8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

1/39

Jou rnal o f Beha vioral Medicine Vol . 4 N o 1 1981

C o m p a r i s o n o f T w o M o d e s o f S t r e s s M e a s u r e m e n t

D a i ly H a s s l es a n d U p l i f ts V e r s u s M a j o r L i f e E v e n t s

A l l e n D . K a n n e r , ~ J a m e s C . C o y n e , C a t h e r i n e S c h a e f e r /

a n d R i c h a r d S . L a z a r u s ~

A c c e p t e d f o r p u b l ic a t io n : A p r i l 29 1 98 0

The standard life events methodology for the prediction of psychological

symptoms was compared with one focusing on relatively minor events

namely the hassles and uplifts o f everyday life. Hassles and Uplifts Scales

were constructed and administered once a month for 10 consecutive months

to a community sample o f middle-aged adults. It was fo un d that the Hassles

Scale was a better predictor o f concurrent and subsequent psychological

symptoms than were the life events scores and that the scale shared most o f

the variance in symptoms accounted fo r by life events. When the effects o f

life events scores were removed hassles and symptoms remained significantly

correlated. Uplifts were positively related to symptoms for women but not

for men. Hassles and uplifts were also shown to be related although only

modestly so to positive and negative affect thus providing discriminate

validation for hassles and uplif ts in comparison to measures of emotion. It

was concluded that the assessment of daily hassles and uplifts may be a

better approach to the prediction of adaptational outcomes than the usual

life events approach.

K E Y W O R D S : s t r e s s f u l l i f e e v e n t s ; d a i l y h a s s l e s ; d a i l y u p l i f t s ; p s y c h o l o g i c a l s y m p t o m s ;

e m o t i o n .

W r i t in g o f t h i s p a p e r w a s s u p p o r t e d i n p a r t b y a r e s e a r ch g r a n t f r o m t h e N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u te

o n A g i n g A G 0 0 79 9 ).

U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l ey , B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 7 20 .

0160-7715/81/0300-0001$03.00/0 9 1981

lenum ublishing orpora t ion

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

2/39

2 Kanner Coy ne Schaefer and Lazarus

INTRODUCTION

One of the most striking features of modern stress research is its

preoccupation with dramatic events and severely taxing situations.

Although this focus is to be found in virtually every serious field of stress

investigation, it is no more evident than in the literature on major life events

cf. Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend, 1974). Life events became of interest

when Holmes and Rahe 1967), backed by modest empirical support,

proposed that the readjustment required by major life changes substantially

increases the risk of physical illness. Their approach to the study of stress,

and in particular their Social Readjustment Rating Scale, has come to

dominate research in behavioral medicine despite extensive criticism of its

assumptions e.g., Kaplan, 1979; Mechanic, 1974; Sarason e t a l . 1978) and

scale construction Rabkin and Struening, 1976). A large amount of effort

has been expended in improving the scale by assigning readjustment weights

to items Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend, 1978; Holmes and Masuda, 1974;

Ross and Minowsky, 1979). Other modifications have been made

concerning the issues of item undesirabili ty Hough e t a l . 1976; Mueller e t

a l . 1977; Redfield and Stone, 1979; Ross and Minowsky, 1979; Vinokur

and Selzer, 1975), breadth of item content, and weighing of subjective

impact Hochstim, 1970; Horowitz

e t a l .

1977; Sarason

e t a l .

1978).

The dominat ion of stress measurement by the life events approach is

curious in light of the evidence tha t cumulated life events whether weighted

or not) correlate only weakly with health outcomes, the average relationship

being perhaps 0.12 Rabkin and Streuning, 1976). Another almost unexamined

problem is that this approach provides no clues about the p r o c e s s e s

through time by which life events might have an impact on such diverse health

outcomes as broken bones, infections, emotional distress, heart attacks,

and cancer. Indeed, each of these outcomes may have quite distinctive

psychophysiological mechanisms Kaplan, 1979; Lazarus

e t a l .

1980a).

One reason for the dominance of the life events approach is the

diff iculty of studying stress in more sophisticated and complex ways, such

as considering the subjective significance of the event e.g., Horowitz e t a l .

1979) or taking into account individual differences in coping skills and

resources Andrew e t a l . 1978). Another is the essential reasonableness of

the assumption that the accumulation of life events should be relevant to

health status see Hinkle, 1974). In the absence of an alternative metric,

listing and cumulating major life events seems a useful way to assess stress

as a causal agent, even though such indexes tell us little or nothing about

what actually happens in day-to-day living.

In contrast to the major life events approach, Richard Lazarus and his

colleagues have published a series of theoretical papers proposing the

immense adaptational significance of the relatively minor stresses and

pleasures tha t characterize everyday life Coyne e t a l . 1979; Kanner and

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

3/39

H a s s l e s a nd Upl i f t s v s Ma j o r L i f e E v ent s 3

Coyne, 1979; Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus and Cohen, 1977; Lazarus e t a l .

1980b). It is these day-to-day events that ultimately should have proximal

significance for health outcomes and whose cumulative impact, therefore,

should also be assessed (see also Luborsky e t a l . 1973; Stahl e t a l . 1975).

We term these common occurrences daily hass les and upli ft s. Along

these lines, McLean (1976, p. 298) has suggested:

P e r h a p s b e c a u s e t h e u n i t o f s t r e s s i s r e l at i v e ly s m a l l a n d t h e s t r e s s o r s s o f a m i l i ar , t h e s e

k i n d s o f s t r es s o r s h a v e b e e n t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d a n d c o n s i d e r e d to b e l e ss im p o r t a n t t h a n

m o r e d r a m a t i c s tr e s s o r s . C l i n i ca l a n d r e s e a r c h d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e m i c r o -

s t r e s s o r s , [ q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o u r s ] a c ti n g cu m u l a t iv e l y , a n d in t h e re l a ti v e a b s e n c e

o f c o m p e n s a t o r y p o s i t iv e e x p e r i e n c e , c a n b e p o t e n t s o u r c e s o f s t re s s .

Moreover, as the above reference to compensatory experience implies,

it may be of great importance also to examine concurrent positive experiences

in evaluating the ultimate impact of stressful events (Gersten e t a l . 1974;

Lazarus

e t a l .

1980b). For this reason, the cumulative effect of hassles

a n d

uplifts, i n t a n d e m is of particular theoretical and empirical interest to us.

The aims of this article are fourfold: first, to examine theoretical and

research issues in the measurement of stress that are inherent in the contrast

between major life events and minor daily hassles; second, to consider

hassles in relation to uplifts; third, to compare the life events and daily

hassles approach in the prediction of adaptational outcomes, in this case,

positive and negative affect as measured by the Bradburn Morale Scale

(Bradburn, 1969; Bradburn and Caplowitz, 1965) and mental health status

as assessed by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL; Derogatis e t a l .

1970, 1971); and fourth, in the interests of the above three substantive

issues, to describe the development and psychometric features of two new

measuring instruments, the Hassles and Uplifts Scales.

C O N C E P T U L I Z T I O N N D R E S E R C H I SS U ES

H a s s l e s are the irritating, frustrating, distressing demands that to

some degree characterize everyday transactions with the environment. They

include annoying practical problems such as losing things or traffic jams

and fortuitous occurrences such as inclement weather, as well as arguments,

disappointments, and financial and family concerns. Although hassles in

general have been little studied, research has been done on what could be

called hassles in particular life contexts. Examples in the social sphere

include status incongruity between spouses (e.g., Pearlin, 1975b), sex role

conflicts (Pearlin, 1975a), demands of children and aged parents (Levine

and Scotch, 1970), work overload and underload (Frankenhaeuser and

Gardell, 1976), and role ambiguity (Caplan and Jones, 1975; Kahn e t a l .

1964). Examples in the area of the physical environment include noise

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

4/39

4 Kanner, Coyue,

S ch aefer an d Lazaru s

(Glass and Singer, 1972), pollution (Evans

et al . ,

1980), residing in areas of

marked social disorganization (James and Kleinbaum, 1976), and

commuting to work in rush-hour traffic (Novaco

et al . ,

1979).

Since probably no person leads a hassle-free life, the impact of hassles

on physical and mental health, if any, must depend on factors such as

a chronically high frequency of hassles, the heightening of hassles during a

given period, as in crisis, or the presence of one or a few repeated hassles of

compelling psychological importance. Such a formulation allows us to

suggest a number of possibilities about how hassles might work in the overall

psychological economy of a person s life.

First, as Hinkle (1974) has suggested, major life events might owe their

impact on health to the disruption of social relationships, habits, and

patterns of activity, as well as to some of the health-related behaviors

associated with them. In other words,

major l i f e even t s could opera te by

af fec t ing the pers on s pa t tern o f dai ly hass les . Thus, divorce might create a

whole collection of unusual minor demands such as making one s meals,

keeping house, handling the finances, repairing the car, and finding

companionship--to mention a few--which did not have to be dealt with

previously. Alternatively, as suggested by Kaplan (1979), they might

operate through their affective significance for the person or by disrupting

characteristic coping processes. From this standpoint, hassles might

function as critical event media tors of the life events-health outcome

relationship, a process that could have considerable theoretical and

practical interest. They might even serve as a direct indication of how a

person s routine is being affected by life changes and, therefore, be a better

predictor of health status.

Separate from the impact o f life events, many hassles have their origin

in the person s characteristic style, routine environment, or their interaction.

As such, hassles might predict health outcomes quite independently of life

events. While some hassles are situationally determined (e.g,, traff ic jams,

unexpected phone calls, broken shoelaces) and rare (e.g., dealing with a

disturbed person), others are repeated, either because the person remains in

the same context (e.g., work, marriage) with consistent and predictable

demands (e.g., to be a competent employee or loving spouse) or because of

the person s ineffective coping with common situations, such as those

involving authori ty or members of the opposite sex.

A poem by Charles Bukowski (1980) poses a key issue in the relation-

ship between hassles and adaptational outcomes:

It is not the large things that

send a man to the madhous e ...

No, it s the continuing series

of small tragedies that send

a man to the madhous e

Not the dea th o f his love

but a shoelace that

snap s with no time left.

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

5/39

Hassles and Uplifts vs

Major ife

Events 5

D o e s e a c h h a s sl e s im p l y a d d a d v e n t i t i o u s l y t o t h e o v e r a l l s u m , s o th a t

m e r e l y a d d i n g t h e m u p y i e ld s a m e t r i c o f s t re s s i n d a il y l if e a n a l o g o u s t o

a d d i n g u p m a j o r l if e e v e n t s t o d e r i v e a l if e c h a n g e ( L C U ) s c o r e ? O r d o e s t h e

i m p o r t a n c e o f a h a s sl e li e i n it s s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e p e r s o n , i n d i c a t i n g , i n th e

e x a m p l e o f a b r o k e n s h o e la c e , t h a t h e o r s he is i n e p t , d o o m e d t o f a i l a t

c r i ti c a l m o m e n t s , o r u n a b l e t o c o n t r o l e v e n t h e l it tl e t h i n g s o f l if e o r , i n t h e

c a se o f n e w c h o r e s b r o u g h t o n b y d i v o r c e , s e r v in g a s a p a i n f u l r e m i n d e r o f

l o s s ? U l t i m a t e l y w e n e e d t o k n o w w h e t h e r t h e i m p a c t o f a h a s s l e d e p e n d s

m e r e l y o n i ts c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t o r o n i ts c o n t e n t a n d m e a n i n g i n t h e

p e r s o n ' s l i f e . S i m i l a r q u a n t i t a t i v e v e r s u s m e a n i n g - c e n t e r e d q u e s t i o n s c a n

a l s o b e a s k e d a b o u t t h e f o r m a l f e a t u r e s o f a h a s s l e s u c h a s i t s t i m i n g ,

r e p e t i t i o n , f r e q u e n c y , d u r a t i o n , a n d w h e t h e r it o c c u r s w i t h o r w i t h o u t

w a r n i n g .

I n c o n s t r u c t in g m o d e l s o f t h e r e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n h a s sl es a n d h e a l t h

o u t c o m e s , w e s h o u l d b e a l e r t t o t h e d i v e r s i ty o f f a c t o r s i n fl u e n c i n g a p e r s o n ' s

e n d o r s e m e n t o f a p a r t i c u l a r h a s sl e as h a v i n g o c c u r r e d a n d a s t o h o w a v e r s iv e

it i s r a te d . T h e o v e r a l l l ev e l o f d e m a n d s o n a p e r s o n a n d h e r o r h is p e r c e p t i o n

o f r e so u r c e s to m e e t th e m m a y d e t e r m i n e t o a c o n s i d e r a b le d e g r e e w h a t m i n o r

e v e nt s a r e n o ti c ed o r r e m e m b e r e d a n d h o w b o t h e r s o m e t h ey a r e c o ns id e r e d .

W h e n t h e p e r s o n i s f e e l i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y t a x e d , e v e n t s t h a t a r e t y p i c a l l y

i g n o r e d ( i . e ., t h e b r o k e n s h o e l a c e ) o r v i e w e d p o s i t i v e l y ( e . g ., a c o m p l i m e n t )

m a y t a k e o n a n e g a t i v e c o l o r a t i o n . T h u s , g l o b a l p e r c e p t i o n s m a y in f l u e n c e

s p e c i fi c r e s p o n s e s i n a n y a s s e s s m e n t o f h a s s l e s. F r o m s u c h a p e r s p e c t i v e , th e

d e t a il s o f w h i c h h a s s l e s a r e c it e d b y t h e p e r s o n a r e le ss i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e

o v e r a l l l e v el o f h a s s le s a n d t h e s u b j e c t i v e s t r e s s th e y i n d i c a t e .

T o o u r k n o w l e d g e , o n l y o n e s tu d y o t h e r th a n o u r o w n ( L e w i n s o h n

a nd T a l k i n g t o n , 1979) s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a t t e m p t e d t o a s s e ss ha s s le s in da i l y l i f e ,

a l t h o u g h i ts f o c u s w a s o n d e p r e s s i o n a n d th e t e r m u s ed w a s u n p l e a s a n t ,

a n d s o m e t i m e s a v e r s i v e , e v e n ts . L e w i n s o h n a n d T a l k i n g t o n c o n s t r u c te d a

3 2 0 -i te m m e a s u r e o f d a il y u n p l e a s a n t e v e n ts a n d f o u n d a lo w t o m o d e r a t e

r e l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n e v e n t a v e r s iv e n e s s a n d d e p r e s s i o n a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e

M M P I a n d t h e B e ck D e p r e s s i o n I n v e n t o r y ( B e c k , 1 96 1). N o r e l a t i o n s h i p

w a s f o u n d b e t w e e n f r e q u e n c y o f e v e n ts a n d d e p r e s s i o n .

L e w i n s o h n a n d T a l k i n g t o n d o n o t m a k e a s t r o n g t h e o r e t i c a l c a s e f o r

t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f a s s e s s i n g r e l a t i v e l y m i n o r s t r e s s f u l e v e n t s ( w h e t h e r

r e f e r r e d t o a s d a i ly h a s s le s o r u n p l e a s a n t e v e n t s ) a s c o m p a r e d t o m a j o r l i f e

e v e n t s , a n d i n s o m e r e s p e c t s t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a n d f i n d i n g s a r e a t

v a r i a n c e w it h o u r o w n . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n n o r e l a t io n s h i p w a s f o u n d

b e t w e e n l if e e v e n ts a n d u n p l e a s a n t e v e n t s , th e s u g g e s t io n w a s m a d e t h a t

s in c e t h e f o r m e r a r e d i sc r e te a n d i n f r e q u e n t w h i le t h e la t te r a r e o n g o i n g a n d

f r e q u e n t , n o r e la t i o n s h i p o u g h t t o b e e x p e c t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e ir

b e h av i or a l f ra m e w o r k le ad s th e m t o d o w n p l a y t he c o g n i t i v e - p h e n o m e n o -

l og ic a l f a c t o r s th a t w e h a v e s u g g e st e d m a y b e i m p o r t a n t i n a p e r s o n ' s e n d o r s e -

m e n t o f h a s sl es i te m s . I n s t e a d , L e w i n s o h n a n d T a l k i n g t o n s e e m t o a s su m e

t h a t i t e m e n d o r s e m e n t d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f o b j e c t i v e e v e n t s .

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

6/39

6 Kanner Co yn e Schaefer and Lazarus

A l t h o u g h w e h a v e m e n t i o n e d s e v e r a l w a y s i n w h i c h h a s s l e s c a n h a v e

a n e f f e c t o n a d a p t a t i o n a l o u t c o m e s , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w i ll b e l im i t e d t o t w o

m a j o r i ss u es : ( 1 ) h o w h a s sl es c o m p a r e t o m a j o r l i f e e v e n t s in t h e i r a b i li t y t o

p r e d i c t o n e a d a p t a t i o n a l o u t c o m e , p s y c h o l o g i c al s y m p t o m s , a n d ( 2 )

w h e t h e r h a s sl es b e a r a r e l a t io n t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l s y m p t o m s t h a t is in d e p e n d e n t

o f l i f e e v e n t s . T h e s e a r e c e n t r a l i s s u e s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a

m e a s u r e o f h a s sl es . O t h e r i m p o r t a n t i s su e s , s u c h a s t h e m e d i a t i n g r o l e o f

h a s s l e s v i s - a - v i s l i f e e v e n t s o r t h e i m p a c t o f s i n g l e e v e n t s ( i . e . , b r o k e n

s h o e l a c e s ) , w i l l b e l e f t t o f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

A s s e s s i n g d a i l y h a s s l e s a l s o i n v i t e s a s s e s s m e n t o f w h a t m i g h t b e

c o n s i d e r e d th e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s , n a m e l y , d a i l y u p l i f t s t ha t i s, po s i t ive e xpe r i e nc e s

s u c h a s th e j o y d e r i v e d f r o m m a n i f e s t a ti o n s o f l o v e , r e li e f a t h e a r i n g g o o d

n e w s , t h e p l ea s u r e o f a g o o d n i g h t ' s r e s t , a n d s o o n . E l s e w h e r e ( L a z a r u s , e t

a l . 1 9 8 0a ) w e h a v e d i sc u s s e d t h e p o s s i b l e s i g n i f ic a n c e f o r h e a l t h o u t c o m e s

o f p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s . B r i e f ly , w e h a d a r g u e d t h a t j u s t a s

n e g a t i v e l y t o n e d s t re s s (s u c h as h a ss l es ) c a n c a u s e n e u r o h u m o r a l c h a n g e s

t h a t r e s u lt in " t h e d is ea se s o f a d a p t a t i o n , " p o s i ti v e ly t o n e d e x p e ri e n c es

migh t s e r ve a s e mo t iona l bu f f e r s a ga ins t s t r e s s d i so r de r s ( s e e C ous ins , 1976) .

T h i s i s i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n o f H o l m e s a n d R a h e ( 1 9 6 7 )

t h a t a n y c h a n g e , r e g a r d le s s o f v a l e n c e a n d c o p i n g a b i l i ty , i s p o t e n t i a l l y

d a m a g i n g t o h e a l t h , a p o s i t i o n t h a t n o t o n l y ig n o r e s m e d i a t o r s a n d is

i n c r e a s i n g l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l , b u t s e e m s t o u s a l s o t o b e i n c r e a s i n g l y u n t e n a b l e .

M o r e o v e r , L a z a r u s e t a l . ( 1 9 8 0 b ) h a v e d e s c r i b e d t h r e e w a y s i n w h i c h p o s i t i v e

e x p e r i e n c e s ( s u ch a s u p l if t s ) a n d e m o t i o n s c o u l d p l a y a ro l e i n c o p i n g , f o r

e x a m p l e , s e r vi n g a s " b r e a t h e r s " f r o m r e g u l ar s tr e ss fu l e n c o u n t e r s ,

" s u s t a i n e r s " o f c o p in g a c ti v it y , a n d " r e s t o r e r s " t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e

r e p l e n i s h m e n t o f d e p l et e d r e s o u r c es i n re c o v e r i n g f r o m h a r m o r l o ss . I f w e

a r e t o a s se ss s t re s s f u l ly , n o t o n l y m u s t w e s u p p l e m e n t l is ts o f m a j o r s tr e ss -

f u l li fe e v e n t s w i t h a d a y - t o - d a y h a ss le s m e a s u r e , b u t a l s o w e s h o u l d

c o n s i d e r t h e r o l e o f p o s i t i v e l y t o n e d e v e n t s i n p r e v e n t i n g o r a t t e n u a t i n g t h e

e f f e c t s o f s t re s s .

S o m e e v i d e n ce al r e a d y s e em s t o s u p p o r t t h e m e r it o f s t u d y in g u p l i f t s

a l o n g w i t h h as sl es . F o r e x a m p l e , L o w e n t h a l a n d C h i r i b o g a ( 19 73 ) r e p o r t

t h a t a p e r s o n ' s r e s o u r c e s a n d d e f i c i t s t a k e n t o g e t h e r p r e d i c t a d a p t a t i o n

b e t t e r t h a n e i t h e r a l o n e . S i m i l a r l y , B r a d b u r n ( 1 9 6 9 ) h a s s h o w n t h a t

p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o r a l e i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n p o s i t iv e a n d

n e g a ti v e e m o t i o n s . G e r s t e n e t a l . ( 19 7 4 ) a l s o e m p h a s i z e t h e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n

d e s i r a b i li t y a n d u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f l i fe e v e n ts a s t h e c r i t ic a l e l e m e n t i n t h e i r

e f f e c t o n h e a l t h s t a tu s . A n d E p s t e i n ( 1 9 7 6 ) r e c e n t l y n o t e d t h a t p l e a s a n t

e x p e r ie n c e , s u c h a s t h e s e c u r it y a f f o r d e d b y h a v i n g a p a r e n t n e a r b y , r e d u c e s o r

p r e v e n t s a n x i e t y i n b o t h h u m a n s a n d i n f r a h u m a n s . T h e s e a n d r e la t e d

s t u d i e s ( e . g . , K a n n e r e t a l . 1 97 8) a r g u e f o r a t a n d e m m e a s u r e m e n t o f b o t h

d a i l y h a ss le s a n d d a i l y u p i f t s, a s w e l l a s n e g a t i v e a n d p o s i t iv e e m o t i o n a l

r e a c t i o n s .

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

7/39

Hassles

a n d U p l i f ts v s M a j o r L if e

Events

T h e r e c o u l d b e m a n y p o s s ib l e p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n h a s s le s

a n d u p l i ft s . F o r e x a m p l e , p e o p l e w h o s e ek m a n y m e a n i n g f u l e x pe r ie n c es o r

h a v e s t r o n g a n d v a r i e d c o m m i t m e n t s ( e . g . , t o w o r k , a c h i e v e m e n t , s o c i a l

r e l a ti o n s h i p s ) w o u l d b e l ik e l y t o e n c o u n t e r n u m e r o u s r e l a ti v e ly m i n o r

v i c t o r i e s a n d f a i l u r e s w h i l e a c t i v e l y e n g a g e d i n t h e i r p u r s u i t s , a n d w o u l d

t h e r e f o r e p r o b a b l y e x p e r ie n c e a h i g h i n c id e n c e o f b o t h u p l i f ts n d hass l e s .

P e o p l e w i t h a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f h a s s l e s t o u p l i f t s , c o n v e r s e l y , m i g h t b e

m a l a d j u s t e d , u n h a p p y , a n d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y i ll, c o m p a r e d t o t h o s e W ith t h e

r e v e r s e p a t t e r n . I t s e e m s l i k e l y , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t m e a s u r i n g m e r e l y h a s s l e s

a l o n e , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t , u p l i f t s , c o u l d p r o d u c e a

d i s t o r t e d c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e p o s t u l a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s t r e s s a n d

i l lness .

F i n a l l y , f r o m a n a s s e s s m e n t s t a n d p o i n t i t i s w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t t w o

a p p r o a c h e s t o n e g a t i v e a n d p o s i t i v e d a i l y e x p e r i e n c e s a r e p o s s i b l e , n a m e l y ,

t h e e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e e v e n t a n d t h e t r n s c t i o n w i t h t h e e n v i r o n -

m e n t t h a t g e n e r a t e d t h e e m o t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e . T h e B r a d b u r n M o r a l e

S c a le , c i te d a b o v e , i s a n i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e f o r m e r , s in c e th e p e r s o n is a s k e d

t o t el l a b o u t h e r o r h i s e m o t i o n a l r e s p o n s e . T h i s is b y f a r t h e m o s t c o m m o n

a p p r o a c h ( se e W i l s o n , 1 96 7; C o s t a a n d M c C r a e , 1 98 0). T h e w o r k o f

C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 7 6 ) o n m e a s u r e s o f s u b j e c t i v e w e l l - b e i n g , w h i c h a l s o f a l l s

w i t h i n t h e e m o t i o n a l ( o r a f f e c t i v e ) r e s p o n s e p e r s p e c t i v e , i s p a r t i c u l a r l y

i n t e re s t in g h e r e b e c a u s e o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f m e a s u r e s

a d d v a l i d i ty t o t h e c o n s t r u c t b y t a p p i n g d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f l if e ex p e r ie n c e .

T h i s p o i n t p a r a l le l s o u r c o n v i c t i o n th a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t r a d i t i o n a l e m o t i o n a l

r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e s , t h e u s e o f m o r e e n v i r o n m e n t - o r t r a n s a c t i o n - c e n t e r e d

i n s t r u m e n t s , s u c h a s t h e H a s s l e s a n d U p l i f ts S c a le s t o b e i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e

p r e s en t s t u d y , a d d s s u b s t a n ti a ll y t o o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a d a p t a t i o n a l

p r ocesse s .

ME T H O S

Sample

T h e s a m p l e c o n s i s t e d o f 1 0 0 r e s p o n d e n t s ( 5 2 w o m e n , 4 8 m e n ) , a g e d

4 5 - 6 4 , w h o p a r ti c ip a t e d i n a 1 2 - m o n t h s tu d y o f st re ss , c o p in g , a n d

e m o t i o n s . T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e w h i t e , w e r e p r i m a r i l y P r o t e s t a n t ( 9 3 ; 6

Ca tho l i c an d 1 Jewi sh) , ha d a t l e a s t a n in th - g r ade leve l o f edu ca t ion ( m ean =

1 3.7 y e a r s ) , h a d a t l e a s t a n a d e q u a t e i n c o m e ( $ 7, 0 00 o r a b o v e i n 1 97 4;

m e a n = $ 1 1 ,3 1 3 ) , a n d w e r e n o t se v e r e ly d i s a b l e d . A g e w a s f u r t h e r s t r a t i f ie d

i n t o f o u r 5 -y e a r p e r i o d s : 4 5 - 4 9 ( N = 2 7 ), 5 0 - 5 4 ( N = 2 5 ), 5 5 -5 9 ( N =

2 4 ) , a n d 6 0 - 6 4 ( N - - 2 4 ) . T h e s e p e r s o n s w e r e s e l e c t e d f r o m a p o p u l a t i o n

p r ev i o u sl y s u rv e y ed b y th e A l a m e d a C o u n t y H u m a n P o p u l a t i o n

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

8/39

8 Kanner Coy ne Schaefer and Lazarus

L a b o r a t o r y ( H P L ) 2 in a 1965 s u r v e y o f p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , a n d s o c ia l h e a l th

( H o c h s t i m , 1 97 0). T h e s a m p l i n g f r a m e c o n s is t e d o f a l m o s t 7 00 0 a d u l t s a g e d

2 0 o r o v e r li v in g in a p r o b a b i l i t y s a m p l e a r e a o f 4 7 35 h o u s i n g u n i t s . T h i s

p o p u l a t i o n w a s r e su r v e y e d b y H P L i n 1 97 4, a n d i t w a s f r o m t h e 1 97 4 p a n e l

s a m p l e ( N = 4 86 4 ) t h a t o u r p a r t ic i p a n t s w e re d ra w n . F r o m t h e p a n e l s a m p l e ,

2 1 6 p e o p l e s ti ll l iv i n g i n t h e B a y A r e a a n d w h o m e t o u r s e l e c ti o n c r i t e r ia o f

r a c e , r e l ig i o n , e d u c a t i o n , i n c o m e , a n d p h y s i c a l s t a t u s w e r e c o n t a c t e d b y

p h o n e . O f th e s e , 1 09 a g r e e d t o b e in t h e s tu d y . O v e r th e c o u r s e o f th e s t u d y ,

9 m o r e d r o p p e d o u t . A c o m p a r i s o n o n i n c o m e , r e li g io n , p h y s i c a l s t a tu s ,

a n d e d u c a t i o n o f th e 1 09 i n t h e o r i g in a l s a m p l e w i th t h o s e w h o r e f u s e d t o

p a r t i c i p a t e r e v e a l e d t h a t t h o s e r e f u s i n g w e r e l e ss e d u c a t e d (X 2 = 1 1 ,2 1 ,

df

= 3 , P < 0 . 0 2 ) , w i t h m o r e f a l l i n g i n t o t h e 8 - 1 2 y e a r s o f e d u c a t i o n l e v e l .

O f t h e 9 w h o d r o p p e d o u t , 4 w e r e w o m e n a n d 3 e a c h c a m e f r o m t h e

y o u n g e s t t h r e e a g e g r o u p s .

M e a s u r e s

The Hassles Scale T h e H a s s l e s S c a l e ( s e e A p p e n d i x ) c o n s i s t s o f a l i s t

o f 1 17 h a ss l es t h a t w a s g e n e r a t e d b y t h e r e s e a r c h s t a f f u s i n g t h e a r e a s o f

w o r k , h e a l t h , f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,

a n d c h a n c e o c c u r r e n c e s a s g u i de l in e s . 3 E x a m p l e s i n c lu d e m i s p l a c i n g a n d

l o s i n g t h i n g s , d e c l i n i n g p h y s i c a l a b i l i t i e s , n o t e n o u g h t i m e f o r f a m i l y ,

c o n c e r n s a b o u t o w i n g m o n e y , a n d p o l l u t io n . A n e a r li e r v e r s i o n o f t h e sc a le

w a s u s e d i n a s t u d y o f K a i s e r P e r m a n e n t e p a t i e n t s w i t h h i g h l i fe e v e n t s

s c o r e s ( N o f s i n g e r , 1 9 7 7 ) . S u b j e c t s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d t o s u g g e s t h a s s l e s t h a t

t h e y e x p e r i e n c e d t h a t w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e o r i g i n a l s c a l e , a n d a n u m b e r

o f t h e s e w e r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e s c a le u s e d i n th e c u r r e n t s t u d y .

I n it ia l ly , p a r t ic i p a n t s r a t e d e a c h h a s s l e - - o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s

m o n t h - - f o r b o t h s e v e ri ty a n d p e r s i s te n c e o n 3 - p o i n t s u b s ca l e s, a s c o r e o f 1,

2 , o r 3 m e a n i n g s o m e w h a t , m o d e r a t e l y , o r e x t r e m e l y . T h e s ev e ri ty

a nd pe r s i s t e nc e subs c a l e s y i e l de d e s s e n t ia l l y t he s a m e i n f o r m a t i o n ( r ~ 0 . 95 ) ,

a n d t h e r e f o r e i n s u b s e q u e n t a n a l y s e s o n l y t h e s e v e r i t y s c o r e s w e r e u s e d . A

t r a i t v e r s i o n o f t h e sc a le w a s a ls o u s e d o n c e a n d w a s m a i l e d t o p a r t ic i p a n t s 1

m o n t h b e f o r e i n t e r v i e w i n g b e g a n . I t s o l i c i t e d t h e c h e c k i n g o f h a s s l e s t h a t

w e r e t y p i c a l f o r t h e p e r s o n . T h e H a s s l e s a n d U p l i f t s S t a t e S c al es w e r e

2We appreciate the generosity of the H uman Population Laboratory which ma de its archives

available to us and helped facilitate this research.

3All assessm ent tools in this research were developed during 19 76 - 1977 as a group effort in

which Patricia Benner, Judith C oh en, Susan Folkman, A llen Kanner, R ichard S. Lazarus,

Catherine Sch aefer, Judith W rub el, an d oth ers participated. H ow ev er, the major

responsibility for collecting and formulating the items on the Uplifts Scale was ca rried by

Allen Kan ner.

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

9/39

as s le s an d Up l i f t s

vs Maj or Life Events 9

administered once a month for 9 consecutive months as part of the year-long

longitudinal study.

Three summary scores for each Hassles Scale were generated for

analysis: (1)frequency, a simple count of the number of items checked,

which could range from 0 to 117; (2) cumula ted sever i t y the sum of the 3-

point severity ratings, which ranged from 0 to 351 (3 x 117); and in tens i ty

the cumulated severity divided by the frequency, which ranged from 0 to 3.

The latter score is an index of how strongly or intensely the average hassle

was experienced, regardless of the number (frequency) of hassles checked.

The correlations between frequency and cumulated severity were also

extremely high (r _=_ 0.95), and therefore subsequent analyses were

performed only for the frequency and intensity scores.

The Uplif ts Scale. Constructed in a fashion similar to that of the

Hassles Scale, the Uplifts Scale (see Appendix) consists of a list of 135 uplifts

that was generated using the content areas of the Hassles Scale as guidelines.

Examples include relaxing, spending time with family, using skills well at

work, praying, and nature. Pilot data were available for the college, but not

the Canadian, sample described above.

Uplifts that occurred during the previous month were rated on 3-point

subscales for both how strongly and how of te n, a score of 1, 2, or 3

indicating somewhat, moderately, or extremely. Scores for frequency,

intensity, and cumulated intensity were also obtained. The how strongly

and how often subscales proved to be redundant, as did the cumulated

frequency and frequency scoring techniques (r = 0.95). Therefore, as with

the Hassles Scale, only one subscale (how often), scored two ways (for

frequency and intensity), was utilized in subsequent analyses.

Oth er Measures . These included a life events scale developed by Paul

Berkman at HPL from in-depth interviews of the recent life stresses

reported by a sample of 100 middle-aged respondents. This scale was also

used in previous assessments of the large HPL sample from which our

sample was drawn. Items not close in content or wording to those on the

original Holmes and Rahe (1967) Social Readjustment Rating Scale were

weighted by graduate students in epidemiology at the University of

California, Berkeley. At face value, the items of the scale appear to refer to

undesirable, rather than desirable, events. Two life events items, referring

to the person's own serious illness and sexual difficulties, were excluded

because of possible overlaps with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (see

below).

Extremely high correlations (r's > 0.99) existed between the Hassles

Scale and a version of the Hassles Scale in which five items were deleted that

were potentially confounded with the HSCL (physical illness, side effects of

medication, sexual problems that result f rom physical problems, difficulties

seeing or hearing, not enough personal energy). As would be expected, the

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

10/39

10 Kanner Coyne Schaefer and Lazarus

modified version showed essentially the same relationships to both administra-

tions of the HSCL for all 9 months as the original Hassles Scales.

Study participants were asked to check those events that occurred

during the previous 2.5 years, these 2.5 years being divided into the 6-month

period just prior to the study and the two yearly periods directly preceding

these 6 months. The scale was administered twice, once as part of a mail-out

1 month before the study interviewing began and again as part of the 10th-

month assessment. From the two administ rations, it is possible to derive

indexes of life events that occurred (a) only during the 10 months for which

hassles and uplifts were assessed (study events) and (b) ~turing the 2.5 years

directly preceding the hassles/uplifts assessments (prestudy events).

The

H o p k i n s S y m p t o m C h e c k l i s t

(HSCL; Derogatis

et aL

1970, 1971,

1974) includes psychological symptoms that are particularly likely to show

short-term changes. It has also demonstrated a sensitivity to low levels of

symptoms in normal populations (Rickels

e t aL

1972; Uhlenhuth,

et al .

1974) and, as such, is ideally suited to our sample of adequately functioning

middle-aged adults.

The Bradburn M ora le Scale (Bradburn, 1969; Bradburn and Caplowitz,

1965) is a widely used index of psychological well-being. Its two subscales of

positive and negative emotions have been consistently shown to be relatively

independent and each has a different set of correlates. The version used in

the present study is the one described by Bradburn and Caplowitz (1965).

Our sample also completed the Bradburn and Caplowitz scale as part of

HP L' s 1965 and 1974 surveys.

P R O C E D U R E

All measures were administered as part of a mail-out 1 month before

the study began or as ho me work to be filled out between the monthly

assessments. A prearranged time of the month was set to fill out the

homework questionnaires in order to encourage relatively uniform monthly

intervals between administrations; despite this, there was some variation in

the exact dates of completion. (A scale left as homework at Month 3, for

example, was filled out typically l week before the fourth interview.) The

scales were completed at the following times: Hassles and Uplifts--trait

(initial mail-out), Hassles and Uplifts--state (each of the first 9 months),

Life Events (mail-out, Month 10), Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Months 2

and 10), and Bradburn Morale Scale (each of the first 9 months).

R E S U L T S

Results are described in the following order: preliminary normative

data, test - retest correlations of hassles and uplifts frequency and intensity,

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

11/39

a s s l e s a n d

Uplifts vs. Maj or Life Events l 1

the relationship between hassles and uplifts scores, a comparison of the

present sample with two other different population samples, and first-order

correlations for hassles and uplifts) with adaptational outcome measures,

including the Bradburn Morale Scale, life events, and psychological symptoms

HSCL). Finally, a comparison is made of the respective capabilities of

hassles, uplifts, and life events in predicting psychological symptoms.

P r e l i m i n a r y N o r m a t i v e a t a o n H a s s l e s a n d U p l i f t s

Mean levels and standard deviations of hassles and uplifts frequency

and intensity scores for the trait versions of the questionnaires

administered 1 month before interviewing began) and for the 9 months of

the study are presented in Table I. Examination of the data by each month

separately revealed a decrease in mean scores over time, especially for

uplifts. For example, uplifts mean frequency decreased from Month 1 53.2)

to Month 9 46.5), although most of the decrease had occurred by the

midperiod between Months 4 and 6. The change was statistically significant

two-tailed paired t = 2.61, P < 0.01), as was the decrease from Month 1 to

Month 9 for uplifts intensity t = 8.96, P < 0.001) and hassles frequency t

= 2.97, P < 0.001). Lewinsohn and Talkington 1979) also reported a drop

in the frequency, but not the aversiveness, of unpleasant events over a 3-

month period. Assuming that these drops have nothing to do with the actual

hassles or uplifts that are experienced, possible reasons for them could

include growing boredom with the task and concomitant inattentiveness,

or a tendency to respond globally at first but to become increasingly selective

in acknowledging recent hassles and uplifts. The pattern represents a

methodological issue rather than being of substantive interest concerning

the phenomena of hassles and uplifts themselves.

T a b l e 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Hassles and Uplifts Frequency and Intensity

Scores N = 100) a

HassLes Uplifts

Frequency Intensity Frequency Intensity

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Tra it 22.4 18.7 1.56 0.43 69.5 29.1 2.14 0.53

9-mon th mea n 20.5 17.7 1.47 0.39 49.5 27.8 1.77 0.40

Gender

Males 22.4 16.9 1.43 0.27 49.7 24.9 1.70 0.31

Females 18.9 13.3 1.49 0.29 49.8 23.9 1.84 0.33

Age

4 5 - 4 9 17.3 10.4 1.46 0.29 38.9 19.4 1.80 0.31

5 0 - 5 4 21.1 18.4 1.43 0.25 49.6 23.4 1.69 0.31

55 - 59 20.8 14.8 1.43 0.27 57.4 27.2 1.74 0.33

6 0 - 6 4 23.5 16.3 1.53 0.33 54.9 24.0 1.86 0.35

aGender and age scores are collapsed over nine admin istrat ions of the scales.

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

12/39

1 2 K a n n e r C o y n e S c h a e f e r a n d L a z a ru s

Table I I .

M o n t h - t o - M o n t h C o r r e la t i o n s o f H a s s le s a n d

U p l i f t s F r e q u e n c y a n d I n t e n s i t y ( N = 1 00 )

H a s s l e s U p l i f t s

F r e q u e n c y i n t e n s i t y F r e q u e n c y I n t e n s i t y

T r a i t a 0 . 3 8 b 0 . 3 5 0 . 5 0 0 . 2 8 * *

M e a n r 0 . 7 9 0 . 4 8 0 .7 2 0 . 6 0

A v e r a g e c o r re l a t i o n f o r n i n e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s ( o n e e a c h

m o n t h ) .

b p < 0 . 0 0 1 , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d .

* * P < 0 . 0 1 .

A l s o s h o w n i n T a b l e I a r e h a s s l e s a n d u p l i f t s m e a n s c o r e s b r o k e n

d o w n b y g e n d e r a n d a g e . G e n d e r d i f f e re n c e s a p p e a r e d o n l y f o r u p l if ts

i n t en s i ty , w i t h w o m e n r e p o r t i n g a h i g h e r m e a n i n t en s i ty l ev el t h a n m e n

( Ho te l l i ngs T ~ = 2 .05 , P < 0 .05 ) . A l tho ug h , a s w i ll be r e po r t e d , t he in t e ns i ty

s c o r e s d i d n o t s h o w s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o t h e o t h e r m e a s u r e s u s e d i n t h e

p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e s e g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s a n d o t h e r f i n d i n g s n o t r e p o r t e d h e r e

(s ee K a n n e r a n d C o y n e , 1 97 9) s u p p o r t t h e c o n t i n u e d u s e o f b o t h w a y s o f

s c o ri n g . T h e o n e a g e d i f f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d f o r u p l i ft s f r e q u e n c y , t h e o l d e r

g r o u p s r e p o r t i n g m o r e f r e q u e n t u p l i f t s t h a n t h e y o u n g e r , a s d e t e r m i n e d

b y a o n e - w a y a n a l y s is o f v a r i a n c e ( F = 2 . 9 8 , P < 0 . 0 5 ).

T e s t R e t e s t C o r r e l a t i o n s o f H a s s l e s a n d U p l i f t s

T h e c o e f fi c ie n t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 2 r e p r e s e n t t h e a y e r a g e c o r r e l a t i o n

o f e a ch m o n t h l y a d m i n i s t r a ti o n w i t h e v e ry o t h e r o n e . A s c a n b e s e en , t he

c o r re l a t i o n s a m o n g m o n t h l y f r e q u e n c y sc o re s w e re h i g h er t h a n a m o n g

i n t e n s i t y s c o re s . F o r h a s sl e s, a v e r a g e r s w e r e 0 . 7 9 f o r f r e q u e n c y a n d 0 . 4 8

f o r i n t e n s i ty , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a s c a l c u l a t e d b y a t - t es t f o r c o r r e l a t e d

' W h e n e v e r w e c o m p u t e d t h e m e a n o f a s et o f c o r r e l a ti o n s , a s w a s d o n e f o r t h e t e s t - - r e t e s t

c o r r e l a ti o n s j u s t d e s c r i b e d a n d t h e t r a i t w i t h m o n t h l y c o r r e l a ti o n s a l s o p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s

s e c t i o n , o u r c a l c u l a t i o n s w e r e b a s e d o n f i r s t - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . T h e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l r a n g e

o f t h e r 's t h a t w e r e a v e r a g e d m a d e a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n t o z s c o re s u n n e c e s s a r y . F o r e x a m p l e ,

t h e f i rs t - o r d e r t e s t - r e t e s t a n d t r a i t w i t h m o n t h l y c o r r e l a ti o n s f o r h a s s l e s f r e q u e n c y w e r e

0 . 7 9 a n d 0 . 3 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ( s ee T a b l e I I) . W h e n t h e o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s u s e d t o g e n e r a t e

t h e s e f i g u r e s w e r e t r a n s f o r m e d t o z s c o r e s , a v e r a g e d , a n d t h e n r e c o n v e r t e d t o r ' s , t h e

r e s u l ti n g t e s t - r e t e s t a n d t r a i t w i t h m o n t h l y c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e 0 . 8 0 a n d 0 . 3 8 , r e s p e ct i v el y .

B y a v e r a g i n g co r r e l at i o n s b a s e d o n r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e m e n t , w e h a v e a c t u a ll y i n c r ea s e d t h e

r e l ia b i l it y o f o u r f i n d i n g s ( E p s t e i n , 1 9 7 9) . G r e a t e r r e l ia b i l it y , i n t u r n , c o u l d j u s t i f y a l e s s

s t r i n g e n t c r it e r i o n f o r s t a t is t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (i . e. , t h e m a g n i t u d e o f a m e a n c o r r e l a t i o n n e e d

n o t b e a s h i g h a s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s u s e d t o p r o d u c e i t i n o r d e r t o r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n c e ) . H o w e v e r ,

a l l t h e p r o b a b i l i t y l e ve ls r e p o r t e d i n th i s p a p e r a r e b a s e d o n o u r s a m p l e s i ze o f 1 0 0 ( o r l e s s, o f

c o u r s e , w h e n s u b g r o u p s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d ) , a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s ti m a t e i n t h e c a s e o f s c o r e s b a s e d

o n a v e r a g e c o r r e l a ti o n s .

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

13/39

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

14/39

14 Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, and

a z a r u s

ample Variations

Table III provides lists of the 10 most frequent hassles reported by our

sample of middle-aged adults. Similar data were available from the groups

of college students attending the University of California, Berkeley, and of

Canadian health professionals. The 10 most frequent uplifts were also

available for the middle-aged and college samples.

From an examination of the content of the items, it was possible to

isolate patterns of hassles and uplifts that distinguished the three groups

from each other. For example, although the samples overlapped on 3 hassles

items among the top 10 misplacing or losing things, physical appearance,

too many things to do), the middle-aged participants reported economic

concerns rising prices of common goods; property, investments, or taxes)

that did not appear for the other two samples. Similarly, among the

frequently checked hassles of the Canadian group are several that reflected

the anxiety and high pressure often found in professional life too many

Tab l e III. Ten Most Frequent Hassles and Uplifts (N = 100)a

Item b % of times checked

Hassles

1. Concerns about weight (91) 52.4

2. Health of a family member (7) 48.1

3. Rising prices of common goods (70) 43.7

4. Home maintenance (29) 42.8

5. Too many things to do (79) 38.6

6. Misplacing or losing things (1) 38.1

7. Yard work or outside home maintenance (112) 38.1

8. Property, investment, or taxes (110) 37.6

9. Crime (115) 37.1

10. Physical appearance (51) 35.9

Uplifts

1. R~lating well with your spouse or lover (18) 76.3

2. Relating well with friends (22) 74.4

3. Completing a task (19) 73.3

4. Feeling healthy (11) 72.7

5. Gett ing enough sleep (1) 69.7

6. Eating out (35) 68.4

7. Meeting your responsibilities (24) 68.1

8. Visiting, phoning, or writing someone (17) 67.7

9. Spending timewith family (51) 66.7

10. Home (inside) pleasing to you (52) 65.5

~Items are those most frequency checked over a period o f 9 months. The

% of times checked figures represent the mean percentage of people

checking the item each month averaged over the nine monthly

administrations.

bltem scale number is in parentheses following the item.

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

15/39

Ha ss le s a nd Upl i f t s v s Ma j o r L i f e

Events 5

things to do, not enough time to do the things you need to do, too many

responsibilities, trouble relaxing). The students, on the other hand, were

struggling with academic and social problems typically associated with

attending college (wasting time, concerns about meeting high standards,

being lonely). The most frequent uplifts also illustrate contrasting daily

experiences, with the middle-aged sample finding pleasure and satisfaction

from good health (feeling healthy, getting enough sleep) and spending time

at home with their family (home pleasing to you, spending time with

family), whereas the students were uplifted by activities having primarily a

hedonic tone (having fun, laughing, entertainment, music, etc.). Two

uplifts (completing a task, relating well with friends) were shared by the

latter two groups.

Three features of this analysis are of particular interest. First, the

method of listing and comparing the top 10 hassles and uplifts puts the

emphasis on repeated, or chronic, events, and our samples appeared to

differ on these in ways consistent with their age and occupation. Second, by

focusing on content patterns, hassles and uplifts

themes

emerge which

distinguish one group f rom another. Finally, unlike the other analyses to be

presented, this one is purely descriptive in nature, an approach that we

believe is underutilized in stress measurement and behavior medicine

research.

C o r r e l a t io n s w i t h L i f e E v e n t s a n d d a p t a t i o n a l O u t c o m e M e a s u r e s

Bradburn Morale Score The Bradburn and Caplowitz (1965) positive

and negative affect scales were available for the same 9 months during

which hassles and uplifts were assessed. The large number of relationships

produced by intercorrelating the two sets of scales was reduced following a

procedure similar to the one described for the month-to-month analysis and

then reported in Table IV. For example, a correlation matrix was generated

relating 9 months of hassles frequency to the concurrent 9 months of

negative affect, and the mean of these correlations computed (mean r = 0.34,

P < 0.001). Similarly, the average correlation between the trait version of

hassles frequency and nine assessments of negative affect was calculated

(mean r = 0.22, P < 0.05). As can be seen in Table IV, following this

procedure, three other statistically significant relationships appeared,

namely, uplifts frequency with positive affect (r = 0.25, P< 0.05; trait r =

0.08, n.s.) and uplifts intensity with positive affect (r = 0.33, P < 0.001; trait

r = 0.21, P < 0.05). Thus, as might be anticipated, for the sample as a whole,

hassles were related to negative but not positive affect, while uplifts were

correlated with positive but not negative affect. These results are consistent

with Bradburn and Caplowitz s (1965) findings that their two scales each had a

8/10/2019 Kanner (1981)

16/39

16 Kanner , Coyne,

S ch aefer an d Lazaru s

T a b l e

IV. Correlations of Hassles and Uplifts Frequency and Intensity with Bradburn

and Caplowitz Affect Scales

Frequency Intensity

Hassles Uplifts Hassles Uplifts

Positive 0.07 ~ 0.14) b 0.33* 0.21)** -0 .08 -0.18) 0.25** 0.08)

Negative 0.34* 0.22)* 0.03 -0 .01) 0.11 0.12) 0.07 0.13)

~Mean correlations of affect with 9 months of Hassles /Upli fts.

bMean correlations of affect with Hassles/Uplifts trait scores.

*P < 0.001.

**P < 0.05.

d i f f e r e n t s e t o f c o r r e l a t e s . W h e n t h e s a m e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e e x a m i n e d b y

g e n de r, t h e a b o v e p a t t e r n r e p e a t e d i ts e lf w i t h o n e m a j o r e x c e p t i o n . U p l i f ts

f r e q u e n c y a n d B r a d b u r n n e g a t iv e a f f e c t t e n d e d t o b e n e g a t iv e l y c o r r e la t e d f o r

m e n r = - 0 . 1 8 , n . s . ) b u t

positively

c o r r e l a t e d f o r w o m e n r = 0 . 2 5 , P