Cited by 37Employment and Welfare StudiesHealth disparities and outcomesPersonality Traits and Psychology

Hostility, unemployment and health status: testing three theoretical models

Kivimäki, Mika, Elovainio, Marko, Kokko, Katja, Pulkkinen, Lea, Kortteinen, Matti, Tuomikoski, Hannu·2003·Social Science & Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00219-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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