Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Daily Interpersonal Experience Partially Explains the Association Between Social Rank and Physical Health

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Socioeconomic position is a well-established risk factor for poor physical health.

Purpose

This study examines whether the effects of lower social rank on physical health may be accounted for by differences in daily social experience.

Methods

In a large community sample (N = 475), we examined whether subjective social rank is associated with self-rated health, in part, through positive and negative perceptions of daily interpersonal interactions, assessed using ecological momentary assessment.

Results

Higher social rank was associated with higher average perceived positivity of social interactions in daily life (e.g., B = .18, p < .001), but not with perceived negativity of social interactions. Further, the association between social rank and self-rated physical health was partially accounted for by differences in perceived positivity of social interactions. This effect was independent of well-characterized objective markers of SES and personality traits.

Conclusions

Differences in the quality of day-to-day social interactions is a viable pathway linking lower social rank to poorer physical health.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Daly M, Boyce C, Wood A. A social rank explanation of how money influences health. Health Psychol. 2015; 34(3): 222-230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh-Manoux A, Marmot MG, Adler NE. Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosom Med. 2005; 67: 855-861. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fiske ST. Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In: Handbook of Social Psychology.; 2010. doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026.

  4. Johnson S, Leedom L, Muhtadie L. The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychol Bull. 2012; 138(4): 692-743.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Shively C, Day S. Social inequalities in health in nonhuman primates. Neurobiol Stress. 2015; 1: 156-163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallo LC, Smith TW, Cox CM. Socioeconomic status, psychosocial processes, and perceived health: An interpersonal perspective. Ann Behav Med. 2006; 31(2): 109-119. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3102_2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Newton TL, Bane C, Flores A, Greenfield J. Dominance, gender, and cardiovascular reactivity during social interaction. Psychophysiology. 1999; 36(2): 245-252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Cundiff JM, Smith TW, Baron C, Uchino BN. Hierarchy and health: Physiological effects of interpersonal experiences associated with socioeconomic position. Health Psychol. 2016; 35(4): 356-365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jackman M, Jackman RW. An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. Am Sociol Rev. 1973; 38(5): 569-582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Adler N, Epel E, Castellazzo G, Ickovics J. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychol. 2000; 19(6): 586-592.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cundiff JM, Smith TW, Uchino BN, Berg CA. An interpersonal analysis of subjective social status and psychosocial risk. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2011; 30(1): 47-74. doi:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.1.47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cundiff JM, Smith TW, Uchino BN, Berg CA. Subjective social status: Construct validity and associations with psychosocial vulnerability and self-rated health. Int J Behav Med. 2013; 20(1): 148-158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sadler P, Ethier N, Woody E. Interpersonal complementarity. In: Horowitz L, Strack S, eds. Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology: Theory, Research, Assessment, and Therapeutic Interventions. Hoboken: Wiley; 2010: 123-142. doi:10.1002/9781118001868.ch8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fournier MA, Moskowitz DS, Zuroff DC. Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 83(2): 425-433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008; 4: 1-32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ewart CK, Elder GJ, Smyth JM. How neighborhood disorder increases blood pressure in youth: Agonistic striving and subordination. J Behav Med. 2014; 37(1): 113-126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Alfonsi G, Conway M, Pushkar D. The lower subjective social status of neurotic individuals: Multiple pathways through occupational prestige, income, and illness. J Pers. 2011; 79(3): 619-642. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00684.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kraus MW, Park JW. The undervalued self: Social class and self-evaluation. Front Psychol. 2014; 5: 1404. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01404.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Shipley B, Weiss A, Der G, Taylor M, Deary IJ. Neuroticism, extraversion, and mortality in the UK Health and Lifestyle Survey: a 21-year prospective cohort study. Psychosom Med. 2007; 69(9): 923-931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lima-Costa M, Cesar C, Chor D, Proietti F. Self-rated health compared with objectively measured health status as a tool for mortality risk screening in older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Bambui Cohort Study of Aging. Am J Epidemiol. 2012; 175(3): 228-235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haring R, Feng Y, Moock J, Volske H, Dorr M, Nauck M. Self-perceived quality of life predicts mortality risk better than a multi-biomarker panel, but the combination of both does best. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11(1): 1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jylha M, Volpato S, Guralnik J. Self-rated health showed a graded association with frequently used biomarkers in a large population sample. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(5): 465-471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barger SD, Burke SM, Limbert MJ. Do induced moods really influence health perceptions? Health Psychol. 2007; 26(1): 85-95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Benyamini Y, Leventhal EA, Leventhal H. Self-assessments of health: What do people know that predicts their mortality? Res Aging. 1999; 21(3): 477-500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Benyamini Y, Idler E. Community studies reporting association between self-rated health and mortality additional studies, 1995 to 1998. Res Aging. 1999; 21(3): 392-401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinquart M. Correlates of subjective health in older adults: A meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 2001; 16(3): 414-426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chapman BP, Duberstein PR, Sorensen S, Lyness JM. Personality and perceived health in older adults: The five factor model in primary care. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci. 2006; 61(6): 362-365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Idler E, Benyamini Y. Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav. 1997; 38(1): 21-37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Operario D, Adler N, Williams D. Subjective social status: Reliability and predictive utility for global health. Psychol Health. 2004; 19(2): 237-246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Joseph N, Kamarck T, Muldoon M, Manuck S. Daily marital interaction quality and carotid artery intima-medial thickness in healthy middle-aged adults. Psychosom Med. 2014; 76(5): 347-354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. McDonald R, Ho MR. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002; 7(1): 64-82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gallo LC, Bogart LM, Vranceanu A, Walt L. Job characteristics, occupational status, and ambulatory cardiovascular activity in women. Ann Behav Med. 2004; 28(1): 62-73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Profession Manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  35. MacKinnon DP, Luecken LJ. How and for whom? Mediation and moderation in health psychology. Health Psychol. 2008; 27(2 Suppl): S99-S100. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2(Suppl.).S99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar Behav Res. 2004; 39(1): 99-128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pratto F, Sidanius J, Levin S. Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2006; 17(1): 271-320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shoda Y, LeeTiernan S, Mischel W. Personality as a dynamical system: Emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and interpersonal interactions. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2002; 6(4): 316-325. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sue D. Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2010.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants P01 HL040962 and T32 HL007560.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Jenny M. Cundiff PhD, Thomas W. Kamarck PhD & Stephen B. Manuck PhD

Authors
  1. Jenny M. Cundiff PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas W. Kamarck PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen B. Manuck 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, Kamarck, and Manuck 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., Kamarck, T.W. & Manuck, S.B. Daily Interpersonal Experience Partially Explains the Association Between Social Rank and Physical Health. ann. behav. med. 50, 854–861 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9811-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9811-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation