Does Subjective Social Status Predict Health and Change in Health Status Better Than Objective Status?

Objective: To examine, among middle-aged individuals, if subjective socioeconomic status (SES) predicts health status and change in health status over time better than objective SES. Methods: Data are from the Whitehall II study, a prospective study of British civil servants. SES data are drawn from Phase 5 (1997–1999) of the study and health data from Phases 5 and 6 (2000–2001). Physical and mental component scores from the Short Form 36, the General Health Questionnaire, and self-rated health were used to assess health status. Multiple linear regressions were used to examine the relationship between SES and health and change in health status. Results: Complete data were available on 5486 people. Results show both measures of SES to be global measures of SES. Both measures of SES were significantly associated with health outcomes and with decline in health status over time. However, when both objective and subjective measures of SES are entered simultaneously in the model to predict change in health status, it was only the latter that continues to be significantly associated with health and changes in health. Conclusions: Subjective SES is a better predictor of health status and decline in health status over time in middle-aged adults. These results are discussed in terms of three possible explanations: subjective SES is a more precise measure of social position, the results provide support for the hierarchy-health hypothesis, and the results could be an artifact of common method variance. SES = socioeconomic status; SF 36 = Short Form 36; PCS = physical component score; MCS = mental component score; GHQ = General Health Questionnaire.

[1]  David R. Williams,et al.  Subjective social status: reliability and predictive utility for global health , 2004 .

[2]  N. Adler,et al.  Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[3]  A. Singh‐Manoux,et al.  Commentary: Psychosocial factors and public health - another point of view , 2003 .

[4]  J. Ware.  SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .

[5]  P. Fredlund,et al.  Self rated health: Is it as good a predictor of subsequent mortality among adults in lower as well as in higher social classes? , 2001, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[6]  N. Adler,et al.  Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. , 2000, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[7]  E. Epel,et al.  Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. , 2000, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[8]  T. Kristensen,et al.  Social class and self-rated health: can the gradient be explained by differences in life style or work environment? , 2000, Social science & medicine.

[9]  R. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Understanding social variation in cardiovascular risk factors in women and men: the advantage of theoretically based measures. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[10]  K. Stronks,et al.  Does childhood socioeconomic status influence adult health through behavioural factors? , 1998, International journal of epidemiology.

[11]  R. Wilkinson.  Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality , 1996 .

[12]  W H Rogers,et al.  Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1995, Medical care.

[13]  J. Ware,et al.  What information do consumers want and how will they use it? , 1995, Medical care.

[14]  John E. Ware,et al.  SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales : a user's manual , 1994 .

[15]  N. Pendleton.  Book Review: Inequalities in Health: The Black Report and the Health Divide , 1993 .

[16]  D. Baker,et al.  Income distribution and life expectancy. , 1992, BMJ.

[17]  Gower Street,et al.  Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study , 1991, The Lancet.

[18]  R. Schepers.  Health inequalities in European countries , 1990 .

[19]  G. Smith,et al.  The Black report on socioeconomic inequalities in health 10 years on. , 1990, BMJ.

[20]  Eugene Vayda,et al.  Inequalities in Health: The Black Report , 1988 .

[21]  J. Hart.  Inequalities in Health, The Black Report , 1983 .

[22]  M. Jackman.  The Subjective Meaning ofSocial Class Identification inthe United States , 1979 .

[23]  James E. Driskell,et al.  STATUS GENERALIZATION: A REVIEW AND SOME NEW DATA* , 1978 .

[24]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[25]  D. Goldberg.  The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire : a technique for the identification and assessment of non-psychotic psychiatric illness , 1972 .

[26]  D. Knoke,et al.  Status inconsistency and self-evaluation. , 1970, Sociometry.

[27]  D J Treiman,et al.  Class Identification in the United States , 1968, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Hadley Cantril,et al.  The pattern of human concerns , 1965 .