IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Job satisfaction and gender segregation


  • Keith A. Bender
  • Susan M. Donohue
  • John S. Heywood


Using data from the US, the determinants of overall job satisfaction are estimated as part of explaining 'the paradox of the contented female worker'. Confirming earlier studies women report higher job satisfaction than men and higher job satisfaction in workplaces dominated by women workers. The US data allow us to demonstrate that men and women value job flexibility differently and that once differences in the extent of job flexibility are accounted for, the gender composition of the workplace plays no role in determining the job satisfaction of women. Thus, women in female dominated workplaces may report higher job satisfaction because they value job flexibility and so choose to dominate the workplaces that provide job flexibility. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith A. Bender & Susan M. Donohue & John S. Heywood, 2005. "Job satisfaction and gender segregation," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(3), pages 479-496, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:57:y:2005:i:3:p:479-496

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:oup:oxecpp:v:57:y:2005:i:3:p:479-496. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.