Analysis of Gender Difference in Depression

In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in studying gender and emotion, particularly how they are linked. Most of the work in the US has been based on traditional frameworks on trait-based sex differences or gender and psychopathological linkages (Fischer, 2000, p. 4). One such study has been the study of female and male depression rates as linked to psychopathologies exhibited in both genders. It is often argued that women are more likely to suffer from depression than men due to a variety of psychological reasons. The studies have focused on a variety of factors affecting a woman’s life that contribute to her susceptibility to depression. Brown and Harris (1978) argued that social factors led to depression by way of self-esteem and women experienced depression daily as they failed to live up to expectations of themselves as wives, mothers, and daughters to their parents. Lewis (1996) agreed with this conclusion, however, he argued that Brown and Harris (1978) did not take examine the individual women's’ subjective accounts of the meaning of their experiences, and instead relied on ratings from an independent panel (Brown and Harris, 1978, p. 26). As mentioned above, women experience depression according to social expectations they’ve been given. It is clear the roles women are meant to take upon are socially constructed as gender roles. Lewis (1996) further asks how gender roles are incorporated into constructing individual identity and ultimately, a sense of oneself. Conversely, it is assumed that gender identity can also be constructed by gender roles. The experience of depression does not only include the individual but the proximity of the self and social experience within its gender. Lewis (1996) argues that understanding depression from a psychological perspective requires the understanding of subjective experience, i.e. the self, of the depressed individual. Lewis (1996) suggests that by taking the accounts of individual experiences and applying a scientific framework it can better inform the research altogether (p. 27).

Another scholar, Mead (1934), emphasizes the need for psychological studies to include subjectivity as the experiences of the individual are subjective themselves. There are social and structural issues that construct power relations among people in society. These power relations are internalized and performed by the “self” through social interaction (Mead, 1934, p. 174). The concept of power relations is merely symbolic but plays a tremendous role in how individuals view themselves in the larger society, how they are viewed by others, and lastly, how they interact with others. Lewis (1996) argues that the psychological implications of “symbolic interactionism” have not been explored within psychology in exploring subjective experiences of depression (p. 86). In analyzing subjectivity, it could expand this perspective to understand power relations that are constructed by gender roles and how this is experienced at the individual level. The internationalization of gendered power roles can give significant insight into the subjective experiences of depression. For example, Jack (1991) analyzed women's experiences of depression in intimate relationships which demonstrated how power relations shaped the experience of the self in social relationships. Jack (1991) concludes that the experiences of depression in these women are an experience of powerlessness in relationships where the imbalance of gender power relations causes them to lose themselves. In intimate relationships, women must play certain roles that conflict with their desires and goals. The nature of women’s relationships between them and men is one of female compliance. Jack (1991) states that “Depression is both individual and social; it combines the personal and the political. The relational perspective asserts that the self is social. Mind and self come into being through communication with others" (Jack, 1991, p. 205). Jack (1991) discusses the relationship between power, socialization, and gender power relations experienced at the micro-level (p. 133). The political body of an individual affects how it interacts with others in society and simultaneously defines the “self” internally. As the individual is being defined outwardly by social ideologies it is framing its own identity around these ideas.

Contemporary psychological literature suggests that depression is an experience of powerlessness as a result of the loss of control and helplessness. The learned helplessness theory (Seligman, 1975) has equated depression with the experience of helplessness that individuals feel when they’re unable to control their environment. The inability to control one’s environment is a personal experience of loss of power (Seligman, 1975, p. 53-54). As mentioned above, power relations inform social relations at the micro and macro level of life. As the individual is defined by the power relations in its social experiences it affects the individual’s sense of self (Lewis, 1996, 87). Brown and Harris (1978) theorized that society caused depression because depression was essentially a loss of the self (p. 247). The self is formed through social interactions based on Mead’s (1934) theory of social behaviorism. This theory is maintained through expected behaviors of people in a role relationship (i.e. Jack’s (1991) intimate relationships). Mead (1934) concludes that role relationships are usually constructed by gender (p. 16). When an individual fails to meet these expectations, they experience depression (Brown and Harris, 1978, p. 247).

Many studies have been conducted to explore the differences between males and females in developing depression. Goodwin & Gotlib (2004) sought to determine the association of gender, personality factors, and depression (p. 133). The personality factors that were tested include neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness. It concluded that females in the study had high levels of neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness. Males, on the other hand, exhibited high levels of openness to experience.

This result can be equated with Jack (1991) whose study revealed that relationships between women and men were often predicated on female compliance. Their ability to be agreeable is essential in behaving consistent with gender roles and the dynamics of opposite-sex interactions. The personality factors in the study correlated the experience of gender and the increased odds of depression. Neuroticism, it concluded, played an important role in female development of depression (Goodwin & Gotlib, 2004, p. 139).

Personality factors that are experienced because of gender roles are evidence of gender differences in depression. The study does not imply that genders are naturally associated with such personality factors but makes an argument for how gender roles combined with high levels of neuroticism contribute to the development of depression (Goodwin & Gotlib, 2004, p. 135). The personality traits that were exhibited primarily in women were associated with a likelihood of experiencing depression, anxiety disorder or panic attacks. Men in the study were observed to develop a dependence on alcohol (Goodwin & Gotlib, 2004, p. 139). One can assume that the reasons men and women express depression is how they’ve learned, through gender socialization, to contend with difficulties. Goodwin & Gotlib (2004) did not evaluate the gender bias of the personality factors it included. Just by looking at many of these characteristics one can link them to stereotypical constructions of gender. Additionally, the two researchers did not delve into personality factors that may affect male depression, thus, providing a better analysis of the two gender differences in depression rates. Nonetheless, these results certainly provide information about the relationship between gender and depression by evaluating personality traits prevalent in both genders, particularly in women.

Another pair of scholars, Nolen-Hoeksema & Grayson (1999) conducted a study to investigate why women were more vulnerable to depression compared to men. They concluded that women who were more likely to experience negative circumstances, or strain, “have a low sense of mastery and…engage in ruminative coping” (Nolen-Hoeksema & Grayson, 1999, p. 1061). This study was tested on approximately 1, 1000 adults who were between the ages of 25 and 75. The study suggests that gender differences in depression were due to the relationships between chronic strain, rumination, mastery, and depression which women were prevalent in experiencing. The reasons women experienced these were often due to their passiveness and personality traits that were mentioned by Goodwin & Gotlieb (2004). The difference in social and personal variables is what demonstrates the gender difference in depression rates and symptoms. Furthermore, the traits that were studied contributed to the negative effects of one another. Rumination often amplified the effects of mastery on depression. Low mastery was strongly associated with chronic strain reported by many women in the study. The chronic strain was often due to annoyances and burdens that came with women’s lower social power. Women experience a greater burden of housework and childcare and more strain on parenting than men. Women felt less appreciated by their partners in social relationships as well. These chronic strains and many others are related to female gender roles that have been constructed. Women associate failure of meeting the expectations of their roles as a loss of self and ultimately, exhibit symptoms of depression. Other strains on women were experiences of sexual harassment and violence that contributed to the burden of being a woman. According to the study, when women are distressed because of the various strains on their lives they ruminate and feel a low sense of control (or mastery) over their lives (Nolen-Hoeksema & Grayson, 1999, p. 1070-1071). Rumination on its own does not increase the expression of depressive symptoms, but the combination of rumination due to chronic strain and a low sense of mastery do. Chronic strain, rumination, and low mastery, as mentioned above, are more common in women than in men. This mediates the gender difference in depressive symptoms and depression rates. The significant difference between high strains among women compared to men demonstrate how women are more vulnerable to depression compared to men (Nolen-Hoeksema & Grayson, 1999, p. 1068).

The studies conducted by Goodwin & Gotlib (2004) and Nolen-Hoeksema & Grayson (1999) acknowledged subjectivity in their studies by studying trends in risk factors that are connected to adult depression rather than directly relating the two. Fischer (2000) argues that the study of emotions in psychology should move beyond the differences approach to questions of gender and emotion. Although both studies have concluded that there is a difference in depression rates among both genders it does so in assessing the emotional dynamics of both respective genders and how they frame the difference. Fischer (2000) asserts that there have been conceptual limitations in the differences framework. It has been amply documented and discussed by feminist researchers in psychology as well as other fields. Fischer (2000) believes that focusing on gender differences themselves is not informative, if not, damaging to the argument. Concluding a gender difference neither explains or elaborates on how the difference evolved and what maintains it presently. This is important in understanding the contemporary experiences of individual emotions. There have been a variety of “stereotypes and folk accounts” of gendered emotions in social, political and legal factors of everyday life (Fischer, 2000, p. 18). For example, in the 1996 Virginia Military Institute case, it stated that women were too emotional, less likely to be aggressive and suffered from a fear of failure, thus, they could not handle the stress of the school's environment (Fischer, 2000, p. 2-3). This demonstrates the greater societal understanding of gender and emotive experiences that often guide and sometimes blind psychological research. Fischer (2000) argues that better questions could be asked to guide gender and emotive theory. These questions are as followed: “Under what conditions are differences manifested? What drives those conditions to exert their influence?” (Fischer, 2000, p. 18-19). Many studies conclude that gender differences exist based on the answers they receive. However, answers from respondents can derive from other variables that are not gender-related. These studies lack depth in exploring other variables that may exist outside of gender that could inform or detract from their conclusions. For example, in the Goodwin & Gotlib (2004) study the levels of such personality traits can be tied to other variables other than gender. Environmental factors have contributed to individuals’ development of personality traits. A girl that observes her father taking care of the household and taking on presumed female gender roles can assume these roles are not exclusive to the female gender. Similarly, a female that is raised to be open to experiences is likely to exhibit that personality trait. Here, having the personality trait is not predicated on gender but childhood experience.

In conclusion, Fischer (2000) suggests that studies linking gender and emotion should include four themes: “context as a framework for interpreting experience; the salience of interpersonal relationships in accounts of emotion; how interactional goals produce and maintain gender effects in emotion; and power as an explanatory variable” (p. 4). These four themes are important in understanding the relationship between an individual and emotions that are framed by gender role expression. Mead (1934) states that psychology looks at “neither the social or the individual but the complex dynamic between of the person in social action” (p. 7). Psychological studies of gender differences in depression should focus on the dynamic between individuals and how they function, see themselves and are seen in society. These factors will help in understanding what contributes to the development of depression in the respective genders.

References

Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression: A reply. Psychology Medicine, 8(4), 577-88.

Fischer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, R. D., & Gotlib, I. H. (2004). Gender differences in depression: The role of personality factors. Psychiatry Research, 126(2), 135-142.

Jack, D. C. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Harvard University Press.

Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Lewis, S. E. (1996). The social construction of depression: experience, discourse and subjectivity

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind. Self and Society, Chicago.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1061.