Gender inequality and cultural values in explaining gender differences in positive and negative emotions: A comparison of 24 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The coronavirus pandemic posed a major challenge to mental health. Existing evidence shows that COVID-19 is related to poor emotional well-being, particularly among women. However, most work on the subject uses single-country samples, limiting the ability to generalize the disparity or explain it as a function of societal variables. The present study investigates the expression of positive and negative emotions during the pandemic as a function of gender and across 24 countries ( N = 49,637). Strong gender differences emerged across countries, with women reporting more negative emotions (anxious, depressed, nervous, exhausted) and less positive emotions (calm, content, relaxed, energetic) than men. The gender gap in positive emotions was significantly wider in countries higher in individualism and narrower in countries higher in power distance. For instance, differences in emotions were larger in Western countries high in individualism, such as the USA, the UK, Italy, and France, and smaller in countries with higher collectivism and power distance, such as China, Malaysia, and South Korea, with a few exceptions like Japan and Brazil. These gender differences across countries were not explained by country-level gender inequalities indicators (GGGI and GII). Interestingly, the national severity of the pandemic, an epidemiological factor, reduced gender differences in positive emotions. These results underscore the importance of considering cultural and national factors when assessing gender differences in well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".