Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
peter J sloane2000, Labour
visibility
…
description
29 pages
link
1 file
This paper examines sex differences in job satisfaction by utilizing data from the 1986 UK Social and Economic Life Initiative (SCELI) household survey. It attempts to ascertain the relationship between actual and comparison pay and job satisfaction. Employees were asked on a 0 ± 10 scale how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their present job. They were also asked to state whether they were equitably, over or underpaid and to say how much pay they thought they deserved. Uniquely, therefore, we are able to analyse the effects of both actual and objective and subjective comparative pay measures on job satisfaction. The paper rejects the view that the higher expressed job satisfaction of women represents an innate difference rather than the results of self-selection into jobs with highly valued attributes.
Related papers
Cross-National Analysis of Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014
Research over the past two decades has found significant gender differences in subjective job satisfaction, with the result that women report greater satisfaction than men in some countries. This paper examines the so-called "gender paradox" using data from the European Social Survey for a subset of fourteen countries in the European Union. We focus on the hypothesis that women place higher values on certain work characteristics than men, which explains the observed differential. Using estimates from Probit and ordered Probit models, we conduct standard Blinder-Oaxaca decompositions to estimate the impact that differential valuations of characteristics have on the gender difference in self-reported job satisfaction. The results indicate that females continue to report higher levels of job satisfaction than do men in some countries, and the difference remains even after controlling for a wide range of personal and job characteristics and working conditions. The decompositions suggest that a relatively small share of the gender differential is attributable to gender differences in the weights placed on working conditions in most countries. Rather, gender differences in job characteristics contribute relatively more to explaining the gender-job satisfaction differential.
Job Satisfaction and Gender: Evidence From Australia
This paper investigates six different aspects of job satisfaction by gender over a four year period in the Australian labour market using the HILDA panel dataset. We find females to be more satisfied with five of the six job satisfaction measures, and to be statistically just as satisfied with males for the sixth (flexibility). Running gender separated random effects ordered probit models, we report that gender differences with different aspects of job satisfaction can be partially explained by both personal and labour market characteristics. In particular, job satisfaction for females is far less influenced by past labour market participation compared to males. Differences in workplace characteristics are less pronounced though unionised females are less satisfied at work compared to non-unionised females; a finding far less pronounced for males.
Gender and job satisfaction in OECD countries
Economics and Business Letters
Gender differences in labour market outcomes are frequently reported. Earlier findings on associations of job satisfaction and gender reveal mixed results. Majority of empirical results indicate that women report higher levels of job satisfaction than men whereas others find no gender differences in job satisfaction. This study explores gender differences in job satisfaction by utilizing the Survey of Adult Skills for OECD countries. Employing the Balanced Worth Vector (BWV) procedure for data analysis, this study contributes to literature by presenting additional cross-national evidence from various regions of the world. Our findings reveal that there are heterogeneities in gender-gap paradox of job satisfaction across OECD countries.
Is Women's Job Satisfaction Higher than Men's? Self-Selection, Expectations or Utility Function
Acta Oeconomica
This paper examines the paradox between high relative levels of job satisfaction and the characteristics of women's jobs compared to men's in Spain. Three hypothesis are considered: i) the existence of a selection bias when participating in the labour market; ii) of the presence of adaptive job satisfaction; and iii) the existence of differences related to preferences of different nature to strictly labour issues. The study shows that, although having lower working conditions, women are more likely to be satisfied at work than men are. This paradox persists regardless of the inclusion of a great range of variables of different nature (objective and subjective), the age group and educational level under consideration. The Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition suggests that women's preferences are actually influencing the differences in job satisfaction. However, it is not demonstrated that these differences disappear as age decreases or educational level increases. The probable ex...
Low Pay, Higher Pay, Earnings Mobility and Job Satisfaction in Britain
Minimum Wages, Low Pay and Unemployment, 2004
Increasingly in the European Union low paid employment and job quality have become important policy issues. Recently job satisfaction has been used as a proxy for job quality. This paper uses the British Household Panel Study (BHPS) from 1991 to 1997 to explore further these issues. First we define low pay using the two thirds of the median classification and examine the levels of overall job and pay satisfaction for the lower and higher paid groups by gender. Given the importance of comparative income measures in the literature this paper focuses both on the actual level of pay and comparison pay, which is derived from a nationally representative sample in the New Earnings Survey. Second, we use a randomeffects estimator to deal with problems of individual heterogeneity in the sample. Third we explain changes in job satisfaction by changes in pay and other individual and industrial characteristics. The paper has particular relevance to current policy issues. For instance, if low paid workers generally have high levels of job satisfaction this casts doubt on the suggestion that low paid jobs are invariably of low quality. The results suggest surprisingly that there is no clear evidence that higher paid workers have higher job satisfaction than lower paid workers. This is particularly the case for women, which may be in accord with the compensating differentials theory as opposed to good jobs versus bad jobs view of the labour market. But it also emphasises that pay is not everything. This implication is reinforced when we consider mobility from low to higher paid jobs and vice versa. It is by no means always the case that moving from a lower paid to a higher paid job leads to increases in job satisfaction.
Measurement Invariance of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire Across GenderExplaining the ‘‘Contented Female Worker Paradox’’ More Thoroughly
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2009
In recent years, pay satisfaction has been increasingly studied in an international context, prompting the importance of examining whether the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) is invariant across countries other than the United States. This study investigated the measurement invariance across three countries, namely, the United States (N ¼ 321), Belgium (N ¼ 301), and Cyprus (N ¼ 132). Results showed that the measurement structure of the PSQ was invariant across these different countries because there was no departure from measurement invariance in terms of factor form, factor pattern coefficients, factor variances, and factor covariances. These results show promise for the equivalence of PSQ ratings across different countries. Future research is needed to test the equivalence further across other countries and samples.
Pay Level Comparisons in Job Satisfaction Research and Mainstream Economic Methodology
Although social scientists have been investigating the nature and impact of job satisfaction for many decades, economists only started to investigate job satisfaction systematically in the late 1980’s. Almost from the first systematic studies of job satisfaction by economists, the research potential of the notion of pay level comparisons was realized. The idea of pay level comparisons in job satisfaction has proven particularly useful also because it has important implications for a number of standard theoretical and economic policy results. However, the inclusion of the variable of comparison wage in job satisfaction and the resulting supporting empirical findings, are in sharp contrast to the orthodox approach, given that in mainstream economic theory an individuals’ utility is assumed to be a function of absolute income only. Despite the important theoretical and policy implications, mainstream economic theory has not paid much heed to the job satisfaction conceptual formulations and empirical findings. The paper argues that there are methodological reasons for this state of affairs which seem to be linked to the subjective well-being research in general, and to the job satisfaction literature in particular. A strong mistrust against the method of stated preferences and the inherent methodological bias against the integration of psychological findings, are suggested as the two prime reasons. Although a few prominent figures in job satisfaction research have realized the mainstream methodological attitude, it is necessary that job satisfaction specialists should consider more seriously the basic components of mainstream economic methodology that relate to their research field.
