Cited by 78Health disparities and outcomesHealth, psychology, and well-beingOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Resources for health: differential effects of optimistic self-beliefs and social support according to socioeconomic status

Open access
Schöllgen, Ina, Huxhold, Oliver, Schüz, Benjamin, Tesch-Römer, Clemens·2011·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether socioeconomic status (SES) determines the degree to which psychological and social resources such as optimistic self-beliefs and social support affect health. DESIGN: We used data from the representative German Ageing Survey (N = 2,454, aged 40-85 years). Structural equation modeling was employed to examine whether relationships between psychological (self-esteem, control beliefs, optimism) and social resources (perceived emotional and informational support, network size) and health differ between education and income groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported physical health, functional health, and subjective health. RESULTS: Psychological resources positively affected health in all groups but were stronger predictors of functional and subjective health in low compared to higher educated participants. A higher level of social resources was associated with better functional and subjective health mainly in the low-income group. Social resources were particularly important for financially disadvantaged older people. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence for differential effects of optimistic self-beliefs and social support on health depending on whether individuals are challenged by low incomes or low education. Future research, especially aimed at intervention, should consider that different aspects of SES have differential meanings and that the impact of health-protective factors may vary according to SES facet.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022514

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 57 · Cited by 78

Authors
Schöllgen, I., Huxhold, O., Schüz, B., & Tesch-Römer, C.
Affiliations
German Centre of Gerontology (DE)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2011-05
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
326-335
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2081454251
Cited by
78
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
7.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth (301-1720- 2/2)
  • International Max Planck Research School
  • German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (01ET0702)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
socioeconomic status, social support, self-esteem, control beliefs, optimism, perceived emotional support, social network size, health resources, functional health, self-rated health, physical health, older adults, income, financial disadvantage
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Educational Status, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Self Concept, Social Class, Social Support

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