behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus, Alfred C. & Seeman, Teresa E. & Telesky, Carol W., 1983. "Sex differences in reports of illness and disability: A further test of the fixed role hypothesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(15), pages 993-1002, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:15:p:993-1002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90402-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:15:p:993-1002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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