CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334Health disparities and outcomesRespiratory viral infections researchPublic Health and Social Inequalities

Objective and subjective socioeconomic status and susceptibility to the common cold.

Open access
Cohen, Sheldon, Alper, Cuneyt M., Doyle, William J., Adler, Nancy, Treanor, John J., Turner, Ronald B.·2008·Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We ask whether subjective socioeconomic status (SES) predicts who develops a common cold when exposed to a cold virus. DESIGN: 193 healthy men and women ages 21-55 years were assessed for subjective (perceived rank) and objective SES, cognitive, affective and social dispositions, and health practices. Subsequently, they were exposed by nasal drops to a rhinovirus or influenza virus and monitored in quarantine for objective signs of illness and self-reported symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Infection, signs and symptoms of the common cold, and clinical illness (infection and significant objective signs of illness). RESULTS: Increased subjective SES was associated with decreased risk for developing a cold for both viruses. This association was independent of objective SES and of cognitive, affective and social disposition that might provide alternative spurious (third factor) explanations for the association. Poorer sleep among those with lesser subjective SES may partly mediate the association between subjective SES and colds. CONCLUSIONS: Increased Subjective SES is associated with less susceptibility to upper respiratory infection, and this association is independent of objective SES, suggesting the importance of perceived relative rank to health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Measures of objective and subjective social class have independent effects on health outcomes, with subjective social class explaining variation in health outcomes over and above what can be accounted for by objective social class.

    “measures of objective and subjective social class have independent effects on health outcomes, with subjective social class explaining variation in health outcomes over and above what can be accounted for in terms of objective social class”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Cohen et al., 2008

    The Discussion reports that subjective SES predicted cold susceptibility independently of objective SES markers. It also states that objective SES markers were not associated with cold susceptibility in this study, so the paper does not establish independent effects of both measures on its health outcome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Cohen et al.'s prospective study, higher subjective class was associated with less risk of becoming ill as a result of virus exposure, and this relation was independent of objective social class.

    “Higher subjective class was associated with less risk of becoming ill as a result of virus exposure, and this relation was independent of objective social class.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Cohen et al. (2008)

  • Additional analyses suggested that the impact of subjective social class on likelihood of becoming ill was due in part to differences in sleep quantity and quality.

    “Additional analyses suggested that the impact of subjective social class on likelihood of becoming ill was due in part to differences in sleep quantity and quality.”

    From The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour (2018) · cites this paper as Cohen et al. (2008)

  • We found no effects of cortisol levels on disease risk, GCR, or inflammation.

    “We found no effects of cortisol levels on disease risk (e.g., refs.19, 20), GCR, or inflammation.”

    From Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk (2012) · cites this paper as [19]

    The citation is attached to the disease-risk portion of the sentence, not the claims about GCR or inflammation. The Data Analysis section reports predictors of clinical colds but does not report an analysis of cortisol levels and disease risk. A mention of cortisol in the introductory material describes another study, not a result of this paper. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cortisol levels based on 24-h urine and waking diurnal assessments in saliva do not play a part in the process linking stress to cold susceptibility.

    “However, cortisol levels based on 24-h urine (15) and waking diurnal assessments in saliva (19,20) do not play a part in this process.”

    From Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk (2012) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Potential Mediating Variables section lists the measures assessed as pathways to colds but does not include cortisol. The Discussion addresses sleep and psychological variables, not whether cortisol measured in 24-hour urine or waking saliva plays a role. Searches for those cortisol measures and for cortisol as a mediator found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cohen, S., Alper, C. M., Doyle, W. J., Adler, N., Treanor, J. J., & Turner, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
268-274
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
DOI
10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.268
OpenAlex
W2128833564
Cited by
334
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 27
FWCI
16.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (HL65111; HL65112)
  • John D. and Catharine T. MacArthur Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
Keywords
subjective socioeconomic status, objective socioeconomic status, common cold, upper respiratory tract infection, rhinovirus, influenza virus, sleep quality, infection susceptibility, health practices, social dispositions
MeSH terms
Adult, Antibodies, Viral, Common Cold, Culture, Disease Susceptibility, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Influenza A virus, Rhinovirus, Risk Factors, Social Class, Socioeconomic Factors, Health Behavior

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