Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 69–79 | Cite as

Development of sense of coherence in adulthood: a person-centered approach. The population-based HeSSup cohort study

  • Taru FeldtEmail author
  • Esko Leskinen
  • Markku Koskenvuo
  • Sakari Suominen
  • Jussi Vahtera
  • Mika Kivimäki
Article

Abstract

Objective

We sought to identify the most typical patterns of change in sense of coherence (SOC) in adulthood.

Methods

This prospective population-based Health and Social Support (HeSSup) study was based on four age cohorts including men and women initially aged 20–24 years (n = 4,682), 30–34 years (n = 4,248), 40–44 years (n = 4,598), and 50–54 years (n = 4,997). SOC was assessed at baseline and at the 5-year follow-up point. Factor Mixture Modeling was used to identify the latent classes of persons whose mean changes in SOC were similar over time.

Results

Three development classes were supported by the data. In all age cohorts, the largest class consisted of those people whose SOC was high at baseline and increased thereafter (46–58% of participants depending on the age group). A class of high SOC with a decreasing trend and that of low SOC with an increasing trend were also found. In all age groups, the rank-order stability was high in the first development class (0.84–0.98) but low in other classes (0.35–0.44).

Conclusion

This analysis shows continuous increase in the level of SOC over time to be common in adulthood, irrespective of age. High SOC, rather than higher age, seems to determine a stable development of the SOC.

Keywords

Sense of coherence Life orientation Health Rank-order stability Personality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Markku Koskenvuo (the director of the HeSSup study) was supported by the Academy of Finland (project 201363). Mika Kivimäki and Jussi Vahtera are supported by the Academy of Finland (grants #117604, #124271, #124322, #129262 and #132944). The HeSSup study group consists of the following researchers (in alphabetical order): Elovainio Marko, Franck Jaana, Helenius Hans, Immonen-Räihä Pirjo, Jalava-Broman Jaana, Jokinen Kirsi, Kivimäki Mika, Korkeila Jyrki, Korkeila Katariina, Koskenvuo Markku, Lillberg Kirsi, Mattila Kari, Ojanlatva Ansa, Paljärvi Tapio, Rautava Päivi, Sillanmäki Lauri, Sumanen Markku, Suominen Sakari, Vahtera Jussi, Vainionmäki Paula, Virtanen Pekka and Volanen Salla-Maarit.

