Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marital Quality Buffers the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Ambulatory Blood Pressure

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Socioeconomic status is robustly associated with rates of death and disease. Psychophysiological stress processes are thought to account for a portion of this association.

Purpose

Although positive and supportive relationships can buffer psychophysiological stress responses, no studies have examined whether the quality of a primary adult relationship—marriage—may buffer the negative association between socioeconomic status and stress-related disease processes.

Methods

The current study examines the interaction between income and marital quality (supportive vs. ambivalent) on individuals’ daily ambulatory blood pressure, a valid and reliable indicator of cardiovascular risk.

Results

Results revealed that supportive marital relationships buffered the otherwise higher ambulatory diastolic blood pressure associated with low income.

Conclusions

Results are consistent with the buffering hypothesis of social support and suggest that a supportive spouse may buffer stress-related autonomic processes linking low socioeconomic status to risk for cardiovascular disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Adler NE. Health disparities through a psychological lens. Am Psychol. 2009; 64(8): 663-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Matthews KA, Gallo LC, Taylor SE. Are psychosocial factors mediators of socioeconomic status and health connections? A progress report and blueprint for the future. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1186: 146-173. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05332.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gallo L, Matthews K. Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(1): 10-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karney BR, Bradbury TN. Contextual influences on marriage. Implications for policy and intervention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005; 14(4): 171-174. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00358.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Turner R, Marino F. Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. J Health Soc Behav. 1994; 35(3): 193-212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gorman BK, Sivaganesan A. The role of social support and integration for understanding socioeconomic disparities in self-rated health and hypertension. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65(5): 958-975. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith T, Layton J. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010; 7(7), e1000316.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen S, Wills T. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985; 98(2): 310-357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004; 59(8): 676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chida Y, Steptoe A. Greater cardiovascular responses to laboratory mental stress are associated with poor subsequent cardiovascular risk status: A meta-analysis of prospective evidence. Hypertension. 2010; 55(4): 1026-1032.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Steptoe A, Kivimäki M. Stress and cardiovascular disease: An update on current knowledge. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013; 34: 337-354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Birmigham WC. Uchino BN. Smith TW. Light KC. Butner J. It’s complicated: Marital partners’ perceptions of ambivalent behavior on ambulatory blood pressure and daily interpersonal functioning. Ann Behav Med. In press.

  13. Uchino BN, Smith TW, Berg CA. Spousal relationship quality and cardiovascular risk: Dyadic perceptions of relationship ambivalence are associated with coronary-artery calcification. Psychol Sci. 2014; 25(4): 1037-1042. doi:10.1177/0956797613520015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hemström Ö. Is marriage dissolution linked to differences in mortality risks for men and women? J Marriage Fam. 1996; 58(2): 366-378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lorant V, Kunst A, Huisman M, Bopp MMackenback J. A European comparative study of marital status and socio-economic inequalities in suicide. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 60(11): 2431-2441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith K, Waitzman N. Double jeopardy: Interaction effects of marital and poverty status on the risk of mortality. Demography. 1994; 31(3): 487-507.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi H, Marks NF. Socioeconomic status, marital status continuity and change, marital conflict, and mortality. J Aging Health. 2011; 23(4): 714-742. doi:10.1177/0898264310393339.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Cundiff JM, Uchino BN, Smith TW, Birmingham W. Socioeconomic status and health: Education and income are independent and joint predictors of ambulatory blood pressure. J Behav Med. 2015; 38(1): 9-16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steptoe A, Fedlman PJ, Kunz S, Owen N, Willemsen G, Marmot M. Stress responsivity and socioeconomic status: A mechanism for increased cardiovascular disease risk? Eur Heart J. 2002; 23: 1757-1763.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Robles TF, Slatcher RB, Trombello JM, McGinn MM. Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2014; 140(1): 140-187. doi:10.1037/a0031859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Conen D, Bamberg F. Noninvasive 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2008; 26(7): 1290-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Devereux RB, et al. Superiority of ambulatory to physician blood pressure is not an artifact of differential measurement reliability. Blood Press Monit. 2006; 11(6): 297-301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. NEJM. 2006; 354: 2368-74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verdecchia P. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension. 2000; 35(3): 844-51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zanstra YJ, Johnston DW. Cardiovascular reactivity in real life settings: Measurement, mechanisms and meaning. Biol Psychol. 2011; 86(2): 98-105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Goodwin J, Bilous M, Winship S, Finn P, Jones SC. Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to the British Hypertension Society Protocol. Blood Press Monit. 2007; 12(2): 113-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marler MR, Jacob RG, Lehoczky JP, Shapiro AP. The statistical analysis of treatment effects in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure recordings. Stat Med. 1988; 7(6): 697-716.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Campo RA, Uchino BN, Vaughn A, Reblin M, Smith TW, Holt-Lundstad J. The assessment of positivity and negativity in social networks: The reliability and validity of the social relationships index. J Comm Psychol. 2009; 37(4): 471-486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kamarck TW, Shiffman SM, Smithline L, et al. The diary of ambulatory behavioral states: A new approach to the assessment of psychosocial influences on ambulatory cardiovascular activity. Technology and methods in behavioral medicine. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998: 163-93.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Galecki AT. General class of covariance structures for two or more repeated factors in longitudinal data analysis. Commun Stat Theory Met. 1994; 23(11): 3105-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Campbell L, Kashy DA. Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Pers Relat. 2002; 9(3): 327-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Franklin S, Larson M, Khan S, Wong N. Does the relation of blood pressure to coronary heart disease risk change with aging? The Framingham Heart Study Circ. 2001; 103(9): 1245-1249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Birditt KS, Brown E, Orbuch TL, McIlvane JM. Marital conflict behaviors and implications for divorce over 16 years. J Marriage Fam. 2010; 72(5): 1188-1204. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00758.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Bramlett M, Mosher W. Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Natl Cent Heal Stat Vital. 2002; 23(22): 1-32.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson M. Healthy marriage initiatives: On the need for empiricism in policy implementation. Am Psychol. 2012; 67(4): 296-308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Llabre MM, Ironson GH, Spitzer SB, Gellman MD, Weidler DJ, Schneiderman N. How many blood pressure measurements are enough? An application of generalizability theory to the study of blood pressure reliability. Psychophysiology. 1988; 25(1): 97-106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamarck TW, Shiffman S, Sutton-Tyrrell K, Muldoon MF, Tepper P. Daily psychological demands are associated with 6-year progression of carotid artery atherosclerosis: The Pittsburgh Healthy Heart Project. Psychosom Med. 2012; 74(4): 432-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Smith TW, Cundiff JM, Uchino BN. Interpersonal motives and cardiovascular response: Mechanisms linking dominance and social status with cardiovascular disease. In: Wright RA, Gendolla GHE, eds. How motivation affects cardiovascular response: Mechanisms and applications. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2012: 287-305.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Utah, 3811 O’Hara St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Jenny M. Cundiff PhD, Wendy C. Birmingham PhD, Bert N. Uchino PhD & Timothy W. Smith PhD

Authors
  1. Jenny M. Cundiff PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wendy C. Birmingham PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bert N. Uchino PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy W. Smith PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenny M. Cundiff PhD.

Ethics declarations

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Cundiff, Birmingham, Uchino, and Smith declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cundiff, J.M., Birmingham, W.C., Uchino, B.N. et al. Marital Quality Buffers the Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Ambulatory Blood Pressure. ann. behav. med. 50, 330–335 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9742-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9742-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation