Social disadvantage and adolescent stress

Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02453-9110, USA.
Journal of Adolescent Health (Impact Factor: 2.75). 01/2006; 37(6):484-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.11.126
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority race/ethnicity are both associated with chronic stress and co-vary in American society. As such, these factors are often used synonymously, without clear theoretical conceptualization of their roles in the development of stress-related health disparities. This study theorized that race/ethnicity and SES reflect social disadvantage, which is the underlying factor in the development of stress-related illness, and examined how social disadvantage, defined in terms of both race/ethnicity and SES, influences adolescents’ stress.

Download full-text


Available from: Elizabeth Goodman, Feb 24, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies of adults and adolescents suggest subjective socio-economic status (SES) is associated with health/well-being even after adjustment for objective SES. In adolescence, objective SES may have weaker relationships with health/well-being than at other life stages; school-based social status may be of greater relevance. We investigated the associations which objective SES (residential deprivation and family affluence), subjective SES and three school-based subjective social status dimensions ("SSS-peer", "SSS-scholastic" and "SSS-sports") had with physical symptoms, psychological distress and anger among 2503 Scottish 13-15 year-olds. Associations between objective SES and health/well-being were weak and inconsistent. Lower subjective SES was associated with increased physical symptoms and psychological distress, lower SSS-peer with increased psychological distress but reduced anger, lower SSS-scholastic with increased physical symptoms, psychological distress and anger, and lower SSS-sports with increased physical symptoms and psychological distress. Associations did not differ by gender. Objective and subjective SES had weaker associations with health/well-being than did school-based SSS dimensions. These findings underline the importance of school-based SSS in adolescence, and the need for future studies to include a range of school-based SSS dimensions and several health/well-being measures. They also highlight the need for a focus on school-based social status among those working to promote adolescent health/well-being.
    Social Science & Medicine 09/2014; 121C:39-47. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.037 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Based on the salutogenic theory, the aim of this study was to examine sense of coherence and communal resiliency as related to stress reactions during missile attacks. Data were gathered in August 2011 while missiles were being shot from Gaza to the Negev communities in Israel from approximately 150 participants, aged 15-85. Participants lived in cities and different types of small rural villages. Self reported questionnaires were administered via the internet and included demographic data, coping resource of sense of coherence and community resiliency as coping resources, as well as state anxiety, state anger and psychological distress as stress reaction outcomes. Overall, the participants in our study reported strong personal and communal resources and relatively low levels of stress reactions. Personal and communal resources were linked negatively to the different stress reactions. However, some differences emerged when we compared participants from different types of communities. The most resilient group was composed of people who lived in the rural and communal communities. Differences also emerged on patterns of relationships between the community resource and state anxiety. While among the rural citizens, community resilience was strongly linked to anxiety, no relationships were revealed in the urban citizens group.
    Community Mental Health Journal 06/2013; DOI:10.1007/s10597-013-9623-5 · 1.03 Impact Factor
  • Source