- Email: [email protected]
Values, happiness and family structure variables
0191-8869/93 $6.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd
Person. individ. Diff. Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 595-598, 1993 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
Values, happiness and family structure variables Y. kM Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion-Israel Haifa 32oo0, Israel (Received
Institute of Technology,
13 January 1993)
Summary-This is a report of an investigation of interrelationships between value areas, happiness and family structure variables. The value areas were: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. It was found that women below the median on Happiness had significantly higher scores on all 7 value areas, while relatively unhappy men scored higher on 4 value areas only: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity and Achievement. With regard to family structure variables, it was found that the most significant relationships between value areas were with family size (for both men and women), slightly fewer relationships were. with birth order (4 for men and 7 for women), age-gap with regard to subsequent-born sibling (7 for men and 4 for women), and age-gap with regard to preceding sibling (3 for men and 5 for women).
Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) constructed a theory of the universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements: biological needs, interactional requirement for interpersonal coordination, and societal demand for group welfare and survival. From these requirements conceptual and operational definitions for 8 motivational domains of values were derived: Enjoyment, Security, Social power, Achievement, Self-direction, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Maturity. Smallest space analyses on ratings of the importance of 36 Rokeach values as guiding principles were carried out. Partitioning of the multidimensional space into regions indeed revealed that people discriminate among values according to the a-priori specifications of goal types, interests served and motivational domain. The projection of interests served and motivational domains facets of Israeli Ss is shown as follows: (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Security, e.g. national security, family security. Pro-social, e.g. equality, helpful. Restrictive Conformity, e.g. obedient, polite. Enjoyment, e.g. comfortable life, pleasure. Achievement, e.g. ambitious, exciting life. Self-direction, e.g. imaginative, independent. Maturity, e.g. mature love, wisdom.
Happiness consists, according to Argyle, Martin and Crossland (1989), of three related components: frequency of joy, average level of satisfaction and absence of negative feelings. A new measure, the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI), is reported to correlate 0.4 or above with Extraversion. Happy people were found to make more internal, global and stable attributions for good events (Martin, Argyle & Crossland, 1988). Rim (1993) investigated the relationships between happiness and coping styles. It was found that both happy men and women were high on Mapping and low on Substitution. In addition, happy men were lower on Blame, and happy women were high on Minimization, Suppression and Reversal, and lower on Substitution. Zajonc and Markus (1975) proposed a theoretical model-the Confluence Model-which suggests a new explanation of the relationship between birth order and intelligence. According to the model, the intellectual level of each family member depends on the intellectual environment of the family, which is determined by the average intellect of its members. Thus, family size has a negative effect on intellectual level, since in large families there are proportionally more young children who lower the intellectual level of the family. The age spacing between the children is of course of importance to the average intellectual level. But Zajonc (1976) warns: “I.Q. isn’t everything. Large families may contribute to growth in attributes other than intelligence: Social competence, moral responsibility_ or ego - strength, for example”. These or similar family effects are still to be verified, however: The present paper reports the results of an investigation whose purpose it was to: (1) find the relationships between happiness and the 7 areas of values, and (2) to find whether family structural variables are related to both happiness and values. METHOD Subjects
Sixty-two men and 51 women undergraduate students of Industrial Engineering and Management served as Ss. Their mean ages were for men: 24.6 years (range 22-31) and for women: 22.5 years (range 21-26). Instruments
used
(1) The OHI (Argyle et al., 1989), a 29-item measure, which correlated 0.4-0.6 with frequency of joy, average level of
satisfaction and absence of negative feelings. Ss are asked to pick out the statements in each group which best describe the way they have been feeling over the past week, including today. Sample items: (a) I do not feel happy; I feel fairly happy; I am very happy; I am incredibly happy; and (b) I get by in life; Life is good, Life is very good; I love life. 595
NOTES AN0
5%
SHORTER CQbfMUNlCATtONS
(2) Value Questionnaire based on Schwartz and Bilsky (1987). Measuring the importance to the S of values in 7 areas: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction, and Maturity. Ss answered on a ‘I-step scale, and scores were calculated by adding the answers for the values within each area. (3) A specially designed questionnaire secured information with regard to family structure variables, such as: number of siblings, birth order (first-, middle- and last-born); age-gaps between S and previously and/or subsequently born sibling, age and gender of S.
RJ?.SJLTSAND DISCUSSION
Table 1 shows the overall differences between men and women. Thus, we see that women have significantly higher scores on Happiness and Pro-social values, while men have higher scores on Security, Restrictive Conformity and Enjoyment. The mean scores of values according to level of Happiness are shown in Table 2. It is obvious that women below the median on Happiness have significantly higher scores on all 7 value areas. Men, below the median on Happiness, however, have higher scores on 4 value areas only: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity and Achievement. The results show a rather high consensus, in showing relatively unhappy Ss have higher scores on values, the tendency being more pronounced in women than in men. Our assumption that happiness and the importance of values are interrelated seems to be confirmed by the results. With regard to the relationships between family structure variables on the one hand and happiness and values on the other hand, the following Tables 3-7 will show the extent to which our assumption is confirmed. The relationships between family size, i.e. number of siblings, and the variables investigated, can be seen in Table 3. It is clear that the mean scores of Happiness of both men and women are signifkantly higher in larger families. It can further be seen that men of larger families have higher scores on four value areas: Restrictive Conformity, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. Men from smaller families have significantly higher scores on Pro-social and Enjoyment values. Women from large families have significantly higher scores on Security, Pro-social, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. The results of the latter 3 value areas are in the same direction for men and women, while the results of Table 1. Mean scores on happiness and values according to gender Gender
Happiness
Security
Men Women Sian&
37.6 39.2 0.05
36.2 34.6 0.05
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievcm.
Self-direct.
Maturity
24.1 17.0 0.01
23.8 21.6 0.05
21.8 21.8 NS
39.4 39.0 NS
26.5 27.0 NS
28.6 31.8 0.05
Table 2. Mean scores of values accordina to level of haDDkas (men and women) Haooiness
Level
Seculitv
Pro-social
R&r. Conf.
Eniovment
Achievem.
Self-dir&.
Maturitv
Men
Above median Below median Signif.
46.2 29.0 0.01
34.7 37.8 0.05
27.5 29.7 0.05
la.3 21.1 0.05
23.5 24.1 NS
20.3 23.3 0.05
39.4 38.5 NS
26.5 26.5 NS
49.7 28.7 0.01
30.0 38.1 0.05
27.7 35.2 0.05
12.3 20.5 0.05
19.0 23.5 0.05
19.7 23.5 0.05
36.3 41.0 0.05
24.7 28.7 0.05
wo&.u Above median Below median Sianif.
Table 3. Mean scores of happiness and values according to family size (men and women) Family size Men hrgc Small Signif. Women hge Small Signif.
Happiness
Security
38.4 35.8 0.05
36.0 36.5 NS
46.7 31.7 0.01
36.1 33.5 0.05
R&r. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
25.2 27.8 0.05
21.1 17.8 0.05
21.3 23.3 0.05
23.4 20.9 0.05
38.6 34.5 0.05
27.5 24.8 0.05
33.3 30.7 0.05
17.1 17.0 NS
23.7 19.5 0.05
24.1 13.7 0.01
42.3 36.5 0.05
30.1 24.7 0.05
Pro-social
Table 4. Mean scores of happiness and values according to birth-order (men and women) Birth Gender Men First-B Mid-B Last-B Signif. Women First-B Mid-B Last-B Signif.
Security
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achicvem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
35.6’ 37.ab 31.9b 0.05
37.2’ 36.3b 34.4b 0.05
26.9’ 29.3b 2a.ab 0.05
18.4’ 20.6b 20.ab 0.05
24.8’ 22.4b 23.1b 0.05
20.2” 22.4b 22.4b 0.05
40.4 38. I 39.5 NS
26.2 26.6 26.7 NS
37.lb 42.3’ 3SSb 0.05
36.0’ 36.1’ 31.0b 0.05
33.5’ 33.3’ 2a.P 0.05
19.5’ 15.7b 16.Sb 0.05
23.5’ 24. I’ 16.0b 0.05
25.0’ 23.0’ 17.lb 0.05
42.0s 40.3” 34.2b 0.05
28.1’ 29.7’ 22.lb 0.05
Happines
Means with different subscripts arc significant at 0.05.
NOTES AND
SHORTER
597
COMMUNICATIONS
Table 5. Mean scores of happiness and values according to age-gap with preceding sibling Age-gap Men Large Small Signif. Women Large Small Signif.
Security
Pro-social
31.2 41 .o 0.05
32.9 36.0 0.05
30.1 29.9 NS
22.1 18.7 0.05
38.1 45.2 0.05
35.0 32.6 0.05
32.3 29.3 0.05
16.7 16.3 NS
Happiness
R&r.
Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
25.6 22.4 0.05
22.9 22.3 NS
40.4 39.3 NS
21.6 26.0 NS
23.3 18.6 0.05
23.1 20.6 0.05
38.7 39.0 NS
27.6 25.3 0.05
Table 6. Mean scores of happiness and values according to age-gap with subsequent sibling
Aae-aau
Haudness
SeculitY
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enioyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
Men
Large Small Signif. Women Large Small Signif.
36.0 37.1 NS
38.4 25.3 0.05
30.9 28.1 0.05
17.4 19.9 0.05
25.6 20. I 0.05
23.9 21.0 0.05
43.4 38. I 0.05
27.7 25.2 0.05
24.5 44.0 0.01
39.5 35.2 0.05
38.3 35.5 0.05
20.2 18.0 0.05
25.4 24.5 NS
20.5 23.5 0.05
40.6 42.0 NS
30.7 30.0 NS
Table 7. Mean scores of hauuiness and values according
Ace Men Above Below Signif. Women Above Below Sianif.
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
to aae (men and women) Eniovment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturitv
HaDDineSS
securitv
median median
32.4 41.6 0.01
36.7 35.9 NS
29.9 27.6 0.05
20.6 18.6 0.05
24.6 22.2 0.05
22.0 21.6 NS
40.7 38.5 0.05
26.5 26.5 NS
median median
46.7 31.6 0.05
35.2 33.1 NS
32.2 31.3 NS
16.5 17.6 NS
23.5 19.1 0.05
24.7 18.2 0.05
41.2 36.1 0.05
28.7 24.6 0.05
2 values: Pro-social and Enjoyment are in opposite directions for men and women. The results of Security and Restrictive Conformity are gender-specific. The relationships between birth order and the variables investigated are shown in Table 4. Middle- and last-born men and middle-born women are significantly higher on Happiness. With regard to values, it can be seen that middle- and last-born men have significantly higher scores on Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Achievement values, while firstand middle-born are higher on Security, and first-born are higher on Enjoyment. The relationship between birth order and values among women is quite different. First- and middle-born women are significantly higher on almost all value areas, and first-born are higher on Restrictive Conformity. It should be pointed out, that women’s and men’s scores are in the opposite direction with regard to Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Achievement. Table 5 shows the mean scores of Ss according to the age-gap between them and their preceding siblings. Both men and women with small age-gaps are happier than those with large age-gaps, as far as values are concerned. Men with large age-gaps have significantly higher scores on Restrictive Conformity and Enjoyment, while those with small age-gaps are higher on Security values, Women with large age-gaps have higher scores on Security (unlike men), Pro-social, Enjoyment (like men), Achievement and Maturity. The mean scores according to the age-gap between Ss and their subsequently-born siblings are shown in Table 6. Women with small age-gaps are happier than those with large age-gaps. Men’s scores are not statistically different. As far as values are concerned, men with large age-gaps are higher on all values, except Restrictive Conformity. Women with large age-gaps are higher on Security, Pro-social and Restrictive Conformity, and lower on Achievement; the latter two, unlike men. Table 7, finally shows the mean scores of Ss according to age. It is surprising to see that older men are less, but older women are more happy. This is the only contrasting result among all investigated variables as far as happiness is concerned. With regard to values, older men are higher on 4 value areas: Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, and