References

  1. 1.
    Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health. How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonovsky, A. (1991). The structural sources of salutogenic strengths. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 67–104). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eriksson, M., & Lindström, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(6), 460–466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feldt, T., Mäkikangas, A., & Aunola, K. (2006). Sense of coherence and optimism: A more positive approach to health. In L. Pulkkinen, J. Kaprio, & R. Rose (Eds.), Socioemotional development and health from adolescence to adulthood (pp. 286–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kivimäki, M., Feldt, T., Vahtera, J., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2000). Sense of coherence and health: Evidence from two cross-lagged longitudinal samples. Social Science and Medicine, 50(4), 583–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pallant, J. F., & Lae, L. (2002). Sense of coherence, well-being, coping, and personality factors: Further evaluation of the sense of coherence scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(1), 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Amirkhan, J., & Greaves, H. (2003). Sense of coherence and stress: The mechanism of a healthy disposition. Psychology & Health, 18(1), 31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amelang, M. (1997). Using personality variables to predict cancer and heart diseases. European Journal of Personality, 11(5), 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldt, T., Metsäpelto, R.-L., Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L. (2007). Sense of coherence and five-factor approach to personality. European Psychologist, 12(3), 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fromberger, U., Stieglitz, R.-D., Straub, S., Byberg, E., Schlickewei, W., Kuner, E., et al. (1999). The concept of sense of coherence and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder in traffic accident victims. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46(4), 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feldt, T., Leskinen, E., Kinnunen, U., & Ruoppila, I. (2003). The stability of sense of coherence: comparing two age groups in a 5-year follow-up study. Personality and Individual Difference, 35(5), 1151–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, P. M., Breslin, F. C., & Beaton, D. E. (2003). Questioning the stability of sense of coherence: The impact of socio-economic status and working conditions in the Canadian population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38(99), 475–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feldt, T., Lintula, H., Suominen, S., Koskenvuo, M., Vahtera, J., & Kivimäki, M. (2007). Structural validity and temporal stability of the 13-item sense of coherence scale: Prospective evidence from the population-based HeSSup study. Quality of Life Research, 16(3), 483–493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richardson, C. G., Ratner, P. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). A test of the age-based measurement invariance and temporal stability of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(4), 679–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development. Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breslin, F. C., Hepburn, C. G., Ibrahim, S., & Cole, D. (2006). Understanding stability and change in psychological distress and sense of coherence: A four-year prospective study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liukkonen, V., Virtanen, P., Vahtera, J., Suominen, S., Sillanmäki, L., & Koskenvuo, M. (2009). Employment trajectories and changes in sense of coherence. European Journal of Public Health, 22(3), 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hakanen, J., Feldt, T., & Leskinen, E. (2007). Change and stability of sense of coherence on adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from the healthy child study. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 602–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 390–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Magnusson, D. (1999). On the individual: a person-oriented approach to developmental research. European Psychologist, 4(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muthèn, L. K., & Muthèn, B. O. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: growth mixture modelling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(6), 882–891.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 139–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Korkeila, K., Suominen, S., Ahvenainen, J., Ojanlatva, A., Rautava, P., Helenius, H., et al. (2001). Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. European Journal of Epidemiology, 17(11), 991–999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medidine, 36(6), 725–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gana, K., & Garnier, S. (2001). Latent structure of the sense of coherence scale in a French sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(7), 1079–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feldt, T., & Rasku, A. (1998). The structure of Antonovsky’s orientation to life questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(3), 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veenstra, M., Moum, T., & Røysamb, E. (2005). Relationships between health domains and sense of coherence: A two-year cross-lagged study in patients with chronic illness. Quality of Life Research, 14(6), 1455–1465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feldt, T., Kivimäki, M., Rantala, A., & Tolvanen, A. (2004). Sense of coherence and work characteristics: A cross-lagged structural equation model among managers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feldt, T., Leskinen, E., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2000). Longitudinal factor analysis models in the assessment of the stability of sense of coherence. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feldt, T., Leskinen, E., & Kinnunen, U. (2005). Structural invariance and stability of sense of coherence: A longitudinal analysis of two groups with different employment experiences. Work & Stress, 19(1), 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Muthèn, L. K., & Muthèn, O. B. (1998–2009). Mplus user’s guide. http://www.statmodel.com/.
  35. 35.
    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutt-off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    MaCCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chigaco, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2005). Chi-square difference testing using the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square. http://www.stat.ucla.edu/papers/preprints1260/.
  40. 40.
    Lubke, G., & Muthèn, B. O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 21–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muthèn, B. O. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modelling: Comment on Bauer and Curran. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 369–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Hrebickova, M., Urbánek, T., Martin, T. A., Oryol, V. E., et al. (2004). Age differences in personality traits across cultures: Self-report and observer perspectives. European Journal of Personality, 18(2), 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2006). Personality in adulthood. A five-factor theory perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon (series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed) (pp. 311–388). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Volanen, S.-M., Suominen, S., Lahelma, E., Koskenvuo, M., & Silventoinen, K. (2007). Negative life events and stability of sense of coherence: A five-year follow-up study of Finnish women and men. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 433–441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taru Feldt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Esko Leskinen
    • 2
  • Markku Koskenvuo
    • 3
  • Sakari Suominen
    • 4
  • Jussi Vahtera
    • 5
  • Mika Kivimäki
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Maths and StatisticsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of Public HealthUniversity of Turku, Folkhälsan Research CenterTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Department of Public HealthUniversity of Turku, Turku University Hospital and Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthTurkuFinland
  6. 6.Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations