Gender differences in entrepreneurs’ work–family conflict and well-being during COVID-19: Moderating effects of gender-egalitarian contexts

Figures & data

Figure 1. Gender-egalitarian contexts.

Figure 2. Theoretical framework.

Figure 3. Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism according to the UNDP’s (2019) gender inequality index.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Mean	St. Dev.	Min.	Max.
Psychological well-being	3.607	1.104	1	6
Work–family conflict	2.511	0.772	1	5
Female	0.608	0.488	0	1
Age	48.548	10.823	18	82
Household size	2.926	1.168	1	5
Children in the household	0.442	0.497	0	1
Tertiary education	0.742	0.438	0	1
Savings	0.697	0.459	0	1
Poor health	2.064	0.769	1	5
Solo entrepreneur	0.684	0.465	0	1
GDP per capita	9.35E + 11	1.26E + 12	2.01E + 10	4.40E + 12
COVID-19 stringency index	71.150	5.937	54.970	81.960
Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism	0.869	0.070	0.724	0.962
Institutional gender egalitarianism	0.915	0.038	0.837	0.958
Cultural gender egalitarianism	0.533	0.072	0.423	0.730

Notes. N = 5,754.

Table 2. Correlations.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	13	14	15
1. Psychological well-being	1
2. Work–family conflict	−0.386	1
3. Female	−0.061	0.048	1
4. Age	0.098	−0.158	0.051	1
5. Household size	−0.008	0.210	−0.034	−0.169	1
6. Children in the household	−0.032	0.241	−0.016	−0.271	0.613	1
7. Tertiary education	0.055	0.000	0.058	−0.011	−0.056	−0.024	1
8. Savings	0.091	−0.057	−0.007	0.038	0.009	0.000	0.018	1
9. Poor health	−0.294	0.134	0.006	0.129	−0.051	−0.051	−0.093	−0.050	1
10. Solo entrepreneur	0.017	−0.111	0.073	−0.007	−0.133	−0.074	0.008	−0.024	0.022	1
11. GDP per capita	−0.008	−0.010	0.025	−0.017	−0.116	−0.079	0.080	−0.005	−0.063	0.064	1
13. COVID-19 stringency index	−0.054	0.066	−0.048	0.046	0.046	−0.018	0.012	0.000	−0.053	−0.020	0.038	1
14. Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism	0.047	0.061	0.020	0.063	0.004	−0.009	0.007	0.006	−0.113	0.027	0.378	0.211	1
15. Institutional gender egalitarianism	0.041	0.038	0.018	0.035	−0.009	−0.010	0.052	−0.016	−0.092	0.039	0.348	−0.051	0.739	1
16. Cultural gender egalitarianism	0.059	−0.019	−0.023	0.087	−0.034	−0.038	0.085	−0.015	−0.119	0.045	0.472	0.102	0.632	0.643

Notes. Correlations in bold are significant at the 1% level. N = 5,754.

Table 3. Mediation and moderation analysis results.

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Woman	0.100***	−0.165***	−0.114***	0.671**	1.225**	0.555***
Work–family conflict			−0.502***
Age	−0.009***	0.014***	0.009***	−0.009***	−0.009***	−0.009***
Household size	0.057***	0.016	0.045***	0.058***	0.057***	0.057***
Children in the household	0.242***	−0.051*	0.070***	0.241***	0.242***	0.241***
Tertiary education	0.041**	0.089**	0.109***	0.040**	0.042**	0.042**
Savings	−0.079***	0.167***	0.127***	−0.078***	−0.078***	−0.079***
Poor health	0.174***	−0.441***	−0.354***	0.174***	0.175***	0.174***
Solo entrepreneur	−0.164***	0.075**	−0.007	−0.163***	−0.163***	−0.162***
GDP per capita	0.000	−0.000	−0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
COVID-19 stringency index	0.009	−0.018**	−0.013**	0.010	0.010	0.009
Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism	0.901	0.806	1.258	1.270	0.878	0.890
Institutional gender egalitarianism	0.921	−1.098	−0.635	0.914	1.657	0.893
Cultural gender egalitarianism	−0.713	0.424	0.067	−0.690	−0.691	−0.156
Female
× Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism				−0.657**
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.229**
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.852***
Constant	0.480	5.057***	5.298***	0.150	−0.188	0.235
R^2	0.129	0.126	0.233	0.130	0.130	0.130
Mediation in %			31%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.050***

Notes. N = 5,754, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap is performed with 5,000 resamples.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Figure 4. (a–c) Interaction graphs with work–family conflict.

Table 4. Moderated mediation analysis results.

