SATISFACTION IN RETIREMENT: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZIL AND PORTUGAL

The world aging process creates challenges in the sense of providing well-being for those who have decided to retire, considering the importance of this moment in people’s lives. Despite this, there are many gaps in studies on well-being in retirement, especially cross-cultural studies.

Design/methodology/approach:

This is a cross-sectional, quantitative study involving 1,441 retirees, 997 Brazilians and 444 Portuguese, who responded to the Retirement Satisfaction Inventory (RSI) and sociodemographic issues. For the analyses of the data, we performed multi-group confirmatory factor analyses, internal consistency and validity analyses, invariance verification and comparison of latent means of the instrument factors between the two countries.

Findings:

The results pointed to a consistent instrument structure for the two countries, which made it possible to compare them. There were no significant differences between countries in the factors related to satisfaction with individual resources and social relationships. However, in the third factor of the instrument - satisfaction with collective resources - the participants in Portugal presented a mean significantly higher than the Brazilian participants. At the end, the conclusion of the measure of satisfaction in retirement is concluded, and the differences in public service offerings between Brazil and Portugal are discussed, pointing to the specific needs of the retired population.

KEYWORDS
Retirement; Aging; Well-being; Satisfaction; Cross-cultural study

Variable	Total sample (n = 1441)	Portuguese sample (n = 444)	Brazilian sample (n = 997)
Gender
Male	51.2	62.5	46.2
Female	48.8	37.5	53.8
Age
Average (standard deviation)	63.7 (7.0)	68.0 (6.1)	61.9
From 44 to 55 years	11.3	1.2	16.0
From 56 to 65 years	49.5	31.6	56.5
From 66 to 75 years	34.0	56.9	24.2
From 76 to 90 years	5.2	10.3	3.3
Marital status
Married or stable partnership	73.2	73.0	72.9
Single, divorced or widowed	26.8	27.0	27.1
Level of education
Primary and high-school	33.3	45.6	27.9
College	40.4	36.0	42.3
Graduate study	26.3	18.4	29.9
Income
Up to three times the minimum wage	22.3	41.8	13.6
Three to six times the minimum wage	27.0	35.1	23.3
Six to nine times the minimum wage	17.9	12.8	20.1
Nine to 15 times the minimum wage	20.8	7.7	26.6
More than 15 times the minimum wage	12.1	2.6	16.2
Number of dependents
Average (standard deviation)	2.6 (1.3)	2.0 (1.0)	2.8 (1.4)
Up to three dependents	79.6	94.2	88.6
Four or more dependents	20.4	5.8	11.4
Employment:
Fully retired	77.1	83.4	74.2
Working fewer than 30 hours	12.3	12.4	12.2
Working more than 30 hours	10.6	4.3	13.5

Portugal	%
Algarve	3.4
Alentejo	7.4
Lisbon metropolitan area	41.3
Center	20.0
North	24.7
Azores	2.0
Madeira	1.1
Brazil
South	17.5
Southeast	43.5
Center-West	9.4
Northeast	24.8
North	4.7

Item	Missing	N	Average	SD	Histogram
1. Physical health	0	1,441	4.4	1.24	▁▁▁▃▆▁▇▅
2. Personal safety	0	1,441	4.4	1.30	▁▁▁▃▆▁▇▅
3. Engaging in physical activity	0	1,441	3.74	1.51	▃▃▁▆▇▁▆▅
4. Financial circumstances	0	1,441	3.78	1.35	▂▂▁▅▇▁▆▂
5. Marriage or partnership	529	912	4.79	1.36	▁▁▁▂▃▁▆▇
6. Health of spouse or partner	529	912	4.28	1.46	▂▂▁▃▆▁▇▆
7. Relationship with family members	0	1,441	4.92	1.23	▁▁▁▂▃▁▆▇
8. Quality of the home	0	1,441	5.04	1.05	▁▁▁▁▃▁▇▇
9. Local education and health services	0	1,441	3.68	1.49	▃▃▁▆▇▁▇▃
10. Available community services	0	1,441	3.43	1.37	▃▃▁▇▇▁▅▂
11. Available leisure areas	0	1,441	3.68	1.40	▂▃▁▆▇▁▆▂
12. Quality of the environment	0	1,441	4.05	1.33	▂▂▁▅▇▁▇▃
13. Urban accessibility	0	1,441	3.55	1.45	▃▅▁▆▇▁▆▂
14. Access to education	0	1,441	3.92	1.40	▂▂▁▆▇▁▇▃
15. Respect for the dignity of the citizen	0	1,441	3,63	1.46	▃▃▁▆▇▁▇▃

Items	Brazil			Portugal
Items	F1	F2	F3	F1	F2	F3
1. Physical health	0.75	–	–	0.74	–	–
2. Personal safety	0.81	–	–	0.81	–	–
3. Engagement in physical activity	0.62	–	–	0.61	–	–
4. Financial circumstances	0.72	–	–	0.71	–	–
5. Marriage or partnership	–	0.67	–	–	0.66	–
6. Health of spouse or partner	–	0.69	–	–	0.69	–
7. Relationship with family members	–	0.72	–	–	0.72	–
5. Quality of residence	–	0.82	–	–	0.81	–
9. Local education and health services	–	–	0.82	–	–	0.77
10. Available community services	–	–	0.87	–	–	0.83
11. Available leisure areas	–	–	0.82	–	–	0.78
12. Quality of the environment	–	–	0.68	–	–	0.62
13. Urban accessibility	–	–	0.81	–	–	0.75
14. Access to education	–	–	0.87	–	–	0,84
15. Respect for the dignity of the citizen	–	–	0.82	–	–	0.77
Alpha	0.79	0.78	0.92	0.83	0.83	0.89
Omega	1.42	1.44	1.41	1.42	1.44	1.53
Omega 2	1.42	1.44	1.41	1.42	1.44	1.53
Omega 3	1.49	1.54	1.47	1.36	1.40	1.61

	AVE	F1	F2	F3
F1 – Satisfaction with individual resources	0.54		0.39	0.48
F2 – Satisfaction with relationships	0.52	0.63		0.16
F3 – Satisfaction with collective resources	0.67	0.69	0.40

Invariance	CFI	RMSEA	Δ CFI	Δ RMSEA
Configural	0.973	0.085	–	–
Metric	0.972	0.083	0.001	0.002
Scalar	0.968	0.078	0.004	0.005
Residual	0.963	0.081	0.005	0.003
Latent average	0.944	0.099	0.019	0.018

	CFI	p CFI	D'Cohens	Average
F1 – Satisfaction with individual resources	0.00	< 0.16	0.14	0.16
F2 – Satisfaction with relationships	0.00	< 0.001	0.34	0.31
F3 – Satisfaction with collective resources	-0.02	< 0.001	-0.60	-0.83

Editora Mackenzie; Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Rua da Consolação, 896, Edifício Rev. Modesto Carvalhosa, Térreo - Coordenação da RAM, Consolação - São Paulo - SP - Brasil - cep 01302-907 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista.adm@mackenzie.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Silvia M. Amorim, Rua Bernardo Torres, 180, Retiro, Matipó, Minas Gerais, Brasil, CEP 35367-000. E-mail: silvia.miranda.amorim@gmail.com