Is Subjective Status Influenced by Psychosocial Factors?

Abstract

Objective Associations between subjective status and health are still relatively unexplored. This study aimed at testing whether subjective status is uniquely confounded by psychosocial factors compared to objective status, and what factors that may predict subjective status. Design A cross-sectional analysis of a population-based, random sample of 795 middle-aged men and women from the southeast of Sweden. Questionnaires included subjective status, objective measures of socioeconomic status, life satisfaction, and a battery of psychosocial factors. Associations were controlled for effects of age and sex. Results Both subjective status and occupation were significantly associated with self-rated health also after control for psychosocial factors. Stepwise regression showed that subjective status was significantly influenced by self-rated economy, education, life satisfaction, self-esteem, trust, perceived control, and mastery. Conclusion The association between subjective status and self-rated health does not seem to be uniquely confounded by psychosocial factors. Both resource-based measures and psychological dimensions seem to influence subjective status ratings. Comparative studies are required to study whether predictors of subjective status vary between countries with different socio-political profiles.The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com:Johanna Lundberg and Margareta Kristenson, Is Subjective Status Influenced by Psychosocial Factors?, 2008, Social Indicators Research, (89), 3, 375-390.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9238-3Copyright: Springer Science Business Mediahttp://www.springerlink.com

A Social Ecological Model of Syndemic Risk affecting Women with and At‐Risk for HIV in Impoverished Urban Communities

“…We used the information delay for all of our major constructs of syndemic risk (i.e., emotional distress, perceived financial hardship, risk of violence, self-worth and sexual self care), with the exception of drug use and violent events, for which we utilized a pre-programmed pulse function. Formulation of each information delay and its parameter values was Dietz (1996), Leary and Baumeister (2000), Lundberg and Kristenson (2008), Orth et al (2012), Selenko and Batinic (2011) Self-worth and drug use (Loop 2) Dietz (1996), Golder and Logan (2011), Gutierres and Puymbroeck (2006) informed by the three sources of evidence: published literature, trend analyses of our women's cohort data, as well as feedback from the BxCRRB. Further explanation and specifics regarding how we formulated our SD model, including formulation of information delays, are available in (Batchelder and Lounsbury, in press).…”

How do we assign ourselves social status? A cross-cultural test of the cognitive averaging principle

“…Indeed, anticipated financial security over the next ten years predicts SSS net of current objective SES and at magnitudes comparable to large gains in current income or wealth (Singh-Manoux et al, 2003). Likewise, psychosocial resources that reflect a forward-looking orientation, such as optimism, may mediate effects of SSS on physical and mental well-being (Cundiff et al, 2013;Ghaed and Gallo, 2007;Lundberg and Kristenson, 2008).…”

An Interpersonal Analysis of Subjective Social Status and Psychosocial Risk

“…These measures assess the individual's perception of his or her status as opposed to aggregating objective measures of status as is done to compute SES, and research suggests that subjective social status is not simply a composite measure of education, occupation, and income (Lundberg & Kristenson, 2008) and thus is not likely simply a finer gradation of SES. This 10-rung ladder scale has shown good test-retest reliability, and expected associations with objective indicators of SES (Operario, Adler, & Williams, 2004), as well as convergent and discriminant validity with measures of income and psychosocial risk and resilience factors (Cundiff et al, under review;Lundberg & Kristenon, 2008).…”

“…Preliminary evidence indicates that low SSS is associated with many of the same aspects of stress, negative affect, and interpersonal difficulties hypothesized to link low SES with adverse physical health outcomes, including depressive symptoms and other aspects of negative affect, pessimism, and marital strain Cundiff, Smith, Uchino, & Berg, under review;Lundberg & Kristenson, 2008). Yet, the nature of these associations is unclear.…”