Women, Income and Job Satisfaction: The Women Speaks
Nile Journal of Business and Economics, 2017
Debate about gender discrimination in public and private offices is far from been over as it remains topical. Women occupy important positions in the society and socioeconomic realm especially the informal sector. Little number of highly skilled women competes with men for jobs in order to ensure regular income and other to achieve different home survival strategies, or to meet their obligations in women-headed households. Consequently, this study investigates the level of satisfaction of carrier women in terms of the job and its income. Using survey method, the study seeks to know the degree of gender discrimination in terms of income, nature of job, sex, sexual abuse and how these are affecting women"s job satisfaction. The found that whether pay inequality exist or not it does not affect women"s level of job satisfaction. It also found that 45 percent of them have been exposed to a form of sexual harassment.
Measurement invariance of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire: explaining the ‘contented female worker paradox’ more thoroughly
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2009
In recent years, pay satisfaction has been increasingly studied in an international context, prompting the importance of examining whether the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) is invariant across countries other than the United States. This study investigated the measurement invariance across three countries, namely, the United States (N ¼ 321), Belgium (N ¼ 301), and Cyprus (N ¼ 132). Results showed that the measurement structure of the PSQ was invariant across these different countries because there was no departure from measurement invariance in terms of factor form, factor pattern coefficients, factor variances, and factor covariances. These results show promise for the equivalence of PSQ ratings across different countries. Future research is needed to test the equivalence further across other countries and samples.
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and
Gender
P. J. Sloane ± H. Williams
Abstract. ! ! ! " #
! ! $%& '( ) * + , ! ! - .)/*+,0
- ,! !!! ! ! ! ! !1 !
! ! * 1 2 1 !
! ! 1 1 ! ! ! 1 ! !! 1!
! 1 3 ! 4 - ! 1 ! !#!
! - ' 34 ! 4 1 ! ! ! !
! ! - ! - ! - ! !
! ! - 1 !! ! # ! ! 1
! ! ! ! ! ! 5 ! !
1 ! # - !! !
1. Introduction
6 5 # ! -
! !
! 4 ! 4 ! ! ! !4 -
!! ! 7 . $8%0 ## ! !! ! #! !
! 1! ! - - 4
4 !! ! ! - ! ! 9! !
! ! - !! ! ! 1 !
@ ) 2 C 6 4 D!! * 4 ' - ! : 4
*1 6 #! ; #4 D )!!4 : :; E94 '( F
.0 8 &&G 7 F .0 8 %
@ ) @ @ ! * 4 H @ D
! 7 ! ) ) +14 C 6 4 / ! #
* !4 : ' - ! @! * / !!
.:'@*/0 ! #! ! ( ! ;4 :1 /4 @
)4 , 4 ! ! ! 6 14 )! :1
H ! ' - ! !
+:;<'= .0 82 > .0
*+ &4 %4 8
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +! 4 % /1 =4 < <A 74 '(
> B )!!4 B4 B: %4 '):
8
@ ) 2 C 6
- ! - ! !
. 4 ! 4 ; 4 $8$G 74 $8%G C 4
$880
! #
! ! ) #4 - 1 !! 1
! # !4 - ! - !! 1
! - ! ! 1 ! D ! !
! ! 4
14 ! # 5
! ##! # ! ! !! ! !
1 !1 ! , ! 4
1 ! -!
" , 4 ! !! ! !
2 # #4 1 ! !!! # ! ! !
! # ! ! ! *- 1 !
! ! 4 1-4 ! ! ## ! !!
1 1 !!! ! " ! -!# . !
5 04 !! ! # ! -!#
3 " 4 ! ! !1 !
## ! - ! ! .C 4 $8804
! 4 ! ! #
! ! 4 ! ! ! 14
# ! ! .; 4 $8$0
! $%& ) /# *
+ , ! ! - .)/*+,0 / . $$80 -
# ! ! ! # !
! ! I ! $$ ; ! C @ )- .;C@)0
! ! ! : 3 ! )/*+, !!
- 1 1! - ! ! ! -
1 4 ! 4 ! - ! ! ! 1 !
! - 1 ! - -
! ) ! ! ! ! - 1
#! !4 ! 4 !1 5
! - ! ! ! !1 ! -
! !
: - ! ! ! ! ! -
! 3! 1 ! ! ! !! !
1 ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
3! ! ! 1! ! - ! ! 1
! 1 ! 1
! ! ! ! ! 1!
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
8>
! ! !1 1
! ! !
! ! !
2. Previous studies
* 1 - ! ! ! 1
! ! ! 1 1 I C
. $8804 7 . $8%04 / . $$&0 / < 1
. $$&04 ! 1 4 # # I ;!
. $% 04 6! et al . $$&0 / . $$804 ! 1
! ! ! ! ! - !
5 I ; . $8$04 B . $$04 B# . $$0
; ) . $$%04 1 ! !
" I , . $$0
, # # ! ! ! !
! - !! 4 4 ! ! "
1 ! ! ! ! ,! #
!! 1 ! - ! ! 1
! , - 1 # ! -! !!4 D . $%%0 ## !
!! ! ! 1 1 ! !
! - ! 1 ! 1 1 - ! !4
! ! # ! 1 !!
!1 1 ! ! ! !
/ . $$&0 !1 ! 7 !4
! !!! ! ! 4 1 !
1 1 ! ! !! - 1 !
! - ! ! ! !
1 C1-4 ! #! 1 ! !
1 # 1 1 ! ! ) 4
! 1 ! ! - ! !
4 !! ! - ! ! ! !
I ! 9!4 3 1 #
!! ! ! 3 ! ! ! !
! ! ! 4 !# ! !
! ! ! ! 1 #! 4
## - 3! 3 !
! !! ! ! !
,! 1 # " !! ! ! . !
! ! 0 #! ! 1
# - ! ! 4 ! ! ! !1
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
8&
@ ) 2 C 6
! ! 4 1 ! ! ## ! !! ! !
! - # -! : = . $$0 - 4 J5
1# ! ! !! 1K ! !
1 1# 1 14 1 !! !
! 1# ! K4 ! J! 1# !
1 ! # 1 ! ! 4 !! ! !
# 1 1 ! 1# ! # K . 0
" ; ! . $84 $$0 ! - -! 4
C . $8>0 ! ! 4 ?
+ . $%0 # # #4 !
! ! ! C . $880 / < 1
. $$&0 * ! 1 : K . $&4 $&>0 3 ! !
# 1 ## ! !! 3 ! ! 1 ! 1
!1 ! ! !! !
- #
! 1 - !!! !
! ! ! ! !!! # !
= # 4 7 . $%0 !!
! - K - ! ! !
# ! ! ! - ! !!
- !
! ! ! !
