Significance,structure, and gender differences in life domains of college students

The purpose of this study was to assess the significance and structure of life domains of college students and to explore the patterns of gender differences on different indices of significance. Four hundred fifty-seven college students rated 21 life domains in terms of degree of importance, frequency of involvement, and level of impact. They also responded to a measure of global life satisfaction. Gender differences on significance indices were investigated by means of three types of analyses. First, gender mean ratings on 21 life domains were compared via one-way multivariate analyses of variance. Second, the underlying dimensions of the 21 domains for each gender were compared via exploratory factor analyses. Third, the correlation patterns between perceived positive impact of each life domain and life satisfaction were calculated separately for men and women. Within-group comparisons revealed that men and women shared the same nine most significant domains: education, friends, biological needs, leisure, family, health, couple, esthetics, and physical activities. However, several gender differences were consistently found in the three types of analyses. The results indicated that although traditionally feminine domains are rated as more significant to women than men, traditional masculine domains were rated as equally significant by men and women. Domains considered sex role neutral (e.g., personal planning) were rated as more significant by women than men. In general, women appear to experience greater cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of significance in a wider spectrum of activities and as well perceive their general life satisfaction as deriving from a broader range of sources. Results also highlight the importance of assessing the degree of significance of life domains as an initial step in the development of multidimensional self-related constructs.Preparation of this paper was made possible through grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Fonds pour la Formation des Chercheurs et l'Aide à la Recherche (FCAR-Québec) and the Université du Québec à Montréal. We would like to thank Richard Koestner and Richard Bourhis for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.