Self-direction. Older women are higher on Enjoyment and Self-direction (both like men) and Achievement and Maturity. In sum, we saw that Happiness is related to 4 value areas among men, and 7 areas among women. It is also related to family size of both men and women, to birth order (middle and last-born men, and middle-born women are happier), to age-gap with regard to preceding sibling (both genders) and age-gap with regard to subsequent sibling among women only. As for the family structure variables, we saw that family size is related to 6 value areas among both men and women. Birth order is related to all 7 value areas among women, but only 4 among men. Age-gap with preceding sibling accounts for 3 value areas among men and 5 among women. Age-gap with subsequent sibling is related to all 7 value areas among men, and 4 among women. The 2 value areas least involved in the relationships with family structure variables were Maturity and Self-direction. Family size accounts for most significant differences with values (12) birth-order and age-gap with preceding sibling for least differences (8). REFERENCES
Argyle, M., Martin, M. & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In Forgas, J. P. & Innes, J. M. (Eds), Recent advances in socialpsychology: An internationulperspectiue. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. North Holland.
598
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICA~ONS
Martin, M., Argyle, M. & Crossland, J. (1988). On the measurement of happiness. The Psychologisr, 1, 33. Rim, Y. (1983). Happiness and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 617618. Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, L. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Zajonc, R. B. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence. Science, 192, 227-236. Zajonc, R. B. & Markus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development, Psychology Review, 82, 74-88.
Person. individ. Diff. Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 595-598, 1993 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
Values, happiness and family structure variables Y. kM Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion-Israel Haifa 32oo0, Israel (Received
Institute of Technology,
13 January 1993)
Summary-This is a report of an investigation of interrelationships between value areas, happiness and family structure variables. The value areas were: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. It was found that women below the median on Happiness had significantly higher scores on all 7 value areas, while relatively unhappy men scored higher on 4 value areas only: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity and Achievement. With regard to family structure variables, it was found that the most significant relationships between value areas were with family size (for both men and women), slightly fewer relationships were. with birth order (4 for men and 7 for women), age-gap with regard to subsequent-born sibling (7 for men and 4 for women), and age-gap with regard to preceding sibling (3 for men and 5 for women).
Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) constructed a theory of the universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements: biological needs, interactional requirement for interpersonal coordination, and societal demand for group welfare and survival. From these requirements conceptual and operational definitions for 8 motivational domains of values were derived: Enjoyment, Security, Social power, Achievement, Self-direction, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Maturity. Smallest space analyses on ratings of the importance of 36 Rokeach values as guiding principles were carried out. Partitioning of the multidimensional space into regions indeed revealed that people discriminate among values according to the a-priori specifications of goal types, interests served and motivational domain. The projection of interests served and motivational domains facets of Israeli Ss is shown as follows: (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Security, e.g. national security, family security. Pro-social, e.g. equality, helpful. Restrictive Conformity, e.g. obedient, polite. Enjoyment, e.g. comfortable life, pleasure. Achievement, e.g. ambitious, exciting life. Self-direction, e.g. imaginative, independent. Maturity, e.g. mature love, wisdom.
Happiness consists, according to Argyle, Martin and Crossland (1989), of three related components: frequency of joy, average level of satisfaction and absence of negative feelings. A new measure, the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI), is reported to correlate 0.4 or above with Extraversion. Happy people were found to make more internal, global and stable attributions for good events (Martin, Argyle & Crossland, 1988). Rim (1993) investigated the relationships between happiness and coping styles. It was found that both happy men and women were high on Mapping and low on Substitution. In addition, happy men were lower on Blame, and happy women were high on Minimization, Suppression and Reversal, and lower on Substitution. Zajonc and Markus (1975) proposed a theoretical model-the Confluence Model-which suggests a new explanation of the relationship between birth order and intelligence. According to the model, the intellectual level of each family member depends on the intellectual environment of the family, which is determined by the average intellect of its members. Thus, family size has a negative effect on intellectual level, since in large families there are proportionally more young children who lower the intellectual level of the family. The age spacing between the children is of course of importance to the average intellectual level. But Zajonc (1976) warns: “I.Q. isn’t everything. Large families may contribute to growth in attributes other than intelligence: Social competence, moral responsibility_ or ego - strength, for example”. These or similar family effects are still to be verified, however: The present paper reports the results of an investigation whose purpose it was to: (1) find the relationships between happiness and the 7 areas of values, and (2) to find whether family structural variables are related to both happiness and values. METHOD Subjects
Sixty-two men and 51 women undergraduate students of Industrial Engineering and Management served as Ss. Their mean ages were for men: 24.6 years (range 22-31) and for women: 22.5 years (range 21-26). Instruments
used
(1) The OHI (Argyle et al., 1989), a 29-item measure, which correlated 0.4-0.6 with frequency of joy, average level of
satisfaction and absence of negative feelings. Ss are asked to pick out the statements in each group which best describe the way they have been feeling over the past week, including today. Sample items: (a) I do not feel happy; I feel fairly happy; I am very happy; I am incredibly happy; and (b) I get by in life; Life is good, Life is very good; I love life. 595
NOTES AN0
5%
SHORTER CQbfMUNlCATtONS
(2) Value Questionnaire based on Schwartz and Bilsky (1987). Measuring the importance to the S of values in 7 areas: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction, and Maturity. Ss answered on a ‘I-step scale, and scores were calculated by adding the answers for the values within each area. (3) A specially designed questionnaire secured information with regard to family structure variables, such as: number of siblings, birth order (first-, middle- and last-born); age-gaps between S and previously and/or subsequently born sibling, age and gender of S.
RJ?.SJLTSAND DISCUSSION
Table 1 shows the overall differences between men and women. Thus, we see that women have significantly higher scores on Happiness and Pro-social values, while men have higher scores on Security, Restrictive Conformity and Enjoyment. The mean scores of values according to level of Happiness are shown in Table 2. It is obvious that women below the median on Happiness have significantly higher scores on all 7 value areas. Men, below the median on Happiness, however, have higher scores on 4 value areas only: Security, Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity and Achievement. The results show a rather high consensus, in showing relatively unhappy Ss have higher scores on values, the tendency being more pronounced in women than in men. Our assumption that happiness and the importance of values are interrelated seems to be confirmed by the results. With regard to the relationships between family structure variables on the one hand and happiness and values on the other hand, the following Tables 3-7 will show the extent to which our assumption is confirmed. The relationships between family size, i.e. number of siblings, and the variables investigated, can be seen in Table 3. It is clear that the mean scores of Happiness of both men and women are signifkantly higher in larger families. It can further be seen that men of larger families have higher scores on four value areas: Restrictive Conformity, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. Men from smaller families have significantly higher scores on Pro-social and Enjoyment values. Women from large families have significantly higher scores on Security, Pro-social, Enjoyment, Achievement, Self-direction and Maturity. The results of the latter 3 value areas are in the same direction for men and women, while the results of Table 1. Mean scores on happiness and values according to gender Gender
Happiness
Security
Men Women Sian&
37.6 39.2 0.05
36.2 34.6 0.05
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievcm.
Self-direct.
Maturity
24.1 17.0 0.01
23.8 21.6 0.05
21.8 21.8 NS
39.4 39.0 NS
26.5 27.0 NS
28.6 31.8 0.05
Table 2. Mean scores of values accordina to level of haDDkas (men and women) Haooiness
Level
Seculitv
Pro-social
R&r. Conf.
Eniovment
Achievem.
Self-dir&.
Maturitv
Men
Above median Below median Signif.
46.2 29.0 0.01
34.7 37.8 0.05
27.5 29.7 0.05
la.3 21.1 0.05
23.5 24.1 NS
20.3 23.3 0.05
39.4 38.5 NS
26.5 26.5 NS
49.7 28.7 0.01
30.0 38.1 0.05
27.7 35.2 0.05
12.3 20.5 0.05
19.0 23.5 0.05
19.7 23.5 0.05
36.3 41.0 0.05
24.7 28.7 0.05
wo&.u Above median Below median Sianif.
Table 3. Mean scores of happiness and values according to family size (men and women) Family size Men hrgc Small Signif. Women hge Small Signif.
Happiness
Security
38.4 35.8 0.05
36.0 36.5 NS
46.7 31.7 0.01
36.1 33.5 0.05
R&r. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
25.2 27.8 0.05
21.1 17.8 0.05
21.3 23.3 0.05
23.4 20.9 0.05
38.6 34.5 0.05
27.5 24.8 0.05
33.3 30.7 0.05
17.1 17.0 NS
23.7 19.5 0.05
24.1 13.7 0.01
42.3 36.5 0.05
30.1 24.7 0.05
Pro-social
Table 4. Mean scores of happiness and values according to birth-order (men and women) Birth Gender Men First-B Mid-B Last-B Signif. Women First-B Mid-B Last-B Signif.
Security
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enjoyment
Achicvem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
35.6’ 37.ab 31.9b 0.05
37.2’ 36.3b 34.4b 0.05
26.9’ 29.3b 2a.ab 0.05
18.4’ 20.6b 20.ab 0.05
24.8’ 22.4b 23.1b 0.05
20.2” 22.4b 22.4b 0.05
40.4 38. I 39.5 NS
26.2 26.6 26.7 NS
37.lb 42.3’ 3SSb 0.05
36.0’ 36.1’ 31.0b 0.05
33.5’ 33.3’ 2a.P 0.05
19.5’ 15.7b 16.Sb 0.05
23.5’ 24. I’ 16.0b 0.05
25.0’ 23.0’ 17.lb 0.05
42.0s 40.3” 34.2b 0.05
28.1’ 29.7’ 22.lb 0.05
Happines
Means with different subscripts arc significant at 0.05.
NOTES AND
SHORTER
597
COMMUNICATIONS
Table 5. Mean scores of happiness and values according to age-gap with preceding sibling Age-gap Men Large Small Signif. Women Large Small Signif.
Security
Pro-social
31.2 41 .o 0.05
32.9 36.0 0.05
30.1 29.9 NS
22.1 18.7 0.05
38.1 45.2 0.05
35.0 32.6 0.05
32.3 29.3 0.05
16.7 16.3 NS
Happiness
R&r.
Conf.
Enjoyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
25.6 22.4 0.05
22.9 22.3 NS
40.4 39.3 NS
21.6 26.0 NS
23.3 18.6 0.05
23.1 20.6 0.05
38.7 39.0 NS
27.6 25.3 0.05
Table 6. Mean scores of happiness and values according to age-gap with subsequent sibling
Aae-aau
Haudness
SeculitY
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
Enioyment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturity
Men
Large Small Signif. Women Large Small Signif.
36.0 37.1 NS
38.4 25.3 0.05
30.9 28.1 0.05
17.4 19.9 0.05
25.6 20. I 0.05
23.9 21.0 0.05
43.4 38. I 0.05
27.7 25.2 0.05
24.5 44.0 0.01
39.5 35.2 0.05
38.3 35.5 0.05
20.2 18.0 0.05
25.4 24.5 NS
20.5 23.5 0.05
40.6 42.0 NS
30.7 30.0 NS
Table 7. Mean scores of hauuiness and values according
Ace Men Above Below Signif. Women Above Below Sianif.
Pro-social
Restr. Conf.
to aae (men and women) Eniovment
Achievem.
Self-direct.
Maturitv
HaDDineSS
securitv
median median
32.4 41.6 0.01
36.7 35.9 NS
29.9 27.6 0.05
20.6 18.6 0.05
24.6 22.2 0.05
22.0 21.6 NS
40.7 38.5 0.05
26.5 26.5 NS
median median
46.7 31.6 0.05
35.2 33.1 NS
32.2 31.3 NS
16.5 17.6 NS
23.5 19.1 0.05
24.7 18.2 0.05
41.2 36.1 0.05
28.7 24.6 0.05
2 values: Pro-social and Enjoyment are in opposite directions for men and women. The results of Security and Restrictive Conformity are gender-specific. The relationships between birth order and the variables investigated are shown in Table 4. Middle- and last-born men and middle-born women are significantly higher on Happiness. With regard to values, it can be seen that middle- and last-born men have significantly higher scores on Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Achievement values, while firstand middle-born are higher on Security, and first-born are higher on Enjoyment. The relationship between birth order and values among women is quite different. First- and middle-born women are significantly higher on almost all value areas, and first-born are higher on Restrictive Conformity. It should be pointed out, that women’s and men’s scores are in the opposite direction with regard to Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, and Achievement. Table 5 shows the mean scores of Ss according to the age-gap between them and their preceding siblings. Both men and women with small age-gaps are happier than those with large age-gaps, as far as values are concerned. Men with large age-gaps have significantly higher scores on Restrictive Conformity and Enjoyment, while those with small age-gaps are higher on Security values, Women with large age-gaps have higher scores on Security (unlike men), Pro-social, Enjoyment (like men), Achievement and Maturity. The mean scores according to the age-gap between Ss and their subsequently-born siblings are shown in Table 6. Women with small age-gaps are happier than those with large age-gaps. Men’s scores are not statistically different. As far as values are concerned, men with large age-gaps are higher on all values, except Restrictive Conformity. Women with large age-gaps are higher on Security, Pro-social and Restrictive Conformity, and lower on Achievement; the latter two, unlike men. Table 7, finally shows the mean scores of Ss according to age. It is surprising to see that older men are less, but older women are more happy. This is the only contrasting result among all investigated variables as far as happiness is concerned. With regard to values, older men are higher on 4 value areas: Pro-social, Restrictive Conformity, Enjoyment, and Self-direction. Older women are higher on Enjoyment and Self-direction (both like men) and Achievement and Maturity. In sum, we saw that Happiness is related to 4 value areas among men, and 7 areas among women. It is also related to family size of both men and women, to birth order (middle and last-born men, and middle-born women are happier), to age-gap with regard to preceding sibling (both genders) and age-gap with regard to subsequent sibling among women only. As for the family structure variables, we saw that family size is related to 6 value areas among both men and women. Birth order is related to all 7 value areas among women, but only 4 among men. Age-gap with preceding sibling accounts for 3 value areas among men and 5 among women. Age-gap with subsequent sibling is related to all 7 value areas among men, and 4 among women. The 2 value areas least involved in the relationships with family structure variables were Maturity and Self-direction. Family size accounts for most significant differences with values (12) birth-order and age-gap with preceding sibling for least differences (8). REFERENCES
Argyle, M., Martin, M. & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In Forgas, J. P. & Innes, J. M. (Eds), Recent advances in socialpsychology: An internationulperspectiue. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. North Holland.
598
NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICA~ONS
Martin, M., Argyle, M. & Crossland, J. (1988). On the measurement of happiness. The Psychologisr, 1, 33. Rim, Y. (1983). Happiness and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 617618. Schwartz, S. H. & Bilsky, L. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Zajonc, R. B. (1976). Family configuration and intelligence. Science, 192, 227-236. Zajonc, R. B. & Markus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intellectual development, Psychology Review, 82, 74-88.