!1 # +# . $$>04 #
! ! - !- 1 ! ! !!
# $8 ! - $ !4 !!
! ! ! -! - !! # : !#
15 # #
!1 1 : ! ! !
# # ! ! - !
4 ! ! 1 ) 4 -5-# -
!! ! 1 B ?
. $$>0 !! 1 - # ! #! !5
# 1# # ! ! ! 4 ! 1 1 # !
# - ! ! - # # # 7
. $$&0 !! 1 1 ! !
1 - # ! ! !! !
! ! ! ! 1# !
!1 1 7 4 B / = . $$&0
# ! ! ! !# ! !1 1 1
! - - ! ! 1 # ! !
- ! ! ! - -! 1#
! ;14 1 ! ! ! ! - !
! ! - ! ! ! ! ! ! !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
88
!1 1 !
# !
3. Model specification and estimation
)! ! ! !! 1 !!! ! "
! ! ! 1# 5 !5 C1-4 !
-5 ! 6 # ! #
! ! . ! ! 04 1 ! ! -
! ! - ! 1 71 # C . $880
; . $8$0 ! ! !
! - K 1#4 1 ! ! 1#
! ! 3 -! 5 ! !
6 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
! - 1 ! #
4 ! ! ! ! 1 !!
U u.W4 CW4 H4 JC4 MJ 04
L M
1 W ! 1#4 CW 1#4 H
14 JC - ! ! ! 4 MJ - !
! !
, ! ! ! - !1 -
. ! = ! 0 ! # 4 - # !1 >
.B 04 8 ./ < 104 .)/*+,0
=! # " ! ! <+)4 !# !
!! ! # ,! ## ! !!
<+) ! 1 - ! ! ! !
1 ! <+) # 1 . 3! 1 > &
!0 ,! ! ! z
. >0 # ! ! - !
!1 # - ! ; -
- ! !
! 4 ! ! ! !
: ! . !0 !
! ! -4 ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1
-! ,! !! 1# # !
; ! " ! 3! !
1 ! ! ! ! !1 ! !
6 !!! ! ! ! !
1 5 4 !
! ! ! ! 4 ! ;!
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
8%
@ ) 2 C 6
. $% 0 B# . $$0 !!! ! 1 ! ! 7 4
! ! ! ! ! - ! !
! - ! ! # - ! ! 3 ! 1!
# ! - -! ! ! !
! ! - ! ! 4 ! !
1 ! 4 ! ! /! - !
! - ! ! ! # ! !
! # 3! C1-4
C ! 4 ! !1 !! #
7 !4 ! ! -
!4 ! # ! ! !
! ! # !1 " ) 4 ! !!
!! - ! ! !
# 1 #4 ! #
! 1 ! 5! - 1 ! #5
! > : ! ! ! ! 4 !
/ < 14 !! ! # ! !
! ! 3! #! ! !
< ! ! ! ! ! ! !
3! 4 !
! 1 ! !! ! - !
! ! ! ! ! - ! - 1 # -
! - B !
f.I 0=F.I 0
f.I 0=
F.I 04
LM
1 I !! - # ! ! ! !
! 4 f.0 ! ! ! ! 4
F.0 ! ! - ! ! !# !
! - ! - ! ! 1# 3! 4
1 ! !! 1 ! ! ! <+)4
- # ! ! 1# 3! ! !
! ! ! 1# ! 4 1 ! !!
4 ! ! # ! !1
- K ! 1# ! 1# .W WÃ 0
! ! ! 3! & ,! ! !!
! 3! 1 ! !
!
4 ! ! 1 ! ! -! !!
# ! 1 1 6
! ! # ! !1 !
- 4 ! 1 8
! ! 3! ! ! !
C1-4 ! -!
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
8$
! !# ! 1 ! ! !
!# ! -4 !# !!! 1 ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!# #
! ! 4 <+) ! ! ! - !
! !4 1 ! 1 # ! 5 ! !
! : !15 !# 1 ! ! !
!! # ! !1 1# ! !
4. The data and descriptive statistics
! ! ! $%& ) * +
, ! ! - .)/*+,0 )- ! ! *
) = / .*)=/0 - ! #! 5
! 4 !#! 1 ! 1 ! 4 &4 - 1
# 3 ##
! .: 4 /-!4 ( 4 N!!4 = 5
)1 0 1 ! - # ! !
1 1 ! # $%&4
!! # ! 1 ! !!! ! !
!! 1 !! - ; ! 1 # ! ! !!
! / # 1 ! ! ! ! N1
* # )- !! ## ! !! !
!! - ! ; ! ! 1
1 ! ! 2 & # #
! 54 ! 4 ! !
! ! ! ! 4&8%
1 & ! ! !! 4 ! 5
! ! ! # &$ 54 8>
4 1 1 ! !
! ! 3 ! )/*+, ! 4
! # 4 1 ! ! ! 1 1 ! !
! -4 # ! % 1
! - ! ! 5! !
.@=<B0G ! !! # 1 # -!
.@:90G ! 1 ! ! - # .=*+)0G
! ! .<;5)*/0G # ! ! 1 ! ! -
.,N,0F ! ! #! .B?0G ! !
! 1 ! .6<=(0G ! ! 1
.C<'=)0 ! ! ! ! 3 ! -
! ! - 4 1 ! ! #
. # ! ;C@)04 !! ! 1 # ! 1 !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%
@ ) 2 C 6
! 4 ! ! !! # ! ! !
1 1 ! ! - ( 26 6 2
B26 ! 5! ! !
! ! - !1 1 1 !! 1
- # ! # - ! ! ! 7!4
!15 (#-2) - ! ! 2
! ! 1 # ! ! ! 5
! - !! # -
Table 1. +- - ! ! 1 ! !
Scale
response
>
&
8
%
$
!
Male
Percent of
respondents
%
8
>$
%
>&
>
>>
&>
%
%
>
>
&
%>
&%
$
>
>
$
Female
Total
Percent of
respondents
>
$
>
&
>8
$%
>
>$
%&
>
8
>
%>$
>$
$$
&8
&
>
8
&
%
>
8
8
8
8
>
%
%
%
&$
%$
Table 2. B - !
@! !
! #
-!
=! 1 ! -
#
!
; # ! 1
! ! -
!
! #!
! 1 !
1
<- ! ! 1 !
!
Percent of
respondents
! ! #
Male
SD
Female
SD
Total
SD
>&
>$
.0
.$$0
>
&>
.$%0
. 0
>$
&>
. 0
.0
88
.>>0
8$
.0
88
.>0
8
%>
.$0
. >0
88$
%
.80
.0
8>
%
.%0
.0
>$%
.%0
&8
.880
&>
.% 0
8&
8
8
.$0
.&0
.0
8$8
%
%8
. 0
.0
. 0
88$
8&
88
. 0
.>80
.>0
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Females
B ! , -
)1! ! , -
: ! 1! , -
)1! ! ,
-
> B ! , -
!
