The effect of occupational status on health: Putting the social in socioeconomic status.
Affect control theory
Law enforcement
Occupations
Social psychology
Socioeconomic status
United States
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
11
09
2023
revised:
26
10
2023
accepted:
27
10
2023
medline:
13
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
High status occupations support positive health outcomes through providing access to both material and psychosocial resources. However, common measures of occupational status such as occupational prestige scores fail to capture cultural esteem that certain occupations can provide because they are primarily associated with the material dimensions of status, like income. Drawing on Weberian conceptions of status and a body of social psychological research on the measurement of cultural meaning, we argue that measuring people's ratings of their occupations on three dimensions-evaluation (good/bad), potency (powerful/weak), and activity (active/inactive)-provides an occupational status indicator that more fully captures psychosocial resources like esteem that are associated with health than more commonly used occupational prestige scores. Using a nationally representative longitudinal health and wellbeing survey of 940 American law enforcement officers collected between 2020 and 2022, we evaluate the predictive ability of evaluation, potency, and activity (EPA) ratings across thirteen measures of health and wellbeing. We find that EPA ratings were significant and positive predictors of eleven of thirteen outcomes with stronger effects for mental health outcomes compared to physical health outcomes. EPA ratings were more predictive than more commonly used occupational prestige scores. We conclude that EPA ratings are better predictors of health outcomes than occupational prestige scores and so may allow health researchers to better understand the relationship between occupational status and health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37954338
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21766
pii: S2405-8440(23)08974-0
pmc: PMC10638021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e21766Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Lancet. 1997 Jul 26;350(9073):235-9
pubmed: 9242799
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Dec;82(12):940-6
pubmed: 15654409
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 27;11:66
pubmed: 32174849
Assessment. 2001 Dec;8(4):443-54
pubmed: 11785588
Psychosom Med. 2002 Mar-Apr;64(2):258-66
pubmed: 11914441
J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Spec No:80-94
pubmed: 7560851
Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):60-76
pubmed: 11900187
Curr Dev Nutr. 2022 Dec 24;7(1):100020
pubmed: 37181120
JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1750-66
pubmed: 27063997
Am J Public Health. 2012 Sep;102(9):1742-50
pubmed: 22873479
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Dec;71(12):2100-7
pubmed: 21041009
J Occup Environ Med. 2021 May 1;63(5):422-431
pubmed: 33560070
Psychol Bull. 2020 Nov;146(11):970-1020
pubmed: 33090862
J Psychosom Res. 2005 Feb;58(2):163-71
pubmed: 15820844
Int J Cardiol. 1987 Oct;17(1):15-24
pubmed: 3666994
Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:237-251
pubmed: 29608870
J Health Soc Behav. 1981 Dec;22(4):337-56
pubmed: 7320473
Public Opin Q. 2016 Winter;80(4):977-997
pubmed: 27833212
J Psychosom Res. 2002 Oct;53(4):891-5
pubmed: 12377299
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 21;19(6):
pubmed: 35329405