			Dependent variable: Psychological well-being
Mediator	Moderator	Level	Indirect effect	Boot SE	z	p > |z|	LL 95% CI	UL 95% CI
Work–family conflict	Socioeconomic gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.073	0.014	−5.14	0.000	−0.101	−0.045
		Middle (M)	−0.050	0.010	−5.07	0.000	−0.070	−0.031
		High (+1 SD)	−0.027	0.014	−2.02	0.044	−0.054	−0.001
	Institutional gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.074	0.014	−5.38	0.000	−0.101	−0.047
		Middle (M)	−0.050	0.010	−5.08	0.000	−0.069	−0.031
		High (+1 SD)	−0.026	0.014	−1.93	0.054	−0.053	0.000
	Cultural gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.081	0.014	−5.83	0.000	−0.109	−0.054
		Middle (M)	−0.051	0.010	−5.15	0.000	−0.070	−0.031
		High (+1 SD)	−0.020	0.014	−1.44	0.151	−0.047	0.007

Notes. LL = lower limit of confidence interval (CI); UL = upper limit of CI. N = 5,754, in 27 countries. Boot SE = Bootstrapped standard errors, which are clustered on the 27 countries. The bootstrap includes 5,000 resamples.

Table A1. Well-being during COVID-19.

Timeline of U.K. COVID-19 Lockdowns	First Lockdown			First Relaxation			Further Relaxation			Second Lockdown
	Stop “non-essential contact” (16 March) Lockdown announcement (23 March) Legal lockdown measures applied (26 March) Lockdown extended for three weeks (16 April)			Plan for lifting lockdown released (10 May) Phased re-opening of schools (1 June) and non-essential shops (15 June) Some officials assert lockdown should end (23 June)			Further easing of restrictions: reopening of pubs, restaurants, and hairdressers (4 July) Eat out to help out scheme (3 August) Lockdown restriction eased further (14 August)			Further restrictions threatened (30 September) Announcement of second lockdown (31 October) Second lockdown comes into force (5 November)
Data collection in	April 2020			June 2020			September 2020			November 2021
Entrepreneurs who reported:	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.	Male	Female	Diff.
More than usual
Concentration problems	24%	38%	13%	19%	28%	8%	13%	20%	7%	18%	29%	11%
Loss of sleep over worry	17%	34%	16%	17%	25%	9%	13%	22%	9%	19%	30%	12%
Constantly under strain	23%	38%	15%	23%	33%	9%	21%	31%	10%	27%	36%	10%
Problems overcoming difficulties	10%	18%	8%	12%	17%	5%	10%	16%	6%	14%	20%	7%
Depressed	21%	34%	13%	18%	27%	8%	15%	22%	7%	20%	32%	13%
Losing confidence	11%	22%	11%	12%	22%	10%	11%	17%	7%	13%	25%	11%
Believe being worthless	7%	11%	4%	8%	12%	4%	6%	10%	3%	11%	14%	3%
Less than usual
Playing a useful role	18%	29%	10%	14%	20%	7%	10%	14%	4%	14%	18%	4%
Capable of making decision	10%	16%	6%	9%	15%	6%	7%	13%	6%	10%	17%	7%
Enjoy day-to-day activities	39%	49%	10%	27%	35%	8%	19%	24%	5%	30%	40%	9%
Ability to face problems	9%	15%	7%	10%	14%	5%	8%	13%	6%	10%	17%	7%
Happiness	18%	27%	9%	15%	22%	6%	13%	19%	7%	19%	24%	5%

Diff. = Gender difference. N = 20,303 (pooled, entrepreneurs aged between 18–70 years). Entrepreneurs were asked how they “have been feeling over the last few weeks.” Answers were originally given on 4-point Likert scales, capturing positive and negative deviations from the usual state; for example, the categories for concentration problems ranged from “better than usual” to “much less than usual.” For ease of interpretation, we created binary variables (“more than usual” or “less than usual”). For further information on the single items, see the Understanding Society COVID-19 Study: April 2020 questionnaire (www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/documentation/covid-19/questionnaires/wave-1/W1-covid-19-questionnaire.pdf). For further information about lockdown timelines, see www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/timeline-lockdown-web.pdf.

Source: Understanding Society COVID-19 Study, waves 1, 3, 5 and 6.

Table A2. Countries represented in the sample.

Austria	Estonia	Italy	Portugal
Belgium	Finland	Latvia	Romania
Bulgaria	France	Lithuania	Slovakia
Croatia	Germany	Luxembourg	Slovenia
Cyprus	Greece	Malta	Spain
Czech Republic	Hungary	Netherlands	Sweden
Denmark	Ireland	Poland

Table A3. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs with employees sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.183***	−0.221***	−0.130***	0.811	0.443	0.261
Work–family conflict			−0.497***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.724
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−0.285
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.147
R^2	0.122	0.133	0.235	0.124	0.122	0.122
Mediation in %			41%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.091***

N = 1,818, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A4. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Solo entrepreneurs sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.056	−0.132***	−0.103***	0.651*	1.716**	0.705***
Work–family conflict			−0.502***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.684
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.813**
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−1.211***
R^2	0.122	0.128	0.236	0.123	0.124	0.125
Mediation in %			22%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.028*

N = 3,936, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A5. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs with children sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.146***	−0.185***	−0.117***	1.072*	1.582	0.824***
Work–family conflict			−0.463***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−1.067
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.570
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−1.278**
R^2	0.086	0.123	0.223	0.088	0.088	0.089
Mediation in %			37%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.091***

N = 2,542, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A6. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs without children sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.042*	−0.141***	−0.118***	1.072*	1.582	0.824***
Work–family conflict			−0.545***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−1.067
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.570
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−1.278**
R^2	0.091	0.128	0.242	0.088	0.088	0.089
Mediation in %			16%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.023*

N = 2,542, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A7. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs with savings sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.112***	−0.183***	−0.127***	0.777***	1.484**	0.635***
Work–family conflict			−0.507***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.764**
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.500**
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.980***
R^2	0.124	0.133	0.244	0.125	0.125	0.126
Mediation in %			30%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.056***

N = 4,013, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A8. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs without savings sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.071*	−0.118**	−0.083*	0.504	0.704	0.400
Work–family conflict			−0.492***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.498
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−0.691
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.613
R^2	0.136	0.094	0.194	0.136	0.136	0.136
Mediation in %			30%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.035*

N = 1,741, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A9. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs with tertiary education sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.094***	−0.169**	−0.121	0.774**	1.172**	0.520***
Work–family conflict			−0.511***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.782**
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.176*
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.792**
R^2	0.139	0.118	0.233	0.141	0.140	0.141
Mediation in %			28%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.048***

N = 4,269, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A10. Mediation and moderation analysis results [Entrepreneurs without tertiary education sample].

	Work–family conflict	Psychological well-being		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.103**	−0.146**	−0.098	0.403	1.468	0.721**
Work–family conflict			−0.470***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.345
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.496
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−1.178**
R^2	0.109	0.145	0.231	0.109	0.110	0.111
Mediation in %			33%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.048***

N = 1,485, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A11. Mediation and moderation analysis results.

	Work–family conflict	Life satisfaction		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.100***	−0.063	0.013	0.679**	1.261**	0.572***
Work–family conflict			−0.763***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.666**
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.268**
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.884***
R^2	0.129	0.059	0.113	0.130	0.130	0.130
Mediation in %			100%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.076***

N = 5,734, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples. The controls are the same as those included in Table 3.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A12. Moderated mediation analysis results.

			Dependent variable: Life satisfaction
Mediator	Moderator	Level	Indirect effect	Boots. SE	z	p > |z|	LL 95% CI	UL 95% CI
Work–family conflict	Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.112	0.022	−5.09	0.000	−0.155	−0.069
		Middle (M)	−0.076	0.016	−4.90	0.000	−0.107	−0.046
		High (+1 SD)	−0.041	0.021	−1.96	0.051	−0.082	0.000
	Institutional gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.113	0.021	−5.28	0.000	−0.155	−0.071
		Middle (M)	−0.076	0.015	−4.95	0.000	−0.106	−0.046
		High (+1 SD)	−0.039	0.021	−1.82	0.069	−0.081	0.003
	Cultural gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.125	0.022	−5.63	0.000	−0.169	−0.082
		Middle (M)	−0.077	0.016	−4.95	0.000	−0.107	−0.046
		High (+1 SD)	−0.029	0.021	−1.36	0.175	−0.070	0.013

LL = lower limit of confidence interval (CI); UL = upper limit of CI. N = 5,734, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples.

Table A13. Mediation and moderation analysis results.

	Work–family conflict	Happiness		Work–family conflict
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Female	0.101***	−0.094*	−0.037	0.679**	1.223**	0.559***
Work–family conflict			−0.568***
Female
× Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism				−0.665**
× Institutional gender egalitarianism					−1.226**
× Cultural gender egalitarianism						−0.858***
R^2	0.129	0.0682	0.202	0.129	0.129	0.130
Mediation in %			61%
Bootstrapped indirect effect			−0.057***

N = 5,739, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples.

* p < .1; ** p < .05, *** p < .01.

Table A14. Moderated mediation analysis results.

			Dependent variable: Happiness
Mediator	Moderator	Level	Indirect effect	Boots. SE	z	p > |z|	LL 95% CI	UL 95% CI
Work–family conflict	Socio-econ. gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.083	0.016	−5.29	0.000	−0.114	−0.052
		Middle (M)	−0.057	0.011	−4.99	0.000	−0.079	−0.035
		High (+1 SD)	−0.031	0.016	−1.93	0.053	−0.062	0.000
	Institutional gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.084	0.016	−5.38	0.000	−0.114	−0.053
		Middle (M)	−0.057	0.011	−5.06	0.000	−0.079	−0.035
		High (+1 SD)	−0.030	0.016	−1.92	0.055	−0.061	0.001
	Cultural gender egalitarianism	Low (- 1 SD)	−0.092	0.016	−5.81	0.000	−0.123	−0.061
		Middle (M)	−0.057	0.011	−5.09	0.000	−0.080	−0.035
		High (+1 SD)	−0.023	0.016	−1.43	0.151	−0.054	0.008

LL = lower limit of confidence interval (CI); UL = upper limit of CI. N = 5,739, in 27 countries. Bootstrapped standard errors are clustered on the 27 countries. Bootstrap with 5,000 resamples.

United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Human development report 2019: Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in Human development in the 21st century. Technical notes. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2019

 Google Scholar