Total
Mean
Cases
Percent
Mean
Cases
Percent
Mean
Cases
Percent
%
%&%
8
&
&8>
8
>
%&
8
$
8
88
>$>
$%
>$&
>&
$
>
%
&
$
>>
&>>
%
&
>
8&
&
%
8
8 %
$
%
$
%
&
&
8&&
8$
%
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Current earnings are
Males
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
Table 3. : ! ! # .O 10
%
@ ) 2 C 6
Table 4. : ! J -K # .O 10
Current earnings are
B ! , -
)1! ! , -
: ! 1! , -
)1! ! , -
> B ! , -
!
Females
Males
>
8
%
>>
>>
>%$
>&
>
8&>
%
8
Total
>
8>$
$
8
&>
! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! !
1 ! ! ! # ! K 1 ! ! -
: !! -4 3 ! ! )/*+, ! ! !
3 ! ! - 1 - ! !
- = ! 1 4 ! # 4 1
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! F
! , -4 1! ! , -4 ! 1! , -4
1! ! , -4 ! , - ,
! ! 1 ! - 1 1 4 ! 4
! ! ! - ! #! , ! !
1 !! ! #! 1 ! ! - . 0
C1-4 1 ! ! ! ! 1 #
! !! ! ! ! !
- . > ! 1 ! !04 #
! !! ! ! 1! ! !
- .> ! 1 ! !0
! #! -5 ! ! - # !
14 ! # ! #
, ! ! - ! ! ! # 4 !
!1 ! ! # ! !
1 # 1! ! - ! - ! !
. 04 !# ! # ! !
! 1 #! ! ! ! -
: 4 ! ! - #
# #! - ! # ! #
! - ! # -
5. Results
, - ! ! ! !!
! ! - ! - - ! ! #
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
<+) ! ! . >0 6 ! - # -
! ! ! ! #! !
! ! ! ! !! ! 1 !! !
! ! ! ! - ! 7 ! ! !
!! ! - ! ! ! ! !
1 ! ! ! !
!! ! 4 ! ! ! !
! - 4 4 # ! !
! ! K 1 ! ! - ! !! ! 1
: /1 ! ! !1 ! 3!
F &%$ # ! ! ! ! -4 1 # !!
! !1 3! # ! !
! ! ! 3! & -4 5
#4 !! # ! ! !
! 14 1 ! ! # !
! ! ! !
$ <1 ! ! # !
! ! ! 4 ! !
" !## ! 6 1 !
! ! ! ! ! !! # !4 ! # -
! ! ! 4 1 - #
-
Table 5. * # -
. # z 0
Individual facet
@! !
!
=! 1 !
-
!
' # 1 ! ! -
: !=
#!
: ! 1 !
C 1
/ !!
: ! R
F
n
Females
coefficient
! ! ! - !
t-statistics
Males
coefficient
t-statistics
>$
>8
%
>8
%
8
8
%
>$
%8%
&
&$
%
8>
%>
&&
%>
$
&>
>
%
88
&$
>
>%8
&88&
$$
$$&
$8
>
>8&
>8&
>
$
8%
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%
@ ) 2 C 6
Table 6. @! ! ! 3!
All cases
/ !!
)
B
:#
:# 3
*! . 51 !0
N ! # >
<! .10
C #
@!F 5
@!F
@!F
N 1 >
<1
/-!
(
N!!
=
)1
N -!
N ! - -!
@ ! ! - -!
R
@ ! ! !
+#
Females
Males
>
8.373
>%8
13.900
3.277
&
10.309
11.109
8
6.815
8%
7.771
8.025
8
7.408
0.004
>
5.358
>>>
4.988
>8&
14.732
%
11.543
&
3.140
2.241
&
2.269
>%
0.889
3.130
8
4.419
%
4.432
>$
1.317
6.505
7.163
>%
4.014
$%
6.907
3.112
%
4.284
1.659
>>
4.673
>
2.263
%
15.931
>
5.650
2.392
$
1.727
>>
1.924
$
0.108
2.514
%
3.912
6.340
7.036
%>>
5.662
$
4.911
5.980
8$
3.826
8$8
2.028
&$8
7.285
88
1.739
&
3.536
88
11.351
$
1.881
1.056
%8
0.773
1.175
$>
1.762
>>$$
&>
&>
%%
8
$
&
%$
>&8
&>
&88
$>&
>
%
88
8
8$
$
Note: t- !! ! !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
%>
! - ! - - ! ! 3! 1
! 1 # 3! . 80
#! - # ! 14 1 !
! ; ! .# D!4 B 4 $%8G 6 #!4
* 4 $$ 0 ,! #! # !! 1 !
! 1 ! 1# # ! ! 1# !! ! -
! ! # ! - 4 ! 4 !
! - ! ! ! C1-4
! ! 4 ! ! !
!! ! ! - 1
! 5 ! 3! 1 ! !
1 88 ! ! 1 , !
! ! ! ! !
! # !! ! ! ! !
! ! C4 1-4 1 !
1 ! ! !! ! 1 !! !
## ! !! 1
1 C 4 ! ! !# #! ! #
! 4 ! 5 ! #
! - !
- 3! 1 !! ! !
! - # ! ! 3 !
! C1-4 ! ! ! # !1
! 3! ! ! 3! 4 14
# # ! ! - 3! !
!! 1 - !! ! 1
4 !# ! - # ! ! !
6 ! ! - !!
! 5 4 1 ! !
! 5 1 - ! ,
! ! !! ! ! 5!
# ! !5! 4 ! 1 !
! !
! - ! ! ! #
! - ! ! ! 3! . %0
) ! !! !! # 1 ! -
4 ! 4 !1 # 1
! 1 1 ! ! !
! ! ! ! - # ! !
!! ! # N ! ! ! -
# 1 ! ! .
3! L M04 ! ! ! ! ! -
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%&
@ ) 2 C 6
Table 7. 6 # 3!
/ !!
)
B
B
<!
3 !
:!
3 !
<5-
3 !
:5-
3 !
D#=
3 !
*
.! 0
)3
75!
N 1
N -!
+#!
! #
.! 0
)-
!
) ! 1
B !5!
!
=-! !
!
All cases
Females
Deserved
Males
Deserved
$
30.190
&
1.895
$
3.697
%
3.516
%
3.617
8
3.160
&
7.555
>>
4.536
7.107
&&
6.979
5.895
>%
16.993
%
2.681
9.103
&
9.817
3.686
%&
17.842
%
17.703
$8&
11.076
$>
15.602
&8
2.767
&
1.327
&$
4.151
>
0.875
%8
5.035
1.978
8
3.679
8
2.262
2.959
4.337
&
2.104
8
5.662
>
3.702
2.864
%
8.826
0.964
%
6.518
5.830
2.383
8
4.543
&%
4.323
%
5.862
$$
2.694
>8
7.338
8$
1.795
0.834
$%
7.547
%
2.335
3.379
4.304
3.295
&
2.365
3.421
8
2.571
8
6.887
%8
4.302
4.793
$
6.862
6.030
&$
2.616
$
2.732
%
5.042
8.263
2.492
1.156
>
0.198
&>
2.173
3.291
3.585
>
0.517
1.084
0.144
&
1.782
0.642
$$
4.710
>&
2.450
4.752
0.774
1.190
3.990
8%
2.716
>
1.962
$%
7.184
>$
2.764
>$
7.317
&8
7.074
6.471
8
0.449
0.705
&
6.099
2.819
2.181
%
6.510
$
2.215
8
3.753
>$
1.952
0.763
.continued0
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%8
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
Table 7. Continued
7 "F
>2 $$
7 "F
2$$
7 "F >
-
) ! - !
All cases
Females
Deserved
Males
Deserved
&
6.769
6.136
>
7.033
3.047
>
6.092
$
3.824
&
3.850
2.739
$
2.973
%
2.454
&&
1.630
>>
0.887
%
3.192
>
4.545
5.100
&
1.258
$
3.641
$
4.289
8
4.270
8
1.418
N
%>
-!
R
88
: ! R
8&$
F5 !! !
%8%
)* #
>$
B
8
!
-
8
8>
% %&
&%
$
&
&8
&>&
%>
%8
>8
>
&8
%
8>
&
> %&
$
>$
%
$>%
%
>%
Notes: t5 !! ! !
<! - 1 ! #4 #! 5 # 4 1 !
1 # ! !! !#4 ! - 4
1 ! # ! # ! !! !#
! - ! JD -K ! ! ! 1
! ! ! -
# # ! 1 ! ! .
3! LM0 ! 6 ! ! -
4 ! t5 !! ! >
1 4 $% 1 !
t5 !! ! &4 $ 4 ! -4 1 ! ! -
7!4 ! t5 !! ! !
! - > 1 4 $
1 1 ! ! ! -
4 1 ! 4 4 ! -4 1
! 1 ! ! ! -
7!4 ! 3! 4 !
# # ! ! 3! ! - !
- ! ! ! 3!
! ! ! ! ! ,! 4 ! 4
!! I 1 ! !! I ! !
! # ! ! !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%%
@ ) 2 C 6
Table 8. < ! ! !
! ! . - !# 0
Equation [1]
All
/ !!
)
. 4
0
+# . !
1 1#0
+# . !
0 I #
. ! 0
+# . !
0 I #
. -
0
+# .
0
:#
*D
*D
*D
*D
*D>
<1 2
@!
!
)-
73!
-!
< !
Females
Equation [2]
Males
All
Females
Males
&
4.18
3.40
2.99
%
0.32
%8
4.53
%
4.18
&
2.94
0.23
%
0.50
%
0.50
0.09
>
0.98
8
1.20
>
0.22
&
3.34
2.41
3.13
%
3.60
2.00
2.91
$
3.27
3.21
%
2.11
>
4.25
&
4.52
&
4.60
&
5.73
8
1.80
3.60
1.76
>
0.90
%
1.51
8
2.65
>&
3.42
2.24
1.62
2.15
1.84
1.17
>
3.20
0.11
%
0.91
0.11
8
0.76
0.43
>
2.76
8
0.34
3.05
1.84
>
4.15
>
4.46
%$
5.05
8
4.72
>
1.99
8
4.42
$
2.51
>
0.59
1.54
1.40
2.43
3.36
8
2.01
3.96
3.93
>8
4.26
>8
5.07
$
2.03
3.62
1.88
8
1.21
1.91
8
2.59
$
2.06
2.48
1.59
8
1.90
8
1.36
%
0.87
2.37
0.10
8
0.78
0.18
1.06
8
0.75
2.72
8
0.33
3.00
$
1.66
3.84
$
3.97
%>
4.76
&$
4.45
2.36
$
4.58
$
2.53
>
0.63
1.77
1.25
.continued0
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
%$
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
Table 8. Continued
Equation [1]
All
6
1
1
?!
!
1
) !
1
*
! I
1!
!
*
! I
3 !
*
! I
-
?!
I
)
I
C
I
@ -
/-!
(
N!!
=
)1
Females
Equation [2]
Males
All
Females
Males
2.01
$
1.13
1.67
1.99
8
0.90
1.79
3.45
2.06
$
2.94
>
3.60
2.21
3.05
%
1.03
%
3.21
0.28
>
2.54
1.03
>
2.41
%
1.05
%
3.25
0.34
>>
2.62
0.99
>
2.41
$
8.36
%
5.82
%8
6.24
$
8.31
%
5.84
%&
6.18
>
11.98
&8
7.73
>
9.36
>
12.00
&%
7.81
>
9.36
8
4.13
2.93
2.51
%
4.22
3.02
2.54
2.76
&
0.81
2.48
&
1.43
>
1.36
0.12
2.78
&
0.84
2.45
8
1.43
>
1.37
0.09
8
4.49
$
1.01
$
3.34
%
0.88
2.28
8
1.76
0.45
&
1.80
%
2.12
$
0.63
0.68
$
0.60
>
5.56
0.28
$
2.41
1.72
1.72
$
1.42
%
4.61
8
0.76
%
3.16
$
0.96
2.15
&
1.64
&
0.58
1.56
8
2.03
%
0.50
0.78
%
0.52
>
5.59
>
0.43
8
2.23
1.71
$
1.55
8
1.32
.continued0
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$
@ ) 2 C 6
Table 8. Continued
Equation [1]
All
B
N51 !
! #
75! =!5
!
B
'
' I
!
! !
!
!
.! 0
!
3
) I
-
) I
) I
3
) I
1
7 "F > 2
$$
7 "F 2
$$
7 "F >
-
B'
Females
Equation [2]
Males
All
Females
Males
0.36
1.25
0.09
0.41
1.91
2.85
1.29
>
1.47
%
0.96
$
0.91
0.07
1.10
1.53
$
0.36
>
0.13
$
0.95
2.44
2.74
0.19
1.25
>
1.28
>
0.84
1.51
2.87
1.50
$
1.44
0.05
0.42
8
0.65
1.11
>
1.76
%
0.35
$
0.47
$
0.99
2.47
2.83
0.23
0.59
0.60
0.22
0.49
0.57
0.07
0.30
0.37
0.06
0.22
0.36
8
0.52
2.19
>
0.65
1.03
2.43
%
0.48
0.97
0.77
%
0.61
8
1.36
1.34
&
0.46
>
1.39
0.99
0.57
8
1.57
>
1.32
0.43
1.17
$
0.88
0.39
1.32
1.11
&
0.20
0.57
1.32
0.46
&%
20.60
0.28
0.06
1.67
&%
11.58
0.27
8
1.59
8
0.68
8
17.07
%
1.08
1.90
0.24
&$
20.61
0.95
8
0.62
1.11
&8
11.59
0.33
$
1.85
0.98
8
17.08
.continued0
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
Table 8. Continued
Equation [1]
All
B'
B'
B
!
-
)D
!
-
+#
!
N
-!
Females
Equation [2]
Males
All
Females
Males
&
41.67
%
%
&
24.60
%
8
33.60
$
$&
&>
41.67
%
%
&
24.61
%
8
33.60
$
$&
$
%%
$%
$
%%
$%
%%>
%
%%>
%
%
65.89
$&%
43.26
&
49.63
%
65.91
$&%
43.27
&
49.63
Note: t5 !! ! !
! !! # ! ! 5
!
! ! N #! -
# ! 1 * ! ! - !
# ! ! ! 1 - !4 !
! !
!# 1 B - # !
# ! ! ! 1 1 ! !
! 4 3! -! 1 ! - ! -
- # 4 # ! 1 ! ! 1 !
! 1 ! #
! 6 #
! ! !
1 ! ! 4 ! # #
! ! ! # !! 1 !
! ! ! ! 1 !1 !
: ! ! - 4 2
! ! 1 - - # ! ! -
! ! ! 14 ! !!
- 1 # 1! !
#! ! ! 1 *! # 4 !5!
!! 4 !! 5!5 ! # ! ! !
# ! -! ! C1-4 1 1 !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$
@ ) 2 C 6
; 4 ! 2! ! ! ! #! - # !
4 ! - # !4 ! !
; K . $8$0 ! ! '): ! ! !
! - ! !! !
! ! 1 #
! ! !! 1 ! ! - ! # 1
#! - ! 7!4 1 1 ! #
1 !! #! -4 ! ! - + 1 4 !
# ! ! ! - - !
" ! ! - ! ! !
! ! 14 1 ! " - # #! -
! ! ! ! 4 1 1 !
# ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! - !
! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 1 4
1 1 # -1 # 5 ! 1
- # ! 1 ! ! 5
3 ! ! #! !
! ! 1 ! ! 1
! 6!- ! 4
! !! 1 ! 1 - # ! ! -
! ! ! ! ! 1 # !
! - ! ! >
< ! !! ! - ! !
1 ! ! ! # ! !
# ! ! ! ! ! 6 !
<+) ! ! #! ! ; 5! !
! ! ! !! ! 1 ! -
# ! ! ! -
! ! # - ! ! ! 1 !
! C1-4 ! ! - !
!! - .Z 0 ! ! ! ! 3!
# - ! # - ! 4 !
- ! # - #
! ! ! # ! ! !!
- ! !! - Z - 1 #
! - ! !! ! ! !
F
LM
ZÃF KXFS Ã FS KXMP Ã FP4
1 ZÃF ! ! !! - 4 KXFS 1 - !
! # ! S # - 4
KXMP 1 - ! ! # ! P
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
$
# - 4 Ã FS FP - !
! ! ! ! ! ! 3!
k # - ! 3! 4 k s p Z
! 1 ! ! 4 !! 1 Z Å ZÃF4
! - !# ! ! ) 4 1
ZÃF 0 ! - !# ! !
ZÃF < Z Å .Ã
7 !# 4 4 ! # z F .Ã F ZÃF 0 < Z Å
.à ZÃF 04 .à ZÃF 0 < Z Å .à ZÃF 0 ..uà ZÃF 0 < Z4 5
! - Ã 4 Ã 4 Ã ! ! ! ! !
! ! 1 Z ! & ! P4 P 4
P4 P P ! ! ! ! !# 4 4 4
4 ! - 4 .P4 P 4 P4 P4 P 0 !
! ! !#
! ! 1 $4 1 !
3! 1 ! ! - 4 !#
! ! ! 1 ! # !
$. 0 - ! -
! - 1 ! ) 1
1 ! ! !! ! 1 ! ! !
! ! 4 ! ! ! !
# ! # ! 5 - .1
0 !! 1 # ! - ! # 1 !
! ! ! 1 3 "! ! # ! !
- 1 ! .1 0
!! ! ! ! 1
# #! 5 # !
- ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! -
! ! !# , ! 1 4
! ! ! ! ! - #
! ! ! !! - ! !!
! # ! ! 7 # ! 1 .04 $
## ! !! ! - !
! ! I 1 1
! ! 1 8 , !4 ! ! .0
.0 1 - ! ! !! .04 1 ! !
! # P ! P 7 4 1-4 ! !
! !# ! ! ! P4 !# !
! ! !1 ! ! :
! !! 1 ! 5 ! 1 4
! 14 ! 1 ! ! "
! ! ! G ! ! !! 1
! 1 ! # ! ! ! !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$
@ ) 2 C 6
1 ! ! ! ! ! C1-4 1
1 1 . 0 ! !! ! ! ! 1
! 1 1 ! ! ! !
3 " 5 4 ! -
# !! 4 # - ! # " !
! ! 5 - !1 1 <
! !! ! 5 - # !
! ! ! 1 1 !
# 1 ! # ! 5 ;! 1 ! ! !
! !! ! ! ! ! 1 !
1 ! 1 !!
1 ! ! !
Table 9a. D ! !
P0
P1
! ! 3! 1 ! -
P2
P3
P4
Predicted
modal
category
Females
. 0 @ ! # !
.0
8>
>
>
$&
. 0
$
>8
%$
8%8
.0 @ ! # ! ! -
.0
%
>$
%%
. 0
8
&
%
%>
$
.0 @ ! # ! ! -
.0
88
%
8
>
. 0
8
$8
&%
>88
Males
.0 @ ! # !
.0
8
>8
$&
>%>
>
. 0
8
&>&
&&
&
%
.>0 @ ! # ! ! -
.0
&
88
$
>$%
>>
. 0
8>
&&
&88
&8
&
.&0 @ ! # ! ! -
.0
%8
$8
&
&&
. 0
$$
&
>
8
Notes: =1 .0 ! ! ! ! ! # - ! ! # 2 5
=1 . 0 ! ! ! ! ! # - ! 3 "! 5
# ! ! !! !
: - ! !!4 1 1# 4 - 4 4
#4 ! 4 12 4 4 ! #
: - ! !!4 #4 ! 4 14 4 !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
$>
Table 9b. B ! -
Variable
+# ! 1 1#
+# . ! 0 I # . - 0
+# . 0
:#
*D
*D
*D
*D
*D>
<1
@! !
)-
73! -!
<5 !
6 1 1
?! ! 1
) I ! 1
* ! 1! !
* ! 3 !
* ! I -
?! I
) I
C I
@ -
/-!
(
N!!
=
)1
B
*!
75! =!5!
B
'
' ! ! ! !
! .! 0
! 3
)*AB,A . ! -
0
)*AB,A . 0
)*AB,A . 3 0
)*AB,A . 10
),P* . " > 2 $$0
),P* . " 2 $$0
),P* . " > -
Females
Males
% &
&&
&88
8$
&
>8
8
$>%8
&8
8&&
&%>$>
$
8 &$
%$8
%
&
&$
>
&%$
>8>
%
&
8%
%
$
&&
% %
& $
88&$
%8&
&$8
&
&
>%8
>&
>&$
%%&
&$&>
& $%
> %$8
$
&&8 >
8$&&
8>%&
$
>
>
$%
%
8>
&
>
>88
8
>$
>&&&
8
%%
>8>$
&8
88&
&8
%88
& $
8
8%>
> 8
8&8
8 $
$%%
$$
>88
>&&&
&&$$
> >8
>> 8
& $%
>
&%%
8$%
&$
8&&>
%>
$8
8$
%
%&
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$&
@ ) 2 C 6
6. Conclusions
, 1 ! ! 1 !!4 # - ! ! #
! ! ! #4 1 ! -
! 1 ! ! ! 4 ! 1 6
! 3 ! 1 #
! 4 ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
!1 ! ## ! !! 1
! ! ! ! ! 6
- # 3 1 1 !!! ! "
! -!# 1 ! !!
1 ! 1 # 1 # -
! ! ! ! #! C 4
# 3 1 3 - !
! ! ! ! ! !
! 1 1
' ! 4 1 4 1-4 !! for marginal
adjustments 1 1 ! !
- ! ! 1 ! !
!! C 4 ! - # - ! !
1 ! - ! ! ! ! !
! -! ! ! 1
6 ! ! ! 1 !
1 ! ! ! ! !
!# N! 4 ! !! 1 ! 5 ! !
! " ! ! 4 # - !# ! !
, 4 ! 4 3 ! ! ! - !
1 ! ! # ! ! !
! 5 4 ! ! ! !
1
:! # !! ! ! ! -
1# - # ! ! - ! ! ! !
14 ! ! ! !# 6 4
34 ! ! ! ! ! # !
! - .! !1 !
! ! ! 0 ! - .!
!1 ! 1! ! -
- ! - 1 -0
! - !! ! ! ! -
! ! ! ! - ! !
# ! t5 !! ! ! !1 - ! , !
! ! 1 !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
$8
# !4 1 ! - 1 # # ! !
!! #! ! 1! ! # !
! # ! - % 6
!! ! ! # ! 1 ! !
! ! ! ! 4 ! 1 ! ! !
! !! 1 ! - !! #
! 4 1 ! - !!
1! 1
!5! 5! - ! ! !! ,
#4 ! ! ! ! ! !! ! -
- . 04 1 ! !
! ! ! 4 # ! #
1 # -
Notes
D et al . $$0 ! ! - ! )/*+, !
! - 3 ! ! !! ! # 15 1
1 ! ! 1 ! ! - -
C1-4 ! #4 # 53! ! 15 4 !
! ! ! -# ! 1
+! O I ! 1 #! !! ! ! - ! ,4
! !1 # !1 1 3 !
3 !!
.X
.X
X
X
O
O
I
I :
3 ! ! ! 1 !! ! !
# ! - ! ! 1! : B et al . $$0
! !4 ! !1 ! # ! ! ! !
! ! ## ! !! ! ! ! ! ! - ! !
- ! # - ! ! - ! ! !
! ! ;! !! 5 ! 7 . $%0
7 ! 6 . $$0 ## ! !! ! ! ! ! 1#
! ! ! #5 !! ! 1 -
: et al . $%%0 !
! ! ! !
1 ! 1 # - ! ! 1 !
51 - ! . 5
1 0 1 ! 1 # !# ! ! !4
# 1!1 . # 5 1 0 ) !
3 ! )/*+, ! ! ! ! ! ! !
,! # !! <+) ! !4 ! !
!! ! !1 ! !# ! !
! !! <+) ! 7 ! 1 ! ! <+)
! 4 !# <+) ! # - ! ! ! !
! ! 1 > ! #
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
$%
@ ) 2 C 6
# ! ! # <+) ,! 4 4 !! -
! 1 #
>
! 1# #! : !! - !!
! 1 ! # 4 !! !
#! - ! !1 ! ! : 4 ! 4 !
# ! !
&
/ . $$&0 ## ! !! ! ! ! !
! # ! ! !! ! 1 ! ! - !
! !! ! - ! ! ! ! ,
! ! ! ! ! 3! ! - ! !
! <+) 6 ! ! ! 1 ! ! !
3! ! ! ! ! # ! !! ! ! !
! ! -
8
!! ! 5 ! !1 ! ! -
! - 6 ! ! 1# ! ! -
! !#! ! ! ! ! # 7
! r ! !1 - 8 1 > 4 1 ! r !1 !
! 1# ! ! - -
& 1 6 ! ! - ! ! 5 !
7!4 1 ! ! ! ! - ! -
!#! ! ! ! # 3! -
! !1 ! - ! ! !
!1 ! - 4 ! 1 ! !!
! ! ! ! - !! 1 ! ! - - #
1# !! ! 1! ! ! ## !
!! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! #
,! ! !! 1 ! - ! !
! 4 !
%
< ! #
!# ! #
! ! " ! !# C 4 -
!# 1 # ! - !# . ! # ! -
! G 4 1 ! ! #G 4 > &4 ! !
! #G $ # ! #
$
) 1 ! - 1 1#
! - - ! ! ! 7
# ! ! ! ! ! ! 14 B
= . $$0
: ! !1 # ! ! - !! #!
! !! # ! ! ! 1! 5
! !5! 4 ! !! 4 ! # 4 5 !! 4
4 ! ! 4 " ! !4 ! 1
! ! ! -
, ! <+) 3! ! ! ! ! ! -
1 #! ! 14 ## ! # !!
!!
! ! # ! 1 ! # / . $$&0 ! !
1! ! 2 ! ! differential 1 ! # ! #
!! 1 ! ! ! # 1 6 4
!4 !! ! ! ! # ! # ! 1 !
# ! # #4 !# ! ! ! !
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
$$
/ . $$&0 ## ! !! ! # #! - !
- !! 1 !! ! # ! ! !
! ! ! 6 14
1-4 ! - !
6 ! !! ! ! - 1 !
- ! # !# #! -
1 "! ! ! ! !
) ; ) . $$%0 ! ! , ! 4 ! # !5 "
- # ! 1 ! #! - # 4 ## ! # !! #
! ! 1 ! ! !
>
6 - ! ! ! ! ! ! # # ! !1
! ! ! # )+) ## ! !!4 #
! ! )# ! !4 1 ! ! ! ! !! ! #
!
&
! Z4 ! !! - 1 # 1 ! ! -
# - ! ! 1 F
P P.Z Æ
Z^F 0
zF
F.Z0 Z
1
P PL Z^F < Z Æ .^
Z^F 0M
^
z^F
F.Z0 Z
z^F
P PL.^
P PL.^
Z^F 0 < Z Æ .^
Z^F 0M
Z^F 0 < Z Æ .^
Z^F 0M
^
z^F
^
z^F
^
z^F
^
z^F
F.Z0 Z
F.Z0 Z
1
P PL.^
Z^F 0 < ZM
F.Z0 Z;
^
z^F
1 F ! ! - ! ! ! ! ! !
8
, ! ! 1 !! ! ! 5 - !
!! # ! ! 4 - ! 3!
-! 4 # ! 4 - # #!
4 - # 4 # 5! 4 # 1 ! !
! # 1 ! ! #
!! #
%
)4 ! 4 / . $$&04 ) 6 . $$&0 6! et al
. $$&0 ! - ! ! !! 1
! 1 ! # 1 ! 1 - - 4 1 !
- - ! 1 K 1 !
References
: ) . $&0 J1 ' ! # ,3 !K4 Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology &8F 2 &
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
>
@ ) 2 C 6
: ) . $&>0 J,3 ! ) * #K ;1 !" + .0 Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology4 N1 9 +F :
@
: ? :4 = : ( 9 + . $%%0 J )1 ! #
)! ! ! ') + B!K4 Brookings Papers in Economic
Activity F $>2 >$
;! : @ . $% 0 J= D )! ! F : =5 K4 The
Journal of Human Resources AH,F 4 $2
; ! + . $80 J, ! ! /! ! =! - D -! )
! K4 Scottish Journal of Political Economy F &2 %
; ! + . $$0 Behavioural Foundations of Economics4 +F B
; ( ) @ . $$%0 J ' 4 )! ! * !5-
=- !K4 Industrial and Labor Relations Review > F 4 2
; ? . $8$0 J )! ! 4 6# ' K4 Journal of Human
Resources A,HF 2
/ : * . $$&0 J )! ! ; ! K4 British Journal of Industrial
Relations F %$2 %
/ : * . $$80 J )! ! ?F 6 6 C !
6QK4 Labour Economics F 4 2 8
/ : * < 1 : . $$&0 J)! ! / , K4
Journal of Public Economics & F 4 >$2 %
D ) . $%%0 Women's Attitudes towards Work4 +F B
D )4 + # ) B . $$0 Women and Low Pay: Identifying the
Issues4 B !F *3 <! ! /
D! @ B ? C . $%80 JB ! )!! 4 / 5 #
* # D ! ! ?! + B!K4 Economic Journal
$8F %$82 $
7 ! / 6 9 . $$0 J) )!! 4 /! *
@ K4 Economic Journal F $&2$>$
7 = ( . $%0 J) D * # F = , -
@ ! ! K4 Journal of Human Resources AH,,,F % 2 $$
7 = C . $%0 J: 6 @ ! B# @ ! QK4 American
Economic Review 8F >$2 >8
7 = C . $$&0 J6! @ ! C # B ?QK4 Southern Economic
Journal &F 2 8
7 = ; . $8%0 J )! ! * H K4 American
Economic Review .B0F >2
? + : . $%0 J/! # 6# / 4 / ! , !
/ ! '! ! K4 European Economic Review F 2
C D ) . $8>0 J,! ! + B!K4 Economica4
N- F 2$
C D ) . $880 J* : ! )! ! K : ! <
* <! 6 * . 0 Essays in Labor Market Analysis4 N1 9F
6 F > 2 8
, + . $$0 J* ! ! ) "4 )! ! ! )! !
6K4 Applied Economics F 82 $
+# * . $$>0 J * ! ! B! -! , - , K4
Industrial and Labor Relations Review %F %2 >
B ; ? B4 <K= ,,, / : 6 . $$0 J * ! - @F
! 1QK4 Journal of Labor Economics F &&2 &%
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Job Satisfaction, Comparison Earnings, and Gender
>
B ; ? B = ; . $$0 JB 6K C @! !
=- !K4 Applied Economics &F 882%
B / ( = 6 = . $$&0 JN1 *- 6 K 6 # ! @
:!! ! K4 Southern Economic Journal &F &82 &>
B ? ( . $$>0 JD 6 = - / ! # 6# * #
' ! !QK4 Southern Economic Journal &F 4 2
B# = . $$0 J =! !1 ' )! ! K4 Applied
Economics F &>2 &%
B @ 6 . $$0 J ' )! ! K4 Australian Economic
Papers $F &2 %
= : . $$0 J = 7 6# D! ! K4 Journal of Labor
Economics 4 * B F 2 >
) @ 6 C . $$&0 J: <- 6 = 'Q :
! ! /# ! - D K4 Labour F 2 >
6! =4 )! D4 6 " @4 ( ( )! C . $$&0 J
=! !1 )! ! B# =!
) B 5 " *! I : * ! /
, *3 ! C! K4 Applied Economics %F >&82 >8&
6 #! = * . $$ 0 J? D ! ! ; ! +
B!F : =5 !K4 Economic Journal F >%2 >
# 7" ? ; ; 1 @ +!
Related papers
The Royal Navy and the Battle of Britain
The International History Review, 2011
Kurul Kalesi 2017 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları
Umut Zoroğlu, Salih Okan Akgönül, Ahmet Emirhan Bulut, Leyla Yorulmaz, Atakan Akçay, S. Yücel ŞENYURT
40. Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2019
The English Adaptation Level of BSED-English Call Center Agents
Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2024
"ESCREVIVÊNCIAS", NARRATIVAS AUTOBIOGRÁFICAS E INTELECTUALIDADE NEGRA: A ESCRITA ACADÊMICA COMO RESISTÊNCIA
Revista Inter-Ação, 2021
On Cartan Spaces with the $m$-th Root Metric $K(x,p)=\sqrt[m]{a^{i_{1}i_{2}...i_{m}}(x)p_{i_{1}}p_{i_{2}}...p_{i_{m}}}$
arXiv (Cornell University), 2008
Does Gamification Work for Boys and Girls? An Exploratory Study with a Virtual Learning Environment
2015
أسرار المحميات المنسية (نتر)
Secrets of forgotten reserves (Natr)
أسرار المحميات المنسية (نتر) Secrets of forgotten reserves (Natr)
History, Markets,and Revolutions: Reviewing Foucault’s Contribution to the Analysis of Political Temporality
Foucault Studies No. 36 350-376, 2024
A Pilot Study: Magic Tricks in the ELL Classroom Increasing Verbal Communication Initiative and Self-Efficacy
English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies, 2020
Community as the teacher on issues of social responsibility, substance use, and queer health in dental education
PLOS ONE, 2020
Limuloid trackways from Permian-Triassic continental successions of North China
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2018
A novel modelling and simulation capacity development initiative for the National Health Service
BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, 2017
The female condom in North America: Selling the technology of 'empowerment
Journal of Gender Studies, 2004
A diverse assemblage of Ophiostoma species, including two new taxa on eucalypt trees in South Africa
Mycological Progress, 2011