13.social support 2008_curs13

This article was downloaded by: [Ms Adriana Baban]On: 11 August 2012, At: 04:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Health Psychology ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpr20

Social status, social support, andstress: a comparative review of thehealth consequences of social controlfactorsLisa Beck aa Department of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA,USA

Version of record first published: 31 Jul 2008

To cite this article: Lisa Beck (2007): Social status, social support, and stress: a comparativereview of the health consequences of social control factors, Health Psychology Review, 1:2, 186-207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437190802217246

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Social status, social support, and stress: a comparative review of the healthconsequences of social control factors

Lisa Beck*

Department of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA, USA

(Received 20 October 2007; final version received 25 April 2008)

The purpose of this review is to present evidence that two fundamental relationshipdimensions, social status and social support, play significant roles in protectingindividuals from stressors, stress responding, and related health problems. While thereis a substantial literature on the link between social support and health, the role of socialstatus has been largely overlooked in health psychology research. Research with humansand animals, in a variety of disciplines, demonstrates the effects of both status andsupport on acute stress responding and long-term health outcomes. Taken together, thisresearch suggests that status and support serve to increase the individuals control overthe social and physical environment, thus reducing the experience and effects of stress.The proposed social control model has implications for future research, includingdevelopment of new measures, identification of health-relevant relationships, andgeneration of research questions to further illuminate our understanding of how socialinteractions affect health.

Keywords: status; support; control; stress; social self-preservation

For humans and for all social animals, social relationships are not luxuries but are essential

for survival. Shelter, security, and access to resources often depend on proximity to others.

Getting along with other individuals is essential, as outsiders may not be tolerated at a

food source or safe sleeping area. Within a group, individuals have different roles and

skills. Age, ability, or other individual variations give rise to differences in status, which

affect how each member behaves and experiences group life. High-ranking members of a

group whether crayfish or real estate moguls get better food, more attention from theopposite sex, and larger territories than their subordinates. Social status and social support

are fundamental motivations in social interactions, and are central to the study of both

human and animal behaviour.This paper proposes a model describing how the fundamental social dimensions of

status and support affect health, through their effects on the individuals experience of and

response to stress. First, I review evidence for the pervasive importance of status and

support in a wide range of human and animal research. Next, I discuss the social and

environmental triggers of physiological stress responding, and how chronic stress

responding leads to a variety of health problems. Then, I review animal and human

research to show that status and support reduce stress responding and are associated with

better health. Conversely, low status and social isolation are associated with more stress

responding and negative health outcomes. Environmental controllability and predictability

*Email: [email protected]

Health Psychology Review

Vol. 1, No. 2, September 2007, 186207

ISSN 1743-7199 print/ISSN 1743-7202 online

# 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/17437190802217246

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

are also important predictors of stress and health, and may underlie the effects of status

and support. Thus, status and support can be viewed as social sources of control that

protect against the occurrence of stressors, reduce physiological responding to stressors,

and reduce the impact that stress-related health problems have on daily life. Finally, I

discuss the implications of the proposed model for better understanding of earlier findings

and for generating questions for further research.

One of the problems with searching for correlations between social support and health

is that the constructs have multiple dimensions. Health can be measured by symptom self-

report, blood pressure, accidental injury, chronic illness, or death. Similarly, social support

is not a monolithic construct, but is commonly subdivided into more meaningful elements.

Cohen and Wills (1985) provide four useful categories of social support. Informational

support is advice or guidance that can help to define and solve problems. Instrumental

support is material assistance such as transportation to a medical appointment, or money

for lunch. Social companionship offers a sense of affiliation, distraction from problems,

and positive mood. Finally, emotional support provides a sense of self-worth, that one is

appreciated despite ones failings.

Operationalising one or more of these dimensions presents another complication

(Stroebe, Stroebe, Abakoumkin, & Schut, 1996). For instance, support can be measured by

assessing the size of a social network, the perceived availability of supportive others, or in

terms of the frequency with which support is received. Clearly, the term social support

encompasses a broad range of interactions, perceptions, and behaviours.

For the present discussion, which aims to bridge animal and human research, simple

definitions of status and support will suffice. Researchers testing the connections proposed

here will be able to examine the varying contributions and interactions of different types of

social support on health. Similarly, research related to the present model may lead to

recognition of important distinctions in measurement and definition of status.

Social status and social support as fundamental, universal dimensions

In this section I review evidence for the primacy of two basic elements of social

interactions, which have been called by different names, as seen below. In later sections I

will use the terms status and support, as these are common, unidirectional, positive, and

applicable to both humans and animals.

Status and solidarity

A prominent theorist in social psychology, Roger Brown, proposed that all human

interactions can be described in terms of two major dimensions: status and solidarity

(Brown, 1965). These dimensions are universal across cultures, and inform many aspects of

social interactions and cultural traditions. These constructs are also ubiquitous in

personality theory, where they are sometimes labelled agency and communion, or power

and love (Wiggins & Trobst, 1999).

Status is conceptualised by Brown (1965) as a vertical dimension, an asymmetrical

relationship in which individuals are in general agreement on their positions relative to

each other and behave accordingly. Dominant members of a group may possess greater

skill or seniority than others, and control more individuals and resources than those lower

in the hierarchy. Subordinates are deferential and obedient, receiving protection and group

membership in return (Brown, 1965).

Health Psychology Review 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Solidarity is best represented as a lateral relationship between individuals. Solidarity

includes affectionate interactions, as well as any positive experience of affiliation,

companionship and belonging. Similarity is an important source of solidarity, so

individuals with similar backgrounds, histories, goals, and activities are likely to enjoy

each others company.

Brown (1965) posits an inverse relationship between status and solidarity. In adult

relationships, differences in status weaken the experience of solidarity, and conversely,

similarity tends to equalise differences in rank. Thus, although humans value both statusand solidarity, a single relationship rarely provides high levels of both dimensions.

In a study of self-reports of status and solidarity in daily interactions, respondents

report that downward comparisons (with individuals of lower status or ability) and

connective comparisons (with similar others) are more helpful and mood-enhancing,

compared with upward and contrastive comparisons (Locke, 2003). This investigation also

found a negative relationship between the respondents perceived status in a social

exchange and reported solidarity with the target. These results illustrate the affective

consequences of status and solidarity, and support Browns (1965) suggestion that there isa negative relationship between status and solidarity.

Self-esteem and affiliation

The concepts of status and support surface in investigations of negative social interactionsas well. Anderson and Lawler (1995) asked women to describe incidents that made them

angry. Half of the Type A women in the study described incidents related to self-esteem,

suggesting a status component in keeping with the Type A behaviour pattern. For Type B

women, nearly half of anger incidents related to affiliation needs, suggesting a social

support component. About 30% of both groups described incidents related to frustration

of autonomy, defined by the authors as control of power or resources. Autonomy here

may be related to social dominance, but may also be relevant to environmental control or

predictability, which will be addressed in a later section.

Competence and warmth

Building on decades of social perception research, Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2007) reviewevidence for the primacy of two dimensions of social judgments, which they label

competence and warmth. Perception of competence includes status-related traits like

intellect, ability, agency, and worthiness of respect. Perception of warmth includes support-

related traits like sociability, morality, trustworthiness, and helpfulness. Reaction time and

priming experiments have demonstrated the immediacy and accessibility of competence

and warmth judgments. The authors report that judgments of these two basic dimensions

account for almost all variance in perceptions of social behaviour.

Similar results have been found in at least 19 countries on four continents, suggestingthat the importance of competence and warmth is universal, not merely a cultural artefact.

According to Fiske et al. (2007), these constructs represent adaptations to evolutionary

pressures. For early humans, as for most animals, surviving an encounter with another

individual required immediate assessment of his or her abilities and intentions. Today we

are less likely to die from mistakes in these judgments, but in an evolutionary context,

dying of embarrassment may be a fitting description of the significance of mistakes in

social judgments. In short, the dimensions of social perception seem to mirror the adaptive

significance of status and support concerns.

188 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Rank and kinship

Further evidence for the primitive origins of these judgments comes from fieldwork with

baboons in Botswana, which suggest that animals categorise other individuals on the basis

of two characteristics: rank in the troops dominance hierarchy, and membership in a

family group. In playback experiments, baboons showed more interest in vocalisations that

signalled rank reversals between families than within families. These results indicate that

the animals make judgments of rank and kinship spontaneously and simultaneously

(Bergman, Beehner, Cheney, & Seyfarth, 2003). Moreover, these social attributes inform

baboons behaviour in virtually every social interaction. Extensive exploration of the lives

of these intensely social animals demonstrates the central role of status and support, and

invites comparisons with human social dynamics (Cheney & Seyfarth, 2007).

Social hierarchy and social support

In the previous examples, behavioural evidence indicates the fundamental nature of status

and support as dimensions of social interaction. A recent review by Kemeny (2007) extends

the relevance of these dimensions to physiological outcomes. Kemeny concludes that two

distinct social factors influence immune response: social hierarchy and social support.

The immune consequences of rank in a social hierarchy have been demonstrated in a

wide range of animals, including fish, rodents, and primates. After losing a conflict, low-

ranking animals show inhibited immune response sometimes lasting days or weeks. In

contrast, high-ranking animals show little or no immune suppression. The persistence and

degree of immune suppression are typically highly correlated with behavioural displays of

submission. These results indicate that physiological response is closely bound to the

animals social status.

Similarly, social support has a beneficial effect on immune response, at least in part by

buffering the effects of stressors. Kemeny (2007) points to an extensive literature indicating

that people with more social support enjoy better health, and to specific findings that

immune function is stronger in people and animals with social support and affiliative

opportunities than in their cohorts who are isolated or lonely.

Social self-preservation

The theory of social self-preservation (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004) provides a framework

for understanding how social interactions affect stress responses. Physical danger is an

obvious example of a stressor, but threats to social status or self-identity are also powerful

stressors. As previously described, social subordinance or isolation may be equivalent to

physical peril, and social goals are invested with enormous adaptive significance. In

situations involving the possibility of negative judgment, rejection, and public failure,

social-evaluative threat activates physiological stress responding in humans and in many

animal species. Uncontrollability can create or exacerbate a situation of social threat, when

the individual cannot do anything to avoid failure, and goal-directed behaviour does not

affect outcomes.

Given the importance of status and support in social interactions, and Kemenys (2007)

demonstration that hierarchy and support are significant predictors of immune response, it

is reasonable to suppose that status and support constitute important defences against

social-evaluative threat (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). These factors are effective means for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

preserving control over social situations, and should therefore be predicted to have effects

on the experience and consequences of stress.

Stress-related disease

When a threat is perceived, the body initiates a cascade of neuroendocrine activity.

Catecholamine (epinephrine and norepinephrine) production stimulates the sympathetic

nervous system (SNS), and the hypothalamuspituitaryadrenal (HPA) axis releasesglucocorticoids (mainly cortisol in mammals). These changes prepare the body for actionin a number of ways. Blood glucose levels are elevated, making energy available to tissues.

Increased heart rate and blood pressure facilitate the transport of oxygen and glucose to

the muscles, providing energy for emergency action, and to the brain, improving cognitive

function. In order to make more resources immediately available for fight or flight, long-

term processes like tissue repair and growth, digestion, and reproductive functions are put

on hold while the individual mobilises emergency resources. In addition, increased levels of

circulating cortisol resulting from activation of the HPA axis inhibit immune functioning

(Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).Normally, these physiological changes increase the individuals chance for surviving a

dangerous situation, after which normal functions can resume. However, if a threat is

chronically present or perceived, overexposure to catecholamines and glucocorticoids will

lead to muscle weakness and dysfunction, and generalised fatigue. Extended HPA

activation results in high blood pressure and hardening of the arteries. Stress responding

usually leads to an abrupt decline in testosterone production, and disruption of

reproductive function can also lead to impotence or amenorrhea. Effects on the digestive

tract include colitis and gastric ulcer. Tissue repair and regeneration are slowed, andosteoporosis may result. The nervous system itself may suffer from overexposure to its own

neurochemicals (Sapolsky, 1999). Finally, chronic immunosuppression increases the risk of

contracting infections, and sets the stage for prolonged or more severe illness (Kemeny,

2007).

The HPA, SNS, and immune systems are interdependent, and can affect each others

functioning (Taylor, 2007). Physiological stress responding is a general description of the

activation of one or more stress-relevant systems. In practice, stress responding is typically

measured by cortisol levels in saliva, blood, or urine, or by cardiovascular reactivity, suchas changes in heart rate or blood pressure. These discrete measures often represent a much

broader physiological response to stress, however. The many effects of stress increase the

likelihood of a wide range of physical ailments.

Social status, social support and control reduce stress responding

This section reviews evidence linking status, support, and control with health outcomes.

The present inquiry was stimulated by Kemenys (2007) review of the immuneconsequences of hierarchy and support, and Dickerson and Kemenys (2004) investigation

of stress responding as a result of social threat and uncontrollability. This section will

extend this discussion by examining the effect of status and support on stress and health

indicators. Evidence from a wide range of research disciplines and perspectives indicates

that status and support are the most important means of defending against social

evaluative threat. I review the stress and health implications of status and support for both

animals and humans. Finally, I review evidence for the consequences of a potentially non-

social source of stress, uncontrollability.

190 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Social status reduces stress responding

Observation and research in both animals and humans demonstrates that status affects

health by preventing stress, buffering physiological stress responding, and reducing the

significance of health problems. Animals and humans with high social status are protected

from many stressful situations. Status brings relative safety, security, and availability of

resources.

Evidence in animals

Extensive studies on the physiological implications of social status have been conducted

with baboons in the wild (Sapolsky, 1997). These results provide a clear picture of how

social interactions and physiological responses are intertwined.

When a male baboon reaches sexual maturity, he leaves the relative safety and comfort

of his troop of origin, where his mother, grandmother, sisters, and aunts will stay their

whole lives. He leaves his family and others he could count on to give and receive physical

signs of acceptance, like grooming, which is a vital part of baboon society. Not only does

grooming prevent discomfort and disease associated with fleas, ticks, lice, and other

parasites, but it is an important bonding ritual that assures the animal of its place in the

troop community. The young male leaves this secure existence to join a new troop,

composed entirely of strangers, not kin.

This is a painful transition. As an outsider, he is rejected by the members of the troop

he desires to join. He is not just at the bottom of the pecking order, but truly outside

society. The troop mostly ignores him, and when he gathers courage or in desperation tries

to approach, he is attacked and driven away. Eventually the low-status members take an

interest in him, but his acceptance as a member of the troop is strictly as a target for their

frustrations and as a step below them in the hierarchy. They rob him of his food, drive him

from his resting places, and assault him without provocation. He is kept on the periphery

of the troop, a target of predators, hungry, lonely, and parasite-ridden. If he is lucky, he

may develop something like a friendship with another subordinate like himself. If his

health and will hold out, he may slowly climb in the hierarchy, challenging those holding

positions just above his own and violently hazing those beneath him.

At the top of the hierarchy, the dominant male enjoys his choice of food and territory,

as well as much improved prospects for female mating partners. His life is relatively

comfortable as long as the hierarchy is stable, that is, until a subordinate male challenges

his position or the troop is threatened by a rival troop, disease, or other disturbance.

In times of threat, high-status animals show immediate and substantial increase in

circulating cortisol, necessary for an energetic response to the situation. When the danger

has passed, cortisol levels return quickly to a low baseline, indicating efficient regulation of

the HPA system. Indicators of general health, including lymphocytes, infection-fighting

white blood cells, and high-density lipoprotein, or good cholesterol are in good supply in

high-ranking animals (Sapolsky, 1999).

Baboons at the bottom of the hierarchy show physical signs of chronic stress. With

adrenocortical systems exhausted by overuse, subordinates show sluggish cortisol response

during emergencies. When the threat has passed, cortisol levels of subordinates take longer

to return to baseline, and remain higher than the levels of their privileged superiors. They

exhibit low lymphocyte count and more low-density lipoprotein (bad cholesterol). When

autopsied, low-status males show more hardening of the arteries than high-status males,

and adrenal glands are enlarged from overuse (Sapolsky, 1993b).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Stress indicators have been shown to be higher for subordinate individuals than for

dominant individuals in a range of species, including primates, rats, wolves, hyenas, pigs,

and even fish (reviewed in Sapolsky, 1999). A recent experiment with green anole lizards

found that somatic indicators of stress (skin colour and markings) are associated with

status. After forming stable dominance relationships, lizards were stressed by being chased

around a cage with a stick. Dominant lizards showed reduced stress responding and faster

recovery compared with pretest measures and with subordinate lizards stress indicators

(Plavicki, Yang, & Wilczynski, 2004). For many species, status is an important shield

against stress.

For others, however, status comes at a cost. For African wild dogs and dwarf

mongooses, dominant individuals have elevated glucocorticoid levels, probably due to the

high rates of aggression among high-ranking animals (Creel, Creel, & Monfort, 1996). In

primates, differences in stress responding are related to rank only for species in which low-

status animals suffer from their place in the hierarchy, or lack social support or other

coping mechanisms (Abbott et al., 2003). Thus, status alone is not a reliable predictor of

stress responding. Social support and perceived control, as well as personality, environ-

ment, and species-typical behaviour all contribute to the occurrence and impact ofstressors (Sapolsky, 1999).

Evidence in humans

Human social structure is more complicated than in animals, so simple correlations

between rank and cortisol response are unlikely. However, general measures of health,

which, as shown previously, may be related to stress response, have been found to be

correlated with social status. Poverty is a risk factor for humans, for many reasons, such as

poor nutrition, lack of access to medical care, exposure to pollutants, and higher rates of

behaviours such as smoking and alcohol use. In a nine-year longitudinal study of adults in

Oakland, California, Haan, Kaplan, and Camacho (1987) found that residents of a

federally designated poverty area had higher rates of mortality than residents of non-

poverty areas. When environmental and behavioural factors were statistically controlled,

the higher death rates for impoverished residents remained. These results suggest a directeffect of social status on health.

Much of the research on status and health focuses on poor people. But even in

populations where status is already quite high, important health differences appear. In a

retrospective study of film actors and actresses, Academy Award winners have been shown

to live about four years longer than non-winners (Redelmeier & Singh, 2001). Multiple

wins resulted in a longevity difference of about six years. Interestingly, there was no

longevity difference between actors who were nominated but did not win, and those who

were never nominated.

An important longitudinal study focused on status-related health differences among

17,000 middle class British civil servants (Marmot, Shipley, & Rose, 1984). During the 10-

year study, male participants in the lowest employment grades (clerical workers) were three

times as likely to die of coronary heart disease, or of any cause, than administrators in the

highest grades. Significant differences were found not only between the highest and lowest

grades, but each increase in rank was associated with a corresponding decrease in mortality

rate. This inverse socioeconomic gradient for health among people with similar access tohealth care is a remarkable result. Although some allowance for promotion on the basis of

health and well-being must be made, the size of the difference suggests something else at

work. Status appears to have a protective effect on human health.

192 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Universal access to health care should make the health-status gradient less steep.

However, a study of 38,945 stroke victims in Canada, which has federal health insurance,

showed a 9% decrease in mortality for every $10,000 increase in median neighbourhood

income (Kapral et al., 2002). There were no status-related differences in the use of

medications, but poorer patients received less rehabilitation therapy, and waited longer for

surgery. Poorer patients, older patients, and women were less likely to be treated by a

specialist. The findings of this sort illustrate some of the ways that status affects the

medical response to acute illnesses, even when the health system strives for equaltreatment.

Social support reduces stress responding

Social support, like status, is a valuable shield against social evaluative threat and other

stressors. An animal or human assured of one or two close friendships has less reason to be

concerned about conflicts with others than a solitary individual. Social relationships

provide both direct and indirect support in times of threat. Two individuals have a better

chance than one at winning a conflict, and a show of unity may serve to avoid aconfrontation altogether. Friends share resources and information, help each other care for

offspring, and provide consolation after a disappointment, visibly signalling to others that

the loser has not lost everything. Research with both animals and humans demonstrates

the stress-reducing qualities and health consequences of social support.

Evidence in animals

As described above, social support is an important correlate of immune response in anumber of species (Kemeny, 2007), and the availability of positive social interactions

determines the neuroendocrine effects of status (Abbott et al., 2003). The cortisol profiles

of female baboons vary less by rank than those of males, apparently because females have a

more stable social hierarchy and more opportunities for affiliation. Thus, the effects of low

status are counterbalanced by social support. While Sapolskys research focuses on the

effects and moderators of social status, Smuts (1985) emphasises the role of social support

in her field research with baboons. Friends groom one another and sleep together; females

and infants are sometimes protected by a male friend, whether he is the father or not.Although male olive baboons weigh almost twice what females weigh, females still retain a

great deal of control over who they copulate with, and a male friend, regardless of his rank,

has an advantage when she is in estrous. Smuts does not measure physiological stress

responding directly, but her research clearly illustrates the benefits of social support in the

stressful existence of a social primate.

These observations are not surprising, in light of experiments showing the importance

of social contact in rhesus monkeys (Harlow & Harlow, 1962). The best-known

experiments showed that baby monkeys preferred a soft terrycloth-covered frame to ahard wire frame that provided nourishment. Other experiments found that monkeys raised

in total isolation were severely debilitated, both physically and emotionally, and were

unable to function normally in social situations. Isolated juveniles given 20 minutes each

day in each others company at first merely clung to one another, but eventually began to

interact, explore, and play energetically. With only this limited opportunity for affiliation,

their adult behaviour was much closer to normal.

Complementing the evidence that social isolation has harmful consequences, a recent

series of experiments with Siberian hamsters has demonstrated the physiological benefits


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

of affiliation (Detillion, Craft, Glasper, Prendergast, & DeVries, 2004). Hamsters were

subjected to a skin wound, followed by a stressor (physical restraint) which is known to

impair wound healing. Hamsters housed alone healed more slowly, and had higher levels

of circulating cortisol following the stressor, compared to hamsters housed with a sibling.

Another indicator of the effects of social interaction on stress is found in research on

oxytocin. Oxytocin in mammals is associated with parturition, lactation, maternal

behaviour, copulation and pair bonding (Insel, 2000). This socially relevant hormone is

also secreted in response to stress, and attenuates sympathetic and HPA responding

(Taylor, Dickerson, & Klein, 2002). Higher levels of circulating oxytocin, whether in

lactating females or exogenously administered, result in increased interest in social

interactions, along with reduced anxiety and aggression. In socially isolated animals,

administration of oxytocin decreases glucocorticoid secretion and results in wound healing

similar to that of socially housed experimental animals. The effects of oxytocin reveal a

strong connection between social and physical factors, and the significant role stress

responding plays in the relationship.

Additional evidence comes from research on social correlates of endogenous opioids,

which induce analgesia and euphoria. Opioids are released in response to social contact,and reduce behavioural and neurochemical indicators of stress. These effects have been

demonstrated in a range of species, including juvenile rats, adult mice, monkeys, and

chicks, and neuroanatomical similarities suggest that the role of social interaction in

triggering endogenous opioid release may be generalisable to humans (Nelson & Panksepp,

1998).

Evidence in humans

A sense of wordless communication and mutual understanding, coupled with physical

affection, sorrow at the others absence, and mutual dependence are features of intimate

human relationships (Bowlby, 1973). Bowlbys theory of attachment parallels Harlows

work with monkeys, and originated with his interest in orphans and other children

deprived of maternal care. In a massive World Health Organization report, Bowlby (1951)

describes the harrowing results of institutionalising children. Symptoms include listless-

ness, unresponsiveness to social stimuli, difficulty sleeping, lack of interest in surroundings,frequent fevers, and failure to gain weight even on an adequate diet. Bowlby states that

when deprived of maternal care, the childs development is almost always retarded physically, intellectually, and socially and that symptoms of physical and mental illnessmay appear . . . some children are gravely damaged for life (p. 365).

Long-term effects on physiological stress responding have been correlated with

attachment style (Taylor et al., 2002). Compared with securely attached infants, insecurely

attached infants are more likely to show elevated cortisol levels in response to routine

inoculations. Children who have been physically abused, and those who experience a high

level of negative interactions with parents show signs of abnormal HPA regulation.

Further, patterns of stress responding in adulthood have been related to the loss of a parent

during adulthood.

Formally defined, attachment is much more than mere social support, as it is the

primary and essential relationship with a caregiver (Bowlby, 1973). In the early 1900s,

infants in orphanages and hospitals were isolated to protect them from disease. These

babies, who were never held and never saw unmasked faces, died at rates approaching

100% (Blum, 2002). While early attachment is necessary for survival, attachment needs

continue throughout adulthood. Many researchers find that even relationships that do not

194 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

qualify as true attachments still serve attachment-related functions (Fraley & Shaver,

2000). The emotional and physical significance of the infant attachment relationship is

echoed in the lifelong desire for social support, and in lifelong physiological benefits of this

support.

The health effects of social support are varied and robust. Individuals with more social

ties are less likely to develop viral infections, and have fewer complications of pregnancy,

less arthritis pain, and faster recovery from surgery (reviewed in Taylor, 2007). Presence of

siblings in the community, frequency of eating out, and perceived social support have beenlinked to lower blood pressure (reviewed in Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996).

Marriage, church membership and size of household have been shown to predict mortality

in large-scale prospective studies, even when other health risks are taken into account

(reviewed in House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988).

Numerous studies (reviewed in Burman & Margolin, 1992; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton,

2001) have explored the link between marriage and physical well-being. Compared with

unmarried people, married people enjoy better health. However, close relationships can

also affect health adversely; unhappy marriages are a significant source of stress,contributing to health problems for the partners involved (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton,

2001). While social support is not found in all relationships, even in all close relationships,

humans benefit from positive interactions, and seek out close relationships throughout the

lifespan.

Control reduces stress responding

Control is so crucial that its impact is evident in all possible systems (Peterson, Maier, &

Seligman, 1993, p. 305). The ability to predict and control surroundings and socialsituations is a fundamental human concern that is echoed in animal psychology. From

perceptual organisation and classical conditioning to cognitive dissonance theory, living

creatures are constantly engaged in working to make sense of information. Although

control is not necessarily a social factor, its effect on stress responding and long-term

health outcomes makes it an essential element of social self-preservation.

Evidence in animals

As already noted, high status is associated with lower stress only in stable hierarchies.

Dwarf mongooses must continually reassert their rank, and dominant individuals exhibit

higher glucocorticoid levels than their subordinates (Sapolsky, 2005). In wild baboons,

hierarchical stability is an important determinant of stress responding (Sapolsky, 1993a). If

the troops territory is chronically threatened, or if an ambitious newcomer mounts a

credible campaign to seize control, the cortisol responses of the high-ranking males look

quite similar to those of the low-ranking males. In this situation, the high-ranking animals

lose a great deal of control, as environmental factors or new individuals can affect trooplife in unpredictable ways. Loss of control and predictability is a significant source of stress.

In the laboratory, lack of control is at the heart of the learned helplessness phenomenon

(Peterson et al., 1993). Dogs exposed to inescapable shock soon learn that their responses

are ineffectual, and give up trying to escape. In later trials, when the shock could be

avoided by jumping a low hurdle, the helpless animals did not make the responses that

would enable them to learn the new contingency. Conversely, dogs that had first been

permitted to learn escape behaviours were immunised against helplessness. After

experience with inescapable shock, they were quick to learn a new escape response when


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

the contingency changed. Their experiences of control over the situation prevented learned

helplessness, and promoted effective responding in new situations.

An uncontrollable stressor, like the helplessness procedure, creates immediate, wide-

spread, and significant changes in neurochemical activity. The effects are very broad, as

nearly every neurotransmitter and many regions of the brain have been implicated in

helplessness effects (Peterson et al., 1993). After inescapable shock, norepinephrine is

depleted for as long as several days, with consequent motor deficits and hypersensitivity to

new stressors. The function of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory

neurotransmitter, is reduced, permitting increased neural activity and leading to anxiety

and behavioural expressions of fear, such as freezing in rats. Endogenous opiates, which

produce analgesia, are activated in response to a minor shock in animals that have been

trained with inescapable shock. Yet when animals have had experience with avoidable

shock, a minor shock triggers no opiate response. Thus, control appears to provide

immunisation against neurochemical, as well as behavioural, responses to stressors.

After examining these wide-ranging physiological consequences Peterson et al. (1993)

proposed that corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), produced during HPA activation,

may be the chief mediator between uncontrollability and physiological stress responses. Inaddition to its adrenergic effects, CRH is associated with GABA production and direct

activation of the SNS. CRH production is concentrated not only in the hypothalamus, but

also in the amygdala, which is involved in conditioned fear responses.

The health consequences for animals exposed to uncontrollable shock are intriguing.

Rats injected with tumour cells, then immediately exposed to a single session of inescapable

shock, quickly succumb to cancer. Tumour growth in animals exposed to escapable shock

does not differ from tumour growth in those who received no shocks at all (Peterson et al.,

1993). These results show the expected effect of a stressor on resistance to disease.

However, the findings are quite different when the stressor was repeated daily after

introducing the pathogen. In this case, tumour growth is not exaggerated in animals

exposed to repeated inescapable shock. Some research has shown that chronic exposure to

stress in the laboratory can even protect animal subjects against pathology (reviewed in

Peterson et al., 1993). These two sets of findings appear to conflict with each other.

The key to this seeming discrepancy may be that repeated exposure to shocks in the

laboratory, possibly at the same time each day, certainly in the same apparatus, became

predictable. The end of the shock session was also predictable, so the animals learned that

the shocks would end and not return until the next day. In other words, repeated sessions ofinescapable shock become less stressful because they are more predictable.

Learned helplessness research thus indicates that the concept of control encompasses

not only agency, but also predictability. The effectiveness of goal-directed behavioural

responses is an important aspect of control, but a sense of control can also come from

predictability of events. A contingency relationship allows the animal to prepare for an

event, thereby limiting the harmful effects of uncontrollability, reducing a goal-threatening

stressor to an expected, unpleasant, but temporary experience.

Evidence in humans

Human research on learned helplessness has typically focused on response to unsolvable

problems rather than inescapable shock. Research participants exposed to uncontrollable

events report feeling anxious and depressed, and show a preference for hostile humour overinnocent humour (Peterson et al., 1993). Physiological changes associated with anxiety,

such as higher concentrations of adrenocorticotropic hormone, and changes in skin

196 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

conductance have also been reported. These findings seem to parallel the results of animal

research, despite the barriers to conducting invasive physiological examination on humans,

and to measuring subjective emotional states in animals.

Immunisation against helplessness is an important point of correspondence between

the animal and human helplessness literatures. Previous experience with controllability can

neutralise the effects of helplessness training, and protect against deficits in later problem

solving. This immunisation effect of control has been called learned optimism (Seligman,

1990), signalling an expansion of the helplessness model to include a variety of human

psychological behaviours related to perceptions of contingency and controllability. Within

the framework of attribution theory, optimism has been defined as an expectation of

control, or mastery (Peterson & Steen, 2002). Subjective perceptions of controllability and

contingency underlie measures of explanatory style (Peterson & Seligman, 1987), which

originate from learned helplessness and attribution theories.

College students with optimistic explanatory styles report significantly better past and

current health than those with pessimistic explanatory styles (Peterson et al., 1993). Long-

term health effects of causal attribution have also been demonstrated. In the HarvardStudy of Adult Development, begun in 1946, healthy, high-functioning Harvard students

or recent graduates were asked to describe difficult personal situations (Peterson et al.,

1993). Those who gave optimistic causal explanations at age 25 were healthier at age 45

than those who gave pessimistic explanations (partial r0.42).Another parallel with animal research is in findings that while a single stressful

experience has a deleterious effect on health, repetition of the same stressor appears to be

harmless, or has a protective effect. Toughness refers to the beneficial effect that physical

exertion or hardship has on mental functioning (Dienstbier & Pytlik Zillig, 2002).

Presumably, experience with an intermittent stressor allows the individual to prepare for

the event, and to treat it as a temporary unpleasantness that need not interfere with

important goals. Thus, predictability and agency define the difference between a stressor

and an inconvenience.

Infants have been shown to be remarkably responsive to control, and in a surprising

way. During an investigation of contingency learning in infants, Watson and Ramey (1972)

discovered that two-month-old infants were making social responses smiling and cooing towards a mobile that moved in response to their head movements. These responses tothe mobile in some cases predated social smiling at the parents. The infants were so

interested in the apparatus that some mothers reported using it as a babysitter, or building

their own versions. (The experimenters deserve credit for recognising that this might

disrupt the babies normal social development, and discontinuing the experiment rather

than patenting this invention as a labour-saving device.) Typically, an infants only control

over the environment is through relationships with caregivers, so it makes evolutionary

sense for social response to be linked to contingency. Watsons findings demonstrate how

salient control is to infants who have had little experience of autonomy, and suggest that

control is a fundamental aspect of human social development.

In a follow-up to the Whitehall study (Marmot et al., 1984), 7372 British civil servants

were followed over several years, and measures of coronary heart disease were recorded

(Marmot, Bosma, Hemingway, Brunner, & Stansfeld, 1997). Once again, health measures

were found to be inversely related to employment grade. In Whitehall II, however, a

measure of perceived job control was included, and proved an even better predictor of

health differences in both men and women than either employment grade or standard risk

factors. Thus, in this major study, perceptions of control were more directly related to

health consequences than measures of status.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Johnson and Krueger (2005) report similar findings in a study of 719 same-sex twin

pairs in the USA. Increased perceptions of control over work situation, finances,

relationships, and life in general were associated with decreased incidence of chronic

illness and lower body mass index, a predictor of health problems. Comparison of control-

health interactions between monozygotic and dizygotic twins led the investigators to

conclude that genetic variance in chronic health problems is related to perceived control.

The authors speculate that lack of control leads to chronic stress responding. Control

apparently protects against genetic vulnerabilities, as well as against environmental

stressors.

Uncontrollability is such an important source of stress that it has been proposed as the

specific stress-producing aspect of a situation (Sapolsky, 1993a). Research with animals,

and, to some extent, humans, seems to support this proposal (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004).

Control may even be at the root of social defences against stress. Status and support are

essentially tools for achieving and maintaining control over the social environment. Thus,

it may be helpful to consider status and support as dimensions of social control.

The social control model

The association between stress responding and health problems is well established.

Likewise, there is much evidence that the fundamental dimensions of social status and

social support are means of obtaining control over social and environmental stressors, with

important health consequences. Figure 1 shows a model of the relationship between these

social control factors and stress-related health problems. At the bottom of the figure is a

representation of the relationship between stress and health. Two general categories of

stressors are represented, in accordance with Dickerson and Kemenys (2004) framework.

Lack of control over the environment is stressful when it interferes with important goals;

physical danger is the primary example. The threat of negative evaluation by others

interferes with important social goals and is also a source of stress. Social-evaluative threat

and uncontrollability initiate a host of physiological responses via the SNS, HPA, and

immune systems, resulting in generalised arousal, metabolic changes, immune suppression,

and secretion of neurochemicals and circulating hormones. If stress responding is

persistent, health problems may result.

The top half of Figure 1 shows the key social control factors implicated in the

attenuation of stress-related illness or dysfunction. Status and support are fundamental

dimensions of social interactions, and both are correlated with stress responding and

health problems. Ultimately, both are valuable sources of control over the social

environment, and hence the physical environment as well.

Figure 1. The social control model. Status and support can influence physical health by decreasing

the incidence or severity of stressors, reducing physiological stress response, and limiting the effects of

illness.

198 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

It is important to note that many factors contribute to an individuals experience of

social interactions, stress and illness. For instance, local norms may relegate individuals to

low status because of their gender or heritage. Social support may be hard to find for

individuals with physical deformities, or who are simply unattractive. Personality

differences and past experience affect individuals appraisal of potential stressors.

Individual differences in emotional reactivity and biochemistry affect the size and

persistence of physiological stress responding. Finally, some individuals are genetically

predisposed to be susceptible to certain diseases, while others may be particularly resistant.

Thus, individual differences and cultural norms affect every aspect of the proposed model.

However, the findings reviewed earlier demonstrate that status and support exert

significant influence on stress and health, across a wide range of situations and species.

Status and support may affect health directly, by influencing behaviour or physiological

functioning. These dimensions may also act indirectly, by buffering the perception or effect

of stressors. In an important paper on the relationship between social support and stress,

Cohen and Wills (1985) conclude that there is evidence for the effectiveness of both direct

and buffering effects of social support. Further, direct and indirect effects may take place atdifferent stages of the progression from stress to illness (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Taylor,

2007). Figure 1 shows three ways that social control dimensions can block or weaken the

connections between stressors, stress responding, and physical illness.

First, social support and status affect the occurrence of stressors. During a natural

disaster, everyone suffers from catastrophic uncontrollability: physical danger, loss of

shelter, food and water shortages, and lack of medical attention when it is most needed.

Social sources of stress abound as well: community networks are broken, individuals are

unable to provide adequate food or care for dependents, and may be reduced to begging for

help instead. Stressors are often random and unavoidable, but status and support offer a

degree of control in many cases. For example, high-status residents of New Orleans were

more likely to have the means to leave before Hurricane Katrina hit, and their houses

tended to be on higher ground, safe from flood damage. Residents with larger or stronger

social networks were more likely to have a safe place to take shelter. In contrast, their low-

status neighbours were more likely to face physical injury, property damage, homelessness,

and loss of community. Status and support can act on an individuals appraisal of the

stressful situation at least my family is safe. Thus, stressors can be mitigated or avoidedaltogether by status or support.

The second effect of control factors on health is perhaps the most intriguing. As

indicated in Figure 1, both social support and social status can reduce the individuals

physiological response to threats, either by establishing a well-regulated stress system, or by

attenuating stress responding with all its endocrine, cardiovascular, and immune effects.

The result is decreased intensity or shorter duration of stress responding. The old saying

misery loves company describes the desire for social affiliation during stressful

circumstances. It is likely that hurricane victims who faced the storms consequences

with others fared better, at least in neuroendocrine terms, than those who remained

isolated. Similarly, individuals who achieved or maintained positions of status and respect

during the crisis, like church leaders and boat owners, may have experienced similar

benefits.

The third effect of social control is on health problems, including ailments unrelated to

stress. Social support can contribute to positive health behaviours in people who arealready ill: concerned family members can make sure an individual takes prescribed

medicine and gets to the doctor. Social status may help to secure better medical care and a

better environment for recovery. In many ways, social support and status can influence the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

progression and duration of illness, and can mitigate the effects of ongoing health

problems on daily functioning.

Status and support can also be sources of stress. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis,

doctors and administrators bore the responsibility for patients suffering in a hospital with

no power and no sign of outside help for days. They reportedly discussed euthanizing

patients to relieve their misery (Johnston, 2005). The question itself is both an indicator

and a source of extreme stress. A large support network can also be a source of stress, as

support is often reciprocal (Taylor, 2007). More friends and family might mean more loss,more help needed, and more people who need support and comfort at an already difficult

time. These are extreme examples, but everyday experience of status and support may

include some negative aspects as well. Thus, potential costs of status and support may

counteract the benefits they provide, to some degree. Where these costs are sizable, they

may help to explain inconsistencies in the evidence of health benefits of social support (e.g.,

Seeman, Berkman, Blazer, & Rowe, 1994). Overall, however, a large body of evidence

indicates that the benefits of social support far outweigh the costs (e.g., Uchino et al.,

1996), as do the benefits of status for humans (e.g., Sapolsky, 2005).Predictability and control are important predictors of stress responding (Dickerson &

Kemeny, 2004; Sapolsky, 2005), and the fundamental relationship dimensions of status and

support are the primary social means of obtaining control over the environment. Although

non-social factors (such as knowledge or possession of resources) can increase the amount

of control and contribute directly to the stress-health sequence, these factors often

contribute to social support and status as well. Thus, while social support and status are

not the only possible means of gaining control, they are sometimes difficult to disentangle

from physical or cognitive resources.

Discussion

Social status and social support are fundamental and universal dimensions of social

interactions. I propose that status and support are the chief social sources of control over

the physical and social environment. Control decreases the individuals experience of stress

and its physiological consequences. Evidence from laboratory and observational research

with animals, and from diverse investigations in human medicine and psychology, indicates

that status and support are indeed related to stress responding, and have long-termphysiological consequences. The effects of social support on health are robust and well

known. Social status, an equally important dimension of social interaction, has also been

associated with reduced stress responding and improved health. Recognising the relevance

of both dimensions to physical well-being will facilitate progress in understanding how

social factors affect health.

Effects of social control

The social control model lends itself to specific predictions about the effect of status and

support on different aspects of the association between stress and illness. For instance,

status and support are expected to prevent the occurrence of some stressors in the first

place. Individuals scoring high on status and support measures should report fewer or

milder stressors than those scoring low on these dimensions.

The model also predicts that status and support will attenuate physiological stress

responding to perceived stressors. Relatively non-invasive measures, like blood pressure

and salivary cortisol, might be used to test responding during stressful tasks like public

200 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

speaking. More invasive measures, such as tests for circulating cortisol, may be obtainable

during medical interventions for injury or illness. Baseline levels of these measures, stress-

related increase, and recovery are potential sources of differences between individuals with

differing amounts of status and support.

A third effect of status and support is predicted to be on how illness affects the

individual. The same condition can play a significant or inconsequential role in daily

functioning, depending on the individuals experience of social control dimensions. To test

this assumption, individuals with chronic ailments like diabetes, or acute injuries likefractures can be asked to provide self-reports of perceived disability and inconvenience.

Individuals with higher status and more support should report less interference from the

same medical conditions than those with lower status and less support.

Relationship between social control dimensions

The proposed model raises interesting questions about the relationship of social status and

social support to each other and their relative contributions to health. Social status and

social support are not necessarily independent of each other. Empirical evidence of a

correlation between socioeconomic status and size or quality of social networks is mixed

(Turner & Marino, 1994). However, examples of a link between social status and support

are easy to find. Individuals with high social status are likely to find themselves surrounded

by yes-men and others eager to provide support, as well as leisure to attend social eventsand build relationships. Those who are low in status may be socially isolated due to

inflexible work schedules, dangerous neighbourhoods, temporary housing, and lack of

money or time for socialising. Thus, the contributions of status and support may often be

correlated.

An intriguing example of how status and support may interact within specific

interactions is provided by Bolger and Amarel (2007). They describe a series of

experiments in which female participants expecting to give a speech received advice or

reassurance from a confederate peer. In some conditions the support was visible, directlyaimed at the participant (youve got nothing to worry about) while in others the support

was invisible, or indirect (shes got nothing to worry about). Participants receiving

invisible support reported less distress about the task than those who received visible

support. Recipients of visible support apparently interpret the peers helpful comments as

an assessment of their own inferior ability. Thus, certain kinds of support can backfire by

triggering status appraisal and may even create or exacerbate a perception of social threat.

Status and support may also have a complementary relationship. In primates, high

levels of social support counteract the effect of low status (Abbott et al., 2003). Furtherstudy is likely to demonstrate a similar relationship in humans. Interestingly, popular

culture casts doubt on the opposite situation, where high status can offset lack of social

support. From the classic film Citizen Kane to tabloid accounts of celebrity suicides,

conventional wisdom seems to be that status is an insufficient substitute for close, caring

relationships. Yet there may be some individuals for whom low social support is not a

burden, if social status is sufficiently high.

Individual differences

Perhaps more important than finding general rules is understanding the role individual

and cultural differences play in determining the relative contributions of status and

support for a particular individual. As mentioned previously, individual differences are


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

likely to play a role in every aspect of the association between social control factors and

stress. Sapolsky (1999) cautions that the effects of status can only be understood in the

context of species-typical behaviour, social norms, personality, and individual differences

in physiology. Similarly, social support is largely in the eye of the beholder, and many

factors may contribute to an individuals perception of and response to support. Awareness

of individual differences relevant to status and support can increase the predictive power of

these constructs.

Sex differences

Behavioural responses to stress are often quite distinct for males and females, even when

physiological stress responding is the same (Taylor et al., 2000). Research on the well-

known fight or flight response has been mostly conducted with male subjects (both

human and animal). In contrast, most studies of affiliation under stress have used only

female participants. In both cases, sex differences are so consistent that the sought-after

effects are found reliably only in males or females, not both.

Fight or flight behaviours may increase an individuals immediate chance for survivalin the short term, and have been the focus of the study of behavioural responses to stress

for decades. The inconsistent pattern of results with females has been blamed on

neuroendocrine variability during the female reproductive cycle, but further investigation

suggests that females reliably display, and benefit from, tend and befriend behaviours in

response to threat (Taylor et al., 2000). These affiliative behaviours promote safety in

numbers, and are more conducive to the protection of young, which are typically in the

care of females.

In the context of the current discussion, fight or flight behaviours are related to statusconcerns compete or admit defeat while tend and befriend behaviours are related tosocial support opportunities for self and others. In humans, differences between men and

women on tendencies to seek status and support have been clearly demonstrated (Taylor

et al., 2000). Women seek and benefit from egalitarian social networks to a much greater

extent than men, who tend to form goal-directed, hierarchical groups.

Some neuroendocrine responses to stress coincide with behavioural sex differences.

Oxytocin production in response to stress appears to be more pronounced in females, and

is inhibited by androgens. The effects of endogenous opioids are similarly morepronounced in females, with behavioural effects on affiliation as well as moderation of

other stress-related neurohormones, including oxytocin.

Of course, females are capable of fight-or-flight responses, and males benefit from

social support. Variation in the expression of these behaviours, however, is brought into

clearer focus with the recognition of sex differences in behavioural response to threat.

Awareness of these crucial adaptations will lead to a better understanding of stress

responding and its health correlates.

Potential sources of social control

The social control model predicts that some relationships are better than others at reducing

stress and its harmful consequences. Relationships that afford high status, social support,

or both, should have beneficial effects on physical health. This insight points to ways of

refining the study of relationships and their effects on physical functioning. For example,

specific relationships in an individuals social network are more relevant to status and

support concerns, and thus will be more relevant to health outcomes. Further, it may be

202 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

more profitable to measure the experience of status and support in relationships than to

simply assess the size or structure of social networks.

Family relationships

As discussed above, marriage is consistently associated with health benefits. For many

couples, marriage relationships provide a great deal of mutual support. Other couples

employ a hierarchical model in which one member enjoys particularly high status in the

relationship. In practice however, the distinctions between different types of marriage may

be less clear. For instance, Oriya Hindu women do not own property, have arranged

marriages, and move in with the husbands family after marriage. Yet men have relatively

weak influence within the home, and as a young woman matures and assimilates into the

multigenerational household, she has increasing authority over the management of

finances, relationships, and religious observance. These women see themselves, and are

seen by others, as indispensible, respected, and powerful (Menon, 2000). This example

illustrates how the variety of roles held by partners can make marriage a source of both

status and support. It also demonstrates the dangers of using cultural or demographic

attributes, rather than self-reports, to categorise relationships.Parenthood is another close relationship involving status and support concerns.

Individual and developmental differences are likely to be important toddlers andteenagers provide their parents with very different signals about status and support. More

generally, the instability inherent in a relationship with a constantly growing and changing

child may interfere with the stress-reducing aspects of the parents role. Perhaps owing to

this instability, there has not been much research published on health consequences of

parenting (Umberson, 1987). Appreciation of the implications of status, support and

control may contribute to a better understanding of such complex, but significant

relationships.

Pet ownership

A common relationship with marked status and support implications is pet ownership. The

potential importance of pet relationships is indicated by recent findings that on measures

of attachment security, dog and cat owners indicate that their relationships with pets are

more secure than their relationships with romantic partners (Beck & Madresh, 2008). Few

human relationships provide an individual with a consistent source of both status and

support, while relationships with pets may be a reliable source of both. The social control

model may help to explain the remarkable pattern of physiological effects of interactions

with pets, which is often more immediate, consistent, and persistent than the effects of

human interactions.

In a number of investigations, pet ownership has been shown to be better correlated

with health outcomes than relationships with humans. In a large study investigating the

effects of many different kinds of social support, pet ownership was the best predictor of

one-year survival in people with cardiac disease (reviewed in Friedmann, Thomas, & Eddy,

2000). Another study of Medicare patients found that pet owners visited the doctor less

frequently than non-pet owners. Stressful life events such as divorce, bereavement, and

financial difficulties were followed by more doctor visits for all participants except dog

owners, for whom there was no relation (Siegel, 1990). These results point to significant

long-term effects on stress-relevant health problems.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Pets also reduce the short-term effects of acute stressors. In experiments on

cardiovascular reactivity, participants whose pets were present had the lowest increase in

heart rate and blood pressure in response to stressful situations (such as serial subtraction).

Reactivity was higher when a spouse or friend was present than when the participant was

tested alone. Even when the pet was not present, pet owners exhibited less cardiovascular

reactivity to stressors than non-pet owners (Allen, Blascovich, & Mendes, 2002). In a

related experiment, stockbrokers receiving drug therapy for high blood pressure were

randomly assigned to acquire a pet. Interestingly, while medication reduced resting bloodpressure for all participants, only the pet owners showed significantly less reactivity

compared to pre-medication baseline measures (Allen, Shykoff, & Izzo, 2001).

Conclusion

Of course neither humans nor animals seek out social interactions because of their health

effects, though these effects are substantial. Indeed these effects have only recently come to

light. Rather it seems likely that evolution has invested status and support with hedonic

value. These survival strategies have become sources of direct reward, and their loss orabsence is directly experienced as punishing. The rewards of status, support and control

seem particularly obvious for animals. Dominant baboons have choices about food and

mating partners, and are assured of grooming partners and relative safety within the troop

(Sapolsky, 1993b). Individuals with friends dont have to sleep alone, and dont have to face

hardships on their own (Smuts, 1985). When an animal perceives that its behaviour can

affect its environment, it can develop strategies for coping with new situations and

achieving its goals (Peterson et al., 1993).

The situation is not all that different for humans, who also value status, support, andcontrol. These are resources that prevent, reduce, or mitigate the effects of social and

physical threat, and all three have been found to have beneficial effects on human health.

Many human relationships incorporate status and support but few consistently include

both. Further, most human interactions are quite complex, changing over time and varying

in different situations, with frequent potential for social threat. To the extent that human

relationships provide control over social outcomes, they can serve as buffers against

sources of social threat, thus reducing stress responding. The social control model of status

and support provides a framework for continuing investigations of the social correlates ofphysiological functioning, and a rationale for the development of health-relevant measures

of social interactions and relationship quality.

Throughout evolutionary history, status and support have been closely associated with

the ability to obtain resources like food, shelter, and mating opportunities that increasechances for survival and reproduction. Given the survival value of these social resources, it

is perhaps not surprising that status and support have direct physiological effects and

health benefits.

References

Abbott, D.H., Keverne, E.B., Bercovitch, F.B., Shively, C.A., Mendoza, S.P., Saltzman, W., et al.(2003). Are subordinates always stressed? A comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisollevels among primates. Hormones and Behavior, 43(1), 6782.

Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W.B. (2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets,friends and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727739.

Allen, K., Shykoff, B.E., & Izzo, J. (2001). Pet ownership, but not ACE inhibitor therapy, bluntshome blood pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension, 38, 815820.

204 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Anderson, S.F., & Lawler, K.A. (1995). The anger recall interview and cardiovascular reactivity inwomen: An examination of context and experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39(3), 335343.

Beck, L., & Madresh, E. (2008). Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension ofattachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoos, 21(1), 4356.

Bergman, T.J., Beehner, J.C., Cheney, D.L., & Seyfarth, R.M. (2003). Hierarchical classification byrank and kinship in baboons. Science, 302, 12341236.

Blum, D. (2002). Love at goon park. Cambridge, MA: Persus.Bolger, N., & Amarel, D. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress:

Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 458475.Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization [0042

9686], 3(3), 355533.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: The Free Press.Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and

health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 3963.Cheney, D.L., & Seyfarth, R.M. (2007). Baboon metaphysics: The evolution of a social mind. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin, 98(2), 310357.Creel, S., Creel, N., & Monfort, S. (1996). Social stress and dominance. Nature, 379, 212.Detillion, C.E., Craft, T.K.S., Glasper, E.R., Prendergast, B.J., & DeVries, A.C. (2004). Social

facilitation of wound healing. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(8), 10041011.Dickerson, S.S., & Kemeny, M.E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical

integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355391.Dienstbier, R.A., & Pytlik Zillig, L.M. (2002). Toughness. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.),

Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 515527). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and

competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 7783.Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging

controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132154.Friedmann, E., Thomas, S.A., & Eddy, T.J. (2000). Companion animals and human health: Physical

and cardiovascular influences. In A. Podberscek, E. Paul & J.A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animalsand us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 125142). Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Haan, M., Kaplan, G.A., & Camacho, T. (1987). Poverty and health: Prospective evidence from theAlameda county study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 125(6), 989998.

Harlow, H.F., & Harlow, M.K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific American, 207(5),136146.

House, J.S., Landis, K.R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540545.

Insel, T.R. (2000). Toward a neurobiology of attachment. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 176185.

Johnson, W., & Krueger, R.F. (2005). Higher perceived life control decreases genetic variance inphysical health: Evidence from a national twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,88(1), 165173.

Johnston, K. (2005). Staff at New Orleans hospital debated euthanizing patients. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/12/katrina.hospital/index.html

Kapral, M.K., Wang, H., Mamdani, M., Tu, J.V., Boden-Albala, B., & Sacco, R.L. (2002). Effect ofsocioeconomic status on treatment and mortality after stroke (Editorial Comment). Stroke, 33(1),268275.

Kemeny, M.E. (2007). Psychoneuroimmunology. In H.S. Friedman & R.C. Silver (Eds.), Foundationsof health psychology (pp. 92116). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., & Newton, T.L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. PsychologicalBulletin, 127(4), 472503.

Locke, K.D. (2003). Status and solidarity in social comparison: Agentic and communal values andvertical and horizontal dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 619631.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Marmot, M.G., Bosma, H., Hemingway, H., Brunner, E., & Stansfeld, S. (1997). Contribution of jobcontrol and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence. Lancet,350(9073), 235239.

Marmot, M.G., Shipley, M.J., & Rose, G. (1984). Inequalities in death: Specific explanations of ageneral pattern? Lancet, 323(8384), 10031006.

Menon, U. (2000). Does feminism have universal relevance? The challenges posed by Oriya Hindufamily practices. Daedalus, 129(4), 77.

Nelson, E.E., & Panksepp, J. (1998). Brain substrates of infantmother attachment: Contributions ofopioids, oxytocin, and norepinephrine. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 22(3), 437452.

Peterson, C., Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned helplessness. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1987). Explanatory style and illness. Journal of Personality, 55(2),237265.

Peterson, C., & Steen, T.A. (2002). Optimistic explanatory style. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 244256). New York: Oxford University Press.

Plavicki, J., Yang, E.-J., & Wilczynski, W. (2004). Dominance status predicts response to nonsocialforced movement stress in the green anole lizard (Anolis carolinensis). Physiology & Behavior,80(4), 547555.

Redelmeier, D.A., & Singh, S.M. (2001). Survival in academy award-winning actors and actresses.Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(10), 955962.

Sapolsky, R.M. (1993a). Endocrinology alfresco: Psychoendocrine studies of wild baboons. In C.W.Bardin (Ed.), Recent progress in hormone research (Vol. 48, pp. 437468). New York: AcademicPress.

Sapolsky, R.M. (1993b). The physiology of dominance in stable vs. unstable social hierarchies. In W.Mason & S. Mendoza (Eds.), Primate social conflict (pp. 171204). New York: SUNY Press.

Sapolsky, R.M. (1997). Hypercortisolism associated with social subordinance or social isolationamong wild baboons. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 11371143.

Sapolsky, R.M. (1999). Hormonal correlates of personality and social contexts: from non-human tohuman primates. In C. Panter-Brick & C. M. Worthman (Eds.), Hormones, health and behavior: Asocio-ecological and lifespan perspective (pp. 1846). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Sapolsky, R.M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308(5722), 648652.

Seeman, T.E., Berkman, L.F., Blazer, D., & Rowe, J.W. (1994). Social ties and support andneuroendocrine function: The MacArthur studies of successful aging. Annals of BehavioralMedicine, 16(2), 95106.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: Knopf.Siegel, J. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating

role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 10811086.Smuts, B.B. (1985). Sex and friendship in baboons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Stroebe, W., Stroebe, M., Abakoumkin, G. & Schut, H. (1996). The role of loneliness and social

support in adjustment to loss: a test of attachment versus stress theory. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 70(6), 12411249.

Taylor, S.E. (2007). Social support. In H.S. Friedman & R.C. Silver (Eds.), Foundations of healthpsychology (pp. 145171). New York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, S.E., Dickerson, S.S., & Klein, L.C. (2002). Toward a biology of social support. In C.R.Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 556572). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000).Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend and befriend, not fight or flight. PsychologicalReview, 107(3), 411429.

Turner, R.J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 193212.

Uchino, B.N., Cacioppo, J.T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. (1996). The relationship between social supportand physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implicationsfor health. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 488531.

206 L. Beck

Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012

Umberson, D. (1987). Family status and health behaviors: Social control as a dimension of socialintegration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28(3), 306319.

Watson, J.S., & Ramey, C.T. (1972). Reactions to response-contingent stimulation in early infancy.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18, 219227.

Wiggins, J.S., & Trobst, K. (1999). The fields of interpersonal behavior. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 653670). New York: Guilford Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [M

s Adr

iana B

aban

] at 0

4:05 1

1 Aug

ust 2

012