Housewife or Career Woman? Who is actually happier?
Combined research from Harvard, UK’s ONS and several EU institutes reveals something not commonly talked about…
It’s not career.
It’s not family.
It’s not “balance.”
And yet, almost every high-achieving woman we speak with is still trying to “choose the right path.”
What if the path isn’t the problem at all?
The cold facts
Housewives, who chose that role willingly, are twice as happy as career women working out of fear or duty.
If a woman stays home out of love – not guilt or pressure – she shows lower anxiety, higher oxytocin levels, and a stronger sense of meaning (Deci & Ryan, 2008).When a woman freely chooses to stay home, lead a company, or create something in between, and does so without guilt or pressure, she thrives.
This isn’t about what society thinks is right.
It’s not about what she feels.
It’s not about what others expect from her.
It’s about what is aligned and chosen. Autonomy, not activity, drives well-being.
Career women, who are truly aligned with their work – not chasing status, are 30% more resilient to distress than those working just because they “should.”
Work doesn’t make you strong. Freedom to be yourself at work does.Women who feel psychologically congruent at work (not faking it, not proving anything) show >30% more resilience (Van den Bosch & Taris, 2014).
The most unhappy women are the ones constantly convincing themselves: “It’s just temporary…”, “Once the kids grow up…”, “When I find the right person…”
Paradoxically, it’s not the role that makes women miserable – it’s the self-deception.
Automatic rationalisations are the mental quicksand that keep brilliant women stuck. Not because their life is bad, but because they’ve silenced their own truth for too long.
The role isn’t the problem. The lie is.
Cognitive dissonance, when your outer life doesn’t match your inner truth, leads to chronic stress, burnout, even breakdown (Festinger, 1957; Stone & Cooper, 2001)
Women who’ve allowed themselves to say, “I just want to be,” often attract deeper relationships – even without careers.
When a woman lets go of “shoulds” and steps into what is (objective reality) she doesn’t just suddenly get happier. Her relationships improve. Her presence expands. Her nervous systems become less agitated, leading to calmer, more peaceful life. Anxiety reduces. And fulfilment follows.
This is not magic. It’s neurobiology.
Wait! There’s more!
In 1973 (allegedly) the Moscow Institute for Human Behaviour conducted a very peculiar experiment. A group of 25 volunteers was placed in a room with four doors. One door led outside. The other three led back into the same room through a maze of corridors.
Participants didn't know which door was leading to the exit.
Every wrong exit „cost” the participants „safety points" - symbolic of money or social status.
After 15 minutes, an alarm went off: lights began to flash, a loud siren sounded, and the temperature in the room was being gradually increased.
How did the participants behave?
By minute 3, 80% of participants had stopped trying new doors. Most tried only one door.
By minute 10, most were just standing still. Some sat down.
At minute 14, with only one minute left before „overheating", only one person found the right door.
The scientists concluded that people choose to staying in discomfort when:
The cost of a mistake feels higher (even if it objectively is not the case) than the pain of staying stuck.
Everyone around them is also enduring it.
No one sets an example, no one takes action, no one is even trying to escape.
Are you like just like the participants?
Enduring the wrong type of relationships for you because "that's how it is for everyone"?
Stuck in a soul-draining job because "it's not the right time to take a risk"?
Silencing your dreams because you feel afraid of losing your comfort?
But you can stand up and open the door at any moment. Yes, there's risk. Yes, it might take a few tries. However, as long as you stay still, as long as you don’t act, you lose…
And the biggest irony of the experiment? The doors were never locked…
While the story of the “Moscow Institute Experiment” remains unverified, it powerfully illustrates concepts well-documented also in Western behavioural science: including learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975), conformity (Asch, 1956), risk aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), and group inaction (Darley & Latané, 1968).
So what’s the conclusion?
It’s not career.
It’s not family.
It’s not “balance.”
It is freedom to choose your own path.Happiness isn’t about “home or office”. It is about choice. Happiness is about not lying to yourself about what you really want.
Don’t choose between career and home. Choose between living a script and living your truth.
That’s the quiet conclusion from research across Harvard’s Happiness Lab, the UK’s Office for National Statistics, and multiple European well-being institutes.
And yet, almost every high-achieving woman we speak with is still trying to “choose the right path.”
Only then does life stop being “correct”… and finally becomes yours.
There is always a way out. The question isn't where it is. The question is: will you dare to walk through it?
Next Steps
The first step is to be honest with yourself: Write down what it is that you really want to do in life.
Figuring out (in your head) how to attain or achieve what that is isn’t a prerequisite to accepting what you really want. The how is learned along the way, as long as you are clear about what you are working towards, no matter what or where that is.
If you are ready to clarify what you want and how to get it, talk to us: solutionsmakers.com
References
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (n.d.). Lee Kum Sheung Center for Health and Happiness.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at work: Development and validation of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9413-3
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1446
Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4p1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.