Hostility, unemployment and health status: testing three theoretical models
Abstract
This study examined three theoretical models of hostility, health and life context. According to the psychosocial vulnerability hypothesis, there is an interaction between hostility and adverse conditions. The increased health risk in hostile individuals is assumed to stem from their lower ability to benefit from existing psychosocial resources. The second hypothesis, called here the social context model, considers adverse conditions as an antecedent of both hostility and health problems. The third model states that hostility is a predictor of being selected to adverse conditions involving risk to health (the selection hypothesis). The results from a survey of a population-based random sample (2153 non-institutionalized citizens aged 18-64 years) in Finland, showed that hostile men had a high prevalence of non-optimal health, irrespective of employment status. In non-hostile men, employment was associated with better health than unemployment. This association between hostility and unemployment was not found in women. Corresponding findings were obtained from a 1959-born cohort of 311 individuals followed up for 27 years. The combination of high hostility at school age and unemployment in adulthood had an additive effect on poor health in adult men but not in adult women. Hostility in childhood was not significantly associated with unemployment in adulthood. Thus, this study supported the psychosocial vulnerability model in men.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Different models may also characterize different personality traits and outcome.
“Different models may also characterize different personality traits and outcome [32, 206–210].”
From Personality and Longevity: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications for Public Health and Personalized Medicine (2011) · cites this paper as [207]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 95 · Cited by 37
- Authors
- Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., Kokko, K., Pulkkinen, L., Kortteinen, M., & Tuomikoski, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
- Social Insurance Institution (FI)
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2139-2152
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023130620
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 7.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- hostility, unemployment, health status, selection hypothesis, life context, sex differences, psychosocial resources, cohort follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Finland, Health Status Indicators, Hostility, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Research Design, Risk Factors, Risk-Taking, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Unemployment, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review