4.5 Article

Indicators of subjective social status: Differential associations across race and sex

期刊

SSM-POPULATION HEALTH
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 700-707

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.09.009

关键词

Subjective social status; Socioeconomic status; Race; Sex; Social hierarchy

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health [Z01-AG000194]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Subjective social status (SSS), or perception of rank on the social hierarchy, is an important indicator of various health outcomes. However, the psychosocial influences on this construct are unclear, and how these influences vary across different sociodemographic groups is poorly understood. Methods: Participants were 2077 African-American and Whites (M age=47.85; 57% female; 58% African American, and 58% above poverty) from the Healthy Aging in Neighborhoods of Diversity across the Life Span (HANDLS) study. Multiple regression analyses examined (1) hypothesized psychosocial indicators of SSS and (2) the moderating effect of race and sex on the variables associated with SSS. Results: In addition to the traditional measures of SES (i.e. income, employment, and education), psychosocial variables (i.e. depressive symptomatology, neighborhood satisfaction, and self-rated health) were significantly associated with SSS. However, some of these indicators varied with respect to race and sex. Three significant interactions were found: sex by employment, race by employment, and race by education, wherein objective measures of SES were more associated with SSS for Whites and men compared to African Americans and women. Conclusion: Psychosocial measures may influence individuals' perceptions of themselves on the social hierarchy. Additionally, SSS may vary by demographic group. When considering the impact of SSS on health, it is important to consider the unique interpretations that various demographic groups have when perceiving themselves on the social hierarchy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据