The Influence of Stressor Exposure and Psychosocial Resources on the Age

Abstract

Objectives: This study examined the processes linking age, stressor exposure, psychosocial coping resources, and two dimensions of anger proneness (i.e., experienced anger and expressed anger). Method: Longitudinal change regression analysis of data from a two-wave community panel study including a sample of people aged 18 to 93 (N = 1,473) is performed. Results: Age is significantly associated with declines in both experienced anger and expressed anger over the 3-year study period. These associations are substantially mediated by the lower levels of chronic stressors and discrimination-related stressors experienced among older adults. In contrast, self-esteem amplifies the association between age and expressed anger. Discussion: These findings clarify the circumstances in which age matters most for changes over time in the experience and expression of anger. They highlight how certain forms of stressor exposure and psychosocial resources are linked with anger proneness and in ways that vary by age.

Keywords

mental health social factors physical function age anger stressor exposure psychosocial coping resources

Introduction

The poet Dylan Thomas (1937) famously cautioned that “old age should burn and rave at close of day/Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” In counterpoint to this admonishment, however, there is consistent evidence that anger-related emotional styles and behaviors decline with age (Carstensen, Pasupathi, Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996, 1997; Schieman, 1999). These observations have directed research attention to the question of what mechanisms underlie the relationship between age and anger (English & Carstensen, 2014; Neupert, Almeida, & Charles, 2007; Phillips, Henry, Hosie, & Milne, 2006; Schieman, 1999).

Two distinct processes are suggested by studies using a stress and coping perspective (i.e., Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Pearlin, 1989; Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981), which report that older adults (a) experience less stressor exposure and (b) possess fewer psychosocial coping resources than younger adults (Jeon & Dunkle, 2009; Mirowsky & Ross, 2001; Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002; Schieman & Turner, 1998). However, few studies have directly examined these factors as explanations for the lower levels of anger proneness among older adults. The handful of studies that have explored underlying factors tend to focus on a single explanation rather than a more comprehensive set that would allow an assessment of the relative contribution of both stress and coping processes; they may also be limited by their use of cross-sectional data (Blanchard-Fields & Coats, 2008; Schieman, 1999, 2003). Indeed, cross-sectional investigations limit our ability to assess how the experience and expression of anger change across the life course, and how these changes may be influenced by various social processes. There is additional concern that prior studies have not distinguished between the arousal of anger and the expression of angry feelings, given some evidence that older adults are more inclined to suppress expressions of anger than younger persons (Phillips et al., 2006).

Because anger-related emotional styles and behaviors are associated with numerous adverse health outcomes affecting multiple bodily systems, as well as various interpersonal difficulties (Helmers, Posluszny, & Krantz, 2013; Ritz, Steptoe, DeWilde, & Costa, 2000; Schum, Jorgensen, Verhaeghen, Sauro, & Thibodeau, 2003; Tucker & Friedman, 1996), further understanding of the association between age and anger seems critical. To this end, the present study addresses the limitations of prior research by using two waves of data to examine the role of four forms of stressor exposure (i.e., major life events, recent life events, chronic strains, and discrimination stress) and three psychosocial coping resources (i.e., social support, mastery, and self-esteem) in accounting for the associations between age and the experience and expression of anger, respectively.

Background

Conceptualizing Age Variation in Anger

The focus of this investigation is anger proneness, or anger as a persisting emotional style, which is linked to both social and psychological triggers (Berkowitz, 1990; Fernandez & Turk, 1995; Smedslund, 1992). Cognitive-appraisal models of emotion, for example, attribute anger proneness to enduring beliefs that one has been treated disrespectfully and wishes to have his or her respect restored (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Smedslund, 1992), whereas cognitive-neoassociationistic perspectives ascribe anger to persistent feelings of frustration and annoyance associated with recurring psychological cues, such as feelings of helplessness (Berkowitz, 1990; Berkowitz & Heimer, 1989; Fernandez & Turk, 1995). Both perspectives view anger as having two defining features, which are cognitive appraisals and action tendencies. The cognitive experience of anger refers to feelings of acute displeasure and/or disapproval in the context of undesirable experiences (Ortony et al., 1988). Action tendency refers to the inclination to express these feelings (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989). The cognitive experience and observable expression of anger are importantly linked, but are understood to represent separate dimensions of anger rather than opposite ends of an emotional continuum (Siegel, 1986; Suarez & Williams, 1990).

The socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006) predicts that both cognitive appraisals and action tendencies toward anger and other negative emotions decline with age. According to this perspective, because of cumulative experiences across the life course, older adults are disinclined to feel negative emotions, such as anger, and better able to regulate them (Carstensen, 2006; Carstensen et al., 2000). In part, this may be due to a tendency of older adults to avoid certain social stressors or the social contexts that are most distressing to them (Charles, Piazza, Luong, & Almeida, 2009; Neupert et al., 2007). It is also suggested that older adults are more adept at emotional regulation because they have learned to prioritize social relationships and identify the psychological coping resources that are most beneficial to them (Carstensen, Fung, & Charles, 2003; Carstensen et al., 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014). The potential for stressor exposure and psychosocial coping resources to influence the association between age and anger proneness, in particular, is further elaborated in the stress and coping literature.

A Stress and Coping Perspective on Age and Anger

Stress and coping theories recognize that social statuses such as age influence mental health partly because they are linked with variation in stressor exposure and the use of various coping strategies, which have mental health effects in their own right (Aldwin, Sutton, Chiara, & Spiro, 1996; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Pearlin et al., 1981). The version of the stress and coping perspectives used in the present study, thus, considers the effects of stressor exposure and coping resources on age variation in mental health and emotional outcomes (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988).

The utility of this model for understanding age variation in anger is supported by the relatively well-documented linkage between age and anger proneness (Carstensen et al., 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Schieman, 1999), as well as evidence that stressor exposure and coping resources are associated with anger proneness (Liu & Kaplan, 2004; Turner, Russell, Glover, & Hutto, 2007). Research indicates that older adults report less intensity in the experience of angry feelings compared with their younger counterparts (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Blanchard-Fields & Coats, 2008; Schieman, 1999), and there is also some evidence that expressions of anger decline with age (Phillips et al., 2006). These findings are described as consistent with socioemotional selectivity theory (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Phillips et al., 2006), though it appears that no prior work has considered the significance of stressor exposure for the age–anger relationship and few have considered the influence of psychosocial resources on this relationship.

Several strands of research do support the hypothesis that age variation in stressor exposure may underlie the association between age and anger, however. With respect to the forms of stressor exposure assessed in the present study, people who experience higher levels of stressor exposure in the form of major life events, chronic strains, and experiences of discrimination are found to be more aggressively disposed compared with those who do not experience such exposure (Brown & Turner, 2012; Mueller, 1983; Turner et al., 2007). Particularly strong associations are observed between stressor exposure that is chronic in nature or related to experiences of discrimination and anger proneness (Brown & Turner, 2012).

Evidence that older adults experience less stressor exposure than younger adults (Mirowsky & Ross, 2001; Stawski, Sliwinski, Almeida, & Smyth, 2008; Turner & Noh, 1988) further suggests that accounting for variation in stressor exposure may further reduce the magnitude of the associations of age with experiencing and/or expressing anger. This possibility is largely consistent with applications of socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2006), which observe that older adults are more adept at avoiding the social contexts or forms of stressor exposure that are most distressing to them (Charles et al., 2009; Neupert et al., 2007).

The explanatory role of the three psychosocial coping resources included in this investigation (i.e., perceived social support, mastery, and self-esteem) is also supported by prior research. Perceived social support refers to one’s level of certainty that he or she is loved and wanted, valued and esteemed and able to count on others (Cobb, 1976). Mastery refers to a sense of personal control (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978), whereas self-esteem refers to a positive sense of self-worth (Rosenberg, 1979). Available evidence indicates an inverse relationship between self-esteem, mastery, and social support and anger proneness (Brown & Turner, 2012; Linden et al., 1997; Turner et al., 2007), suggesting that those with higher levels of these resources are less inclined to both experience and express anger.

However, in contrast to the socioemotional selectivity theory’s consideration of age as a proxy for psychosocial advantage (Carstensen et al., 2003; Carstensen et al., 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014), research on age variation in the psychosocial resources assessed in the present study (i.e., social support, mastery, and self-esteem) is less straightforward: Numerous studies indicate a decline with age in these resources (Robins et al., 2002; Schieman & Campbell, 2001; Schieman & Turner, 1998; Zautra, 1983), whereas others provide no evidence of age variation (Turner & Noh, 1988; see also Thoits, 1995, for a review). One of the few studies that has considered the influence of psychosocial resources on the association between age and anger proneness further demonstrated that were it not for the lower levels of mastery observed among older adults, they would experience even less anger compared with younger adults (Schieman, 1999). Although Schieman’s (1999) study was not able to differentiate between the experience and expression of anger or assess the influence of social support and self-esteem, and may also be limited by its cross-sectional design, it raises the possibility that a failure to account for age variation in the availability of psychosocial resources may underestimate the relationship between age and anger proneness.

Summary of Hypotheses

In summary, previous research provides grounds for anticipating that experienced anger and expressed anger may vary by age (English & Carstensen, 2014; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996, 1997; Schieman, 1999), and that stressor exposure and the availability of psychosocial coping resources, in turn, may influence any observed associations between age and these dimensions of anger proneness (Brown & Turner, 2012; Linden et al., 1997; Thoits, 1995). To explore these possibilities, the present study tests three hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Age is associated with declines in both the experience and expression of anger.

Hypothesis 2: Various forms of stressor exposure mediate any observed associations between age and experienced anger and expressed anger, respectively.

Hypothesis 3: Adjusting for psychosocial coping resources influences any observed associations between age and experienced anger and expressed anger, respectively.

These hypotheses are tested controlling for the sociodemographic characteristics of gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and race/ethnicity, which are linked with variation in anger proneness (though research findings are equivocal). Specifically, there is some evidence that men are more likely to express anger than women (Fisher et al., 1993; Nunn & Thomas, 1999); that SES is inversely associated with anger proneness (Barefoot et al., 1991); and that Hispanic Americans may be less likely to express anger than non-Hispanic Whites and African Americans (Scollon, Diener, Oishi, & Biswas-Diener, 2004). Because this study includes an oversampling of people with physical disabilities, physical limitations are also included as a control variable. Physical limitation has been linked with experienced anger and expressed anger both cross-sectionally and over time (Brown & Turner, 2012; Greenwood, Thurston, Rumble, Waters, & Keefe, 2003; Okifuji, Turk, & Curran, 1999).

Research Design

Sample

Data are drawn from a two-wave panel study of Miami-Dade county residents that was undertaken to examine the social determinants of mental health problems among individuals with and without physical limitations. Based on national age, gender, and race/ethnicity-specific rates of disability, and on the Miami-Dade County demographic structure, approximately 10,000 households were randomly screened to develop a sampling frame within which physically disabled persons were significantly overrepresented. Additional details regarding the sampling procedure are presented by Turner, Lloyd, and Taylor (2006).

From 2000 to 2001, 1,986 first-wave interviews were completed, with a success rate of 82%. Included in the study were 1,086 adults who were screened as having no physical limitations and 900 individuals who were screened as having physical limitations. The oversampling of individuals with physical limitations and the fact that participants without limitations were group matched on age resulted in a greater proportion of older respondents than in the general population. Ages in the sample ranged from 18 to 93, with a median age of 59. Given this discrepancy in ages and the oversampling of individuals with physical health conditions, it is inaccurate to suggest that this sample is representative of the Miami-Dade County population. However, this strategy does provide a subsample that is generally representative of persons with chronic health conditions in Miami-Dade County.

Because this sample was drawn to broadly represent people with physical limitations in this community, it is heterogeneous with respect to the types of health conditions reported and their age of onset. The mean age of onset of a health condition reported during the first interview is 45, though the sample includes people with congenital conditions and those who did not experience any limitation until after the age of 80. Despite this variation, a consistent pattern of findings is observed in subgroup analyses by age of onset, and Wald tests demonstrate that age of onset does not significantly improve model fit. For these reasons, age of onset is not included as a predictor in the analyses to be presented.

Respondents were reinterviewed 3 years later. Excluding the 100 W1 participants who died in the interim and 59 W1 participants who were too ill to be interviewed, the second wave of interviews achieved a success rate of 82.5% (Gayman, Turner, & Cui, 2008). A comparison of all study variables between those who completed both waves of study interviews and those lost to attrition revealed no significant differences in the experience and expression of anger at W1 (mean values of experienced anger for the current sample are 5.030 compared with 4.959 for those lost to attrition, p > .607; mean values of expressed anger for the current sample are 4.755 compared with 4.528 for those lost to attrition, p > .579). However, those who did not complete the W2 interview reported significantly lower levels of chronic strain (p > .001) and SES (p > .05), and slightly higher levels of physical limitation (p > .05) at W1. It should also be noted that the same pattern of findings was observed among the full sample cross-sectionally as in the longitudinal analysis to be presented, including the 1,473 respondents who provided complete responses to study questions during both the first and second wave of interviews.

Measures

Summary statistics for key study variables are presented in Table 1. Two outcomes at W2 are considered: experienced anger and expressed anger. Baseline (W1) levels of experienced and expressed anger are controlled in the regression analyses to assess changes in these factors across the two waves of data.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Variables (N = 1,473).

Characteristics	Range	M	SD
Experienced anger
W1	−1.880-3.747	0.009	1.006
W2	−1.967-3.703	−0.005	0.987
Expressed anger
W1	−2.028-4.452	0.029	1.026
W2	−2.088-4.280	0.003	0.997
Age (W1)	18-93	56.940	16.781
Sex (%female; W1)	0,1	56.5	—
Race/ethnicity (%; W1)
Non-Hispanic White	0,1	23.50	—
African American	0,1	39.33	—
Cuban	0,1	21.10	—
Non-Cuban Hispanic	0,1	16.07
Socioeconomic status (W1)	−2.359-2.702	−0.287	0.946
Functional limitation
W1	−0.688-4.955	−0.034	0.964
W2	−1.591-5.094	0.001	1.001
Δ limitation	−4.048-4.982	0.035	0.771
Discrimination stress
W1	−2.346-4.625	0.021	0.982
W2	−.969-5.270	−0.007	0.998
Δ discrimination stress	−3.742-5.081	−0.027	1.210
Recent life events
W1	−0.575-8.062	0.043	1.027
W2	−0.428-7.909	0.001	1.007
Δ recent life events	−5.198-6.631	−0.042	1.330
Major life events
W1	−1.868-5.951	0.026	1.013
Chronic strains**
W1	−0.780-6.276	0.083	1.034
W2	−0.858-7.294	−0.009	0.990
Δ chronic strains	−6.981-6.717	−0.093	1.201
Social support
W1	−5.012-0.636	0.054	0.973
W2	−4.200-2.262	0.009	0.994
Δ social support	−4.837-5.659	−0.044	1.165
Mastery
W1	−3.008-1.457	0.048	0.992
W2	−2.514-1.543	0.009	0.994
Δ mastery	−3.812-3.276	−0.038	1.114
Self-esteem*
W1	−4.821-0.657	0.070	0.935
W2	−5.056-1.389	0.005	0.987
Δ self-esteem	−5.056-1.389	−0.065	1.253

Note. *Significant at .05. **Significant at .01. ***Significant at .001, two-tailed t test of mean differences in W1 and W2 variables.

Anger

The six-item anger measure is drawn from a larger instrument called the “How I Feel” (Petersen & Kellam, 1977). Confirmatory factor analysis of the present data demonstrated a significant improvement in model fit when two factors, which correspond to the experience and expression of anger, are specified (for additional details, see Brown & Turner, 2012). Because there is additional empirical support and a conceptual basis for distinguishing between the experience and expression of anger (e.g., Siegel, 1986; Suarez & Williams, 1990), these measures are employed separately in all analyses. Experienced anger is assessed by a standardized three-item index drawn from the summed responses to three questions regarding the extent to which respondents feel angry, feel they are boiling inside, or stay angry when they become angry (W1 α = .76; W2 α = .79). Expressed anger is measured by a standardized index of the sum of three questions that assess the degree to which respondents yell at people, lose their temper, and get into fights and arguments (W1 α = .77; W2 α = .80). Response categories are as follows: not like me at all; not much like me; somewhat like me; much like me; and very much like me.

The focal independent variable is age; included as predictor variables are four measures of stressor exposure and three measures of psychosocial coping resources (i.e., social support, mastery, and self-esteem).

Age is employed as a continuous measure in years, and responses range from 18 to 93.

Stressor exposure

Four dimensions of stressor exposure are assessed: recent life events (32 items); major life events (41 items); chronic stress (37 items); and major and day-to-day discrimination (16 items). Recent and major life events are indexed with Turner and Avison’s (2003) measure, which includes experiences with major but not violent stressors (e.g., parental divorce, failing a grade in school), life traumas (e.g., rape, physical and emotional abuse, being injured with a weapon), witnessing violence, receiving information about bad events, and the death of relatives or close friends. Chronic strains are measured with an index adapted from Wheaton’s (1994) inventory, modified to better capture the kinds of enduring stressors older individuals are likely to experience, including caregiver strain and difficulties with adult children. The items fall into seven categories: general or ambient problems, work/employment, relationships, parenting, family, social life and recreation, and health concerns. Major and day-to-day discrimination are measured with Williams and colleagues’ (1997) inventories (eight items each), which consider major experiences of unfair treatment, such as being fired or denied housing, as well as more routine or relatively minor experiences, such as being treated with less courtesy than others or being insulted. Consistent with common practice, each score is a straight count of the number of stressors reported.

Social resources

Social support was assessed using highly reliable measures first described and assessed by Turner and Noh (1988) and based upon the Provisions of Social Relations Scale for which evidence of both reliability and construct validity is available. Participants were asked to indicate whether each of eight statements about support from friends and each of eight statements about support from family were very true; moderately true; somewhat true; or not at all true (such as knowing your friends/family will always be there; feeling very close to your friends/family; and feeling your friends/family really care about you). The index is a standardized sum of these 16 items (α =.91).

Personal resources

Mastery is measured with the seven-item scale developed by Pearlin and Schooler (1978). The index is a summed, standardized index (α = .78) assessing the extent to which respondents feel they have control over the things that happen in their lives; are able to solve problems; can change important aspects of their lives; feel helpless (reversed); feel pushed around (reversed); are responsible for what happens in their future; and can do anything they set their mind to. Responses to each item range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Self-esteem is indexed by a shortened version of Rosenberg’s (1979) widely used measure. Self-esteem is a summed, standardized index (α = .70) drawn from six items: (1) “You feel that you have a number of good qualities”; (2) “You feel that you are a person of worth at least equal to others”; (3) “You are able to do things as well as most other people”; (4) “You take a positive attitude toward yourself”; (5) “On the whole, you are satisfied with yourself”; and (6) “All in all, you are included to feel you are a failure” (reverse coded). Responses to each item range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Control variables include the sociodemographic characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, and SES, and physical limitation. Gender is coded 1 for females and 0 for males. Race/ethnicity is a dummy variable including non-Hispanic Whites (n = 347), African Americans (n = 447), Cubans (n = 357), and non-Cuban Hispanics (n = 322)—the four race/ethnic designations comprising approximately 95% of Miami-Dade County. The “non-Cuban Hispanic” category primarily includes individuals from Central America. Non-Cuban Hispanics are distinguished from Cubans because of the community context of this study. Miami-Dade County, Florida, is home to a sizable and largely affluent Cuban American community, and the reasons for and experience of immigration for Cubans in Miami differ from other Hispanics living in the region. SES is estimated in terms of three components—household income, education, and the occupational prestige level of the job the respondent has held the longest (Hollingshead, 1957). Scores on these three dimensions were standardized, summed, and divided by the number of measures on which each respondent provided data. This option provides a relatively general assessment of SES while reducing sample loss associated with missing data. This approach was selected because information on household income could not be obtained for 22% of African Americans, 19% of Hispanics, and 14% of non-Hispanic Whites interviewed.

Level of limitation

The measure of level of physical limitation is an adaptation of the models of disability proposed by the U.S. Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine (1991) and the World Health Organization (2001). Level of limitation was indexed at W1 and W2 with indicators of physical mobility, instrumental daily activities, and basic activities of daily living. This approach provides a relatively comprehensive picture of physical abilities and limitations, capturing variations at both the severe end and the more able end of the limitations spectrum. Drawing from several well-established scales (Fries, Spitz, Kraines, & Holman, 1980; Jette, 1980; Jette & Deniston, 1978; Katz, Downs, Cash, & Grotz, 1970; Lawton & Brody, 1969; Nagi, 1976; Rosow & Breslau, 1966), nine items were used to assess physical mobility; two items assessed problems with instrumental daily activities; and eight items assessed activities of daily living. These 19 items were coded such that higher scores indicate greater limitation. The internal reliability coefficient for this measure was .91 within both waves of data. Additional information regarding the reliability and validity of this measure was previously published by Brown and Turner (2010).

Analytic Strategy

Longitudinal change regression models (Allison, 1990) were utilized to assess the association between age at T1 and changes in the experience and expression of anger from T1 to T2. To investigate the influence of stressor exposure and psychosocial resources on these associations, the coefficient and level of significance for age were compared before and after the stressor and resource variables were added to the model, with a change in the magnitude of the effect of age on experienced anger or expressed anger, respectively, providing provisional support for the mediation or suppression hypotheses. Formal tests were also conducted, based on the procedures described by MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood (2000).

Five regression models are presented for each of the two indicators of anger. Model 1 regresses the dependent variables (i.e., experienced anger and expressed anger at T2) on the T1 measures of age and the control variables. It also includes T1 measures of anger to assess the associations between age and changes in the experience and expression of anger from T1 to T2. Models 2 through 4 introduce the measures of stressor exposure and psychosocial resources. Model 5 includes all variables, to assess their collective role in explaining the associations between age and changes in the experience and expression of anger.

Results

Table 2 presents a partial matrix of intercorrelations among the variables central to this analysis. Findings reveal that the experience of anger is highly correlated with the expression of anger, and that age is associated with both the experience and expression of anger. Specifically, greater age is associated with lower levels of both experienced anger and expressed anger. It is noteworthy that every element of the hypothesized model is significantly correlated with both experienced and expressed anger. Several forms of stressor exposure and the psychosocial resource of self-esteem are also significantly associated with age, which provides some provisional support for the hypotheses that these factors may influence the age–anger proneness relationship.

Table 2.

Partial Matrix of Correlations Between Experienced Anger, Expressed Anger, Age, and Hypothesized Mediators (N = 1,473).

	1	2	3
1. Experienced anger W2	—
2. Expressed anger W2	.722***	—
3. Age	−.182***	−.199***	—
4. Discrimination stress W1	.004	.072**	−.175***
5. Δ Discrimination stress	.134***	.101***	−.079
6. Recent life events W1	.021	.037	−.129**
7. Δ Recent events	.044	.035	−.077
8. Major life events W1	.104***	.107***	−.209***
9. Chronic strains W1	.109***	.089***	−.301***
10. Δ Chronic strains	.121***	.104***	−.249***
11. Social support W1	−.106***	−.078**	.095
12. Δ Social support	−.159***	−.162***	.042
13. Mastery W1	−.177***	−.125***	−.089
14. Δ Mastery	−.078**	−.082**	−.079
15. Self-esteem W1	−.189***	−.166***	−.105*
16. Δ Self-esteem	−.056*	−.064*	−.067

Note. *Significant at .05. **Significant at .01. ***Significant at .001. Pearson’s correlation coefficients are reported.

The crude distributions of experienced anger and expressed anger by age (available upon request) demonstrate consistent declines in both dimensions of anger proneness with age, including among the oldest-old. Further tests for non-linearity did not support the inclusion of squared, cubic, or quadratic terms in modeling the associations between age and the experience and expression of anger, respectively. The indication of linear relationships that these tests provide also supports the use of ordinary-least-squares (OLS) regression to model the associations of age with both experienced anger and expressed anger.

Table 3 presents the results of OLS regression analyses examining the association of age with experienced anger. Net of the control variables and baseline levels of experienced anger, greater age is significantly associated with a decrease in experienced anger over the 3-year study period (Model 1). Model 2 demonstrates that higher baseline levels and increases in two forms of stressor exposure (i.e., discrimination stress and chronic strains) are associated with increases in experienced anger, and they collectively explain about 89% of the association between age and change in experienced anger. Separate tests (not shown) reveal that they play a near-equal role in explaining the declines in experienced anger associated with advancing age. Model 3, which examines social resources, indicates that higher baseline levels and increases in social support predict declines in experienced anger between waves. Separate tests, however, do not indicate that these factors significantly influence the association between age and experienced anger. Of the intermediary variables that were examined, psychological resources play the largest role in accounting for decreases in experienced anger (Model 4). Higher baseline levels and increases in mastery and self-esteem are associated with declines in experienced anger, though additional tests do not indicate that these resources significantly account for the effects of age. When the collective contribution of the intermediary variables is considered (Model 5), the coefficient for age is reduced by 88% and does not reach significance.

Table 3.

Regression of Experienced Anger on Age, Stressor Exposure, and Psychosocial Resources (N = 1,473).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Age	−.129***	−.014	−.127***	−.140***	−.015
Discrimination stress W1		.085*	—	—	.061*
Δ Discrimination stress		.165***	—	—	.132***
Recent life events W1		−.030	—	—	−.033
Δ Recent events		.007	—	—	.011
Major life events W1		.032	—	—	.014
Chronic strains W1		.180***	—	—	.180***
Δ Chronic strains		.262***	—	—	.272***
Social support W1			−.229***	—	−.096**
Δ Social support			−.261***	—	−.146**
Mastery W1				−.188***	−.102**
Δ Mastery				−.194***	−.122**
Self-esteem W1				−.191***	−.183***
Δ Self-esteem				−.175***	−.179***
Control variables
Experienced anger W1	.241***	.235***	.212***	.200***	.199***
Cuban	.039	.076*	.029	.005	.046
Non-Cuban Hispanic	.068*	.096**	.049	.025	.054
African American	−.103**	−.111***	−.091**	−.083**	−.089**
Female	.004	.013	−.008	.015	.013
Socioeconomic status W1	−.052	−.063*	.005	.016	.012
Physical limitation W1	.118***	.099***	.097***	.051	.045
Δ Limitation	.105***	.081**	.079**	.063*	.038
Constant	.433***	.104	.448***	.478***	.149
Adjusted R²	.118	.184	.161	.189	.256

Note. Standardized regression coefficients reported.

Significant at .05. **Significant at .01. ***Significant at .001.

Table 4 presents the results of the regression of expressed anger. Greater age is also associated with a decrease in expressing anger from T1 to T2 (Model 1). Model 2 demonstrates that 79% of the relationship between age and change in expressed anger is explained by the significant effects of discrimination stress (W1) and chronic strains (W1 and Δ). Separate mediation tests (not shown) reveal that baseline and change in chronic strains near-equivalently account for this effect. Model 3 reveals that greater social support (W1 and Δ) is associated with a decline in expressing anger; additional analyses provide no evidence that it significantly influences age—expressed anger relationship. The personal resources of mastery and self-esteem (W1 and Δ) are also associated with a decline in expressed anger (Model 4). With these resources controlled, the age coefficient increases from −.105 in Model 1 to −.113 in Model 4. Further tests reveal that this coefficient change, though apparently modest, is significant and largely derives from variation in baseline level of self-esteem (z = 1.88, p > .01). In Model 5, which includes all variables entered in previous models, the coefficient for age is reduced by 71% compared with Model 1 and is no longer significant.

Table 4.

Regression of Expressed Anger on Stressor Exposure and Psychosocial Resources (N = 1,473).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Age	−.105***	−.022	−.105***	−.113***	−.030
Discrimination stress W1		.038	—	—	.044
Δ Discrimination stress		.163***	—	—	.114***
Recent life events W1		−.018	—	—	−.010
Δ Recent events		.024	—	—	.008
Major life events W1		.034	—	—	.021
Chronic strains W1		−.111**	—	—	.123**
Δ Chronic strains		.196***	—	—	.216***
Social support W1			−.168***	—	−.029
Δ Social support			−.227***	—	−.101**
Mastery W1				−.124***	−.053
Δ Mastery				−.164***	−.107**
Self-esteem W1				−.211***	−.219***
Δ Self-esteem				−.203***	−.210***
Control variables
Expressed anger W1	.290***	.278***	.269***	.262***	.252***
Cuban	−.035	.003	−.044	−.061	−.019
Non-Cuban Hispanic	−.012	.020	−.028	−.048	−.013
African American	−.087**	−.105**	−.080**	−.065*	−.086**
Female	−.001	.015	−.014	.014	.019
Socioeconomic status W1	−.069*	−.079**	−.021	−.010	−.021
Physical limitation W1	.099***	.078**	.082**	.041	.029
Δ Limitation	.096***	.073**	.074**	.056*	.032
Constant	.437***	.118	.459***	.464***	.166
Adjusted R²	.110	.159	.140	.167	.234

Note. Standardized regression coefficients reported; *Significant at .05. **Significant at .01. ***Significant at .001.

Discussion

Although there is growing evidence that anger proneness declines with age (Carstensen et al., 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014; Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Ross & Van Willigen, 1996, 1997; Schieman, 1999), research has paid little attention to the specific mechanisms that influence the age–anger relationship. Furthermore, none of the prior studies directly testing explanations for this relationship have examined multiple stress and coping processes or employed longitudinal data. Drawing on research documenting age variation in stressor exposure and the availability of psychosocial coping resources (Jeon & Dunkle, 2009; Mirowsky & Ross, 2001; Robins et al., 2002; Schieman & Turner, 1998), the present study examines the influence of each of these sets of factors on age variation in the experience and expression of anger. These possibilities are explored using a two-wave community study of adults aged 18 to 93.

Study findings provide further evidence of the inverse association between age and anger proneness. Consistent with previous work (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003; Blanchard-Fields & Coats, 2008; Phillips et al., 2006; Schieman, 1999, 2003) and supporting the first hypothesis, age is associated with declines in both experienced anger and expressed anger over the 3-year study period. These findings are consistent with the proposition of socioemotional selectivity theory that cognitive appraisals and actions tendencies associated with negative emotions such as anger decline with age (Carstensen, 2006; Carstensen et al., 2000). Notably, this analysis was unable to assess whether the age–anger proneness linkage derives from age variation in emotional regulation, as the theory suggests (Carstensen et al., 2000). This possibility is recommended for further study. However, it was able to explore two underlying processes suggested by the theory: (a) that older adults are more adept at avoiding the social stressors that are most distressing to them (Charles et al., 2009; Neupert et al., 2007) and (b) that older adults are more likely to utilize the psychosocial coping resources that are most beneficial to them (Carstensen et al., 2003; Carstensen et al., 2000).

The results for experienced and expressed anger support the second hypothesis predicting that the inverse association between age and anger is partially mediated by exposure to social stressors. Greater discrimination stress and chronic strains and increases in these stressors account for 89% of the association between age and changes in experienced anger. Higher levels of both these stressors and increases in chronic strains also explain 79% of the association between age and increases in expressed anger. It was suggested that stressor exposure may influence the association between age and anger proneness because older adults are thought to be more adept at avoiding or minimizing stressor exposure (Carstensen, 2006; Mirowsky & Ross, 2001; Stawski et al., 2008; Turner & Noh, 1988). In the extent to which these results reflect this possibility, they suggest that interventions aimed at identifying controllable forms of stressor exposure may be particularly efficacious in reducing this form of emotional upset.

However, it should also be acknowledged that a defining feature of discrimination and many forms of stressor exposure that are chronic in nature, such as chronic poor health or ongoing difficulties with a loved one, is a lack of controllability. Given the primacy of these stressors in explaining the age–anger relationship, further consideration of their association with age also seems warranted. One possibility is that older adults may report lower levels of discrimination or chronic strains because they utilize more active or effective coping strategies, thus reducing their overall stress burden (Aldwin, Sutton, Chiara, & Spiro, 1996; Yip, Gee, & Takeuchi, 2008). It has also been suggested that age variation in coping strategies may not be absolute but, rather, may vary depending upon the circumstances that demand coping efforts (Aldwin et al., 1996; Martin, Rott, Poon, Courtenay, & Lehr, 2001; Molton, Jensen, Carter, Kraft, & Cardenas, 2008). Because the use of various coping strategies or styles was not assessed in the survey this study draws upon, these possibilities cannot be effectively addressed here.

It was further hypothesized that the psychosocial resources of social support, mastery, and self-esteem would influence the association between age and anger proneness (Hypothesis 3). This hypothesis is partly supported by the finding that were it not for the lower levels of self-esteem reported by older adults, they would express anger with even less frequency. This finding, consistent with other work on the effects of psychosocial resources on the age–anger proneness relationship (e.g., Schieman, 1999), may help contextualize the observation that older adults are less likely to express anger by specifying that this may be a function of low self-esteem rather than age per se. Others have noted that self-esteem importantly influences how anger is expressed (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003; Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989)—suggesting, for example, that those with low self-esteem are more likely to express anger indirectly or in ways that are self-defeating (Kernis et al., 1989).

The question of how self-esteem is linked with the expression of anger across the life course requires some elaboration. Considerations of self-esteem among aging populations describe multiple contingencies of self-worth, which become more or less relevant to the maintenance of a positive self-image among people as they age (Crocker & Knight, 2005; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). It is notable that various categories of self-worth, such as feelings of virtue or competence or approval from others, appear to correlate only modestly with global self-esteem measures such as that employed in the present study (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). It, therefore, seems plausible that modeling age variation in the dimensions of self-worth most relevant to older adults may better explain why they are less inclined to express feelings of anger. This possibility, consistent with the suggestion that older adults are more adept at emotional regulation because they have learned to utilize the psychosocial coping resources that are most beneficial to them (Blanchard-Fields & Coats, 2008; Carstensen et al., 2000; English & Carstensen, 2014), is recommended for further study.

Limitations

Future research might also address several limitations of the present investigation. First, although this represents the first attempt to explore multiple explanations for the age–anger proneness association using longitudinal data, this study includes only two waves and spans just 3 years. These patterns should ideally be reexamined using multiple data points to capture trajectories in anger. Longitudinal data with a shorter time lag between waves are also recommended to help specify the underlying mechanisms that are most salient for these associations. In addition, data with multiple time points could better specify causality in the pattern of findings reported. It seems plausible, for example, that a highly agitated or aggressive interpersonal style could decrease the quality of social relationships, thereby eroding social support, or increase the likelihood of experiencing certain stressful life events (e.g., marital conflict, work-related problems, etc.).

Further study could also determine whether the strength of the effects or underlying processes varies across segments of the elderly population. Sources of potential variation include gender, race-ethnicity, and SES, as well as the community-dwelling population compared with nursing home residents; each of these contrasts points to variation in levels of resources to address challenges faced in later life. An additional consideration, given the wide age distribution of this study, is that, although anger proneness declines consistently with age, the stress and coping processes affecting anger proneness may differ for the oldest-old compared with younger cohorts of older adults.

Moreover, the pattern of findings reported may be influenced by the unique sampling strategy used in this study. Because the study sample was drawn to be representative of the population of people with physical disabilities in Miami-Dade County, Florida, further study is needed to determine whether the findings reported are generalizable to the broader U.S. population.

Conclusion

These limitations notwithstanding, this study contributes to the literature in three ways: It demonstrates that age is associated with declines in both the experience and expression of anger over time. It also reveals that these associations derive in large part from age variation in exposure to chronic stressors and the strain of discrimination. Furthermore, it indicates that older adults would be even less inclined to express anger were it not for the lower levels of self-esteem they report, on average.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by Grants RO1 DA13292 and RO1 DA016429 from the National Institute of Drug Abuse to R. Jay Turner (r.jay.turner@vanderbilt.edu).

References

Aldwin

C. M.

Sutton

K. J.

Chiara

Spiro

(1996). Age differences in stress, coping, and appraisal: Findings from the Normative Aging Study. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 51B, P179-P188.

Allison

P. D.

(1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93-114.

Barefoot

J. C.

Peterson

B. L.

Dahlstrom

W. G.

Siegler

I. C.

Anderson

N. B.

Williams

R. B.

(1991). Hostility patterns and health implications: Correlates of Cook-Medley-Hostility Scale scores in a national survey. Health Psychology, 10, 18-24.

Baumeister

R. F.

Campbell

J. D.

Krueger

J. I.

Vohs

K. D.

(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.

Berkowitz

(1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494-503.

Berkowitz

Heimer

(1989). On the construction of the anger experience: Aversive events and negative priming in the formation of feelings. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 1-37.

Birditt

K. S.

Fingerman

K. L.

(2003). Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, 237-245.

Blanchard-Fields

Coats

A. H.

(2008). The experience of anger and sadness in everyday problems impacts age differences in emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1547-1556.

Brown

R. L.

Turner

R. J.

(2010). Physical disability and depression: Clarifying racial/ethnic contrasts. Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 977-1000.

10.

Brown

R. L.

Turner

R. J.

(2012). Physical limitation and anger: Assessing the role of stress exposure and psychosocial resources. Society and Mental Health, 2, 69-84.

11.

Carstensen

L. L.

(2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312, 1913-1915.

12.

Carstensen

L. L.

Fung

H. H.

Charles

S. T.

(2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 103-123.

13.

Carstensen

L. L.

Pasupathi

Mayr

Nesselroade

(2000). Emotion experience in the daily lives of older and younger adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1-12.

14.

Charles

S. T.

Piazza

J. R.

Luong

Almeida

D. A.

(2009). Now you see it, now you don’t: Age differences in affective reactivity to social tensions. Psychology and Aging, 24, 645-653.

15.

Cobb

(1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314.

16.

Crocker

Knight

K. M.

(2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 200-203.

17.

Crocker

Wolfe

C. T.

(2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593-623.

18.

English

Carstensen

L. L.

(2014). Selective narrowing of social networks across adulthood is associated with improved emotional experience in daily life. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 195-202.

19.

Fernandez

Turk

D. C.

(1995). The scope and significance of anger in the experience of chronic pain. Pain, 61, 165-175.

20.

Fisher

P. C.

Smith

R. J.

Leonard

Fuqua

D. R.

Campbell

J. L.

Masters

M. A.

(1993). Sex differences on affective dimensions: Continuing examination. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 440-443.

21.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475.

22.

Fries

J. F.

Spitz

Kraines

R. G.

Holman

H. R.

(1980). Measurement of patient outcomes in arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 23, 137-145.

23.

Frijda

N. H.

Kuipers

ter Schure

(1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212-228.

24.

Gayman

M. D.

Turner

R. J.

Cui

(2008). Physical limitations and depressive symptoms: Exploring the nature of the association. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, S219-S228.

25.

Greenwood

K. A.

Thurston

Rumble

Waters

S. J.

Keefe

F. J.

(2003). Anger and persistent pain: Current status and future directions. Pain, 103, 1-5.

26.

Helmers

K. F.

Posluszny

D. M.

Krantz

D. S.

(2013). Associations of hostility and coronary artery disease: A review of studies. In Siegman

A. W.

Smith

T. V.

(Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 67-96). London, England: Psychology Press.

27.

Hollingshead

A. B.

(1957). Two factor index of social position. New Haven, CT: Author.

28.

Jeon

H. S.

Dunkle

R. E.

(2009). Stress and depression among the oldest-old: A longitudinal analysis. Research on Aging, 31, 661-687.

29.

Jette

A. M.

(1980). Functional status index: Reliability of a chronic disease evaluation instrument. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 61, 395-401.

30.

Jette

A. M.

Deniston

O. L.

(1978). Inter-observer reliability of a functional status assessment instrument. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 31, 573-580.

31.

Katz

Downs

T. D.

Cash

H. R.

Grotz

R. C.

(1970). Progress in development of the index of ADL. The Gerontologist, 10, 20-30.

32.

Kernis

M. H.

Grannemann

B. D.

Barclay

L. C.

(1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 1013-1022.

33.

Lawton

P. M.

Brody

E. M.

(1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179-186.

34.

Linden

Leung

Chawla

Stossel

Rutledge

Tanco

S. A.

(1997). Social determinants of experienced anger. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 415-432.

35.

Liu

Kaplan

(2004). Role stress and aggression among young adults: The moderating influences of gender and adolescent aggression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 33-102.

36.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

(2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1, 173-181.

37.

Martin

Rott

Poon

L. W.

Courtenay

Lehr

. (2001). A molecular view of coping behavior in older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 13, 72-91.

38.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(2001). Age and the effect of economic hardship on depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 132-150.

39.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(2003). Social causes of psychological distress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

40.

Molton

Jensen

M. P.

Carter

G. T.

Kraft

Cardenas

D. D.

(2008). Coping with chronic pain among younger, middle-aged, and older adults living with neurological injury and disease. Journal of Aging and Health, 20, 972-996.

41.

Mueller

C. W.

(1983). Environmental stressors and aggressive behavior. Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews, 2, 51-76.

42.

Nagi

S. Z.

(1976). An epidemiology of disability among adults in the United States. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, 54, 439-467.

43.

Neupert

S. D.

Almeida

D. M.

Charles

S. T.

(2007). Age differences in reactivity to daily stressors: The role of personal control. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, P216-P225.

44.

Nunn

J. S.

Thomas

S. L.

(1999). The angry male and the passive female: The role of gender and self-esteem in anger expression. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 27, 145-153.

45.

Okifuji

Turk

D. C.

Curran

S. L.

(1999). Anger in chronic pain: Investigations of anger targets and intensity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 47, 1-12.

46.

Ortony

Clore

G. L.

Collins

(1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Pearlin

L. I.

(1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 241-256.

48.

Pearlin

L. I.

Lieberman

M. A.

Menaghan

E. G.

Mullan

J. T.

(1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356.

49.

Pearlin

L. I.

Schooler

(1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2-21.

50.

Petersen

A. C.

Kellam

S. G.

(1977). Measurement of the psychological well-being of adolescents: The psychometric properties and assessment procedures of the “how I feel.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, 229-247.

51.

Phillips

L. H.

Henry

J. D.

Hosie

J. A.

Milne

A. B.

(2006). Age, anger regulation and well-being. Aging & Mental Health, 10, 250-256.

52.

Ritz

Steptoe

DeWilde

Costa

(2000). Emotions and stress increase respiratory resistance in asthma. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 401-412.

53.

Robins

R. W.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Tracy

J. L.

Gosling

S. D.

Potter

(2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17, 423-434.

54.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

55.

Rosow

Breslau

(1966). A Guttman Health Scale for the aged. The Journal of Gerontology, 21, 556-559.

56.

Ross

C. E.

Van Willigen

(1996). Gender, parenthood, and anger. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 572-584.

57.

Ross

C. E.

Van Willigen

(1997). Education and the subjective quality of life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 275-297.

58.

Schieman

(1999). Age and anger. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 273-289.

59.

Schieman

(2003). Socioeconomic status and the frequency of anger across the life course. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 207-222.

60.

Schieman

Campbell

J. E.

(2001). Age variations in personal agency and self-esteem: The context of physical disability. Journal of Aging and Health, 13, 155-185.

61.

Schieman

Turner

H. A.

(1998). Age, disability, and the sense of mastery. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 169-186.

62.

Schum

J. L.

Jorgensen

R. S.

Verhaeghen

Sauro

Thibodeau

(2003). Trait anger, anger expression, and ambulatory blood pressure: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 395-415.

63.

Scollon

C. N.

Diener

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304-326.

64.

Siegel

J. M.

(1986). The Multidimensional Anger Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 191-200.

65.

Smedslund

(1992). How shall the concept of anger be defined? Theory & Psychology, 3, 5-34.

66.

Stawski

R. S.

Sliwinski

M. J.

Almeida

D. M.

Smyth

J. M.

(2008). Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: The roles of adult age and global perceived stress. Psychology and Aging, 23, 52-61.

67.

Suarez

E. C.

Williams

R. B.

(1990). The relationships between dimensions of hostility and cardiovascular reactivity as a function of task characteristics. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52, 558-570.

68.

Thoits

P. A.

(1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Extra Issue), 53-79.

69.

Thomas

(1937). Do not go gentle into that good night. The poems of Dylan Thomas. New York, NY: New Directions.

70.

Tucker

J. S.

Friedman

H. S.

(1996). Emotion, personality, and health. In Magai

McFadden

S. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of emotion, adult development, and aging (pp. 307-326). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

71.

Turner

R. J.

Avison

(2003). Status variations in stress exposure among young adults: Implications for the interpretation of prior research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 488-505.

72.

Turner

R. J.

Lloyd

D. A.

Taylor

(2006). Physical disability and mental health: An epidemiology of psychiatric and substance disorders. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 214-223.

73.

Turner

R. J.

Noh

(1988). Physical disability and depression: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 23-37.

74.

Turner

R. J.

Russell

Glover

Hutto

(2007). The social antecedents of anger proneness in young adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48, 68-83.

75.

U.S. Academy of Science Institute of Medicine. (1991). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

76.

Wheaton

(1994). Sampling the stress universe. In Avison

W. R.

Gotlib

I. H.

(Eds.), Stress and mental health: Contemporary issues and prospects for the future (pp. 77-114). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

77.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socioeconomic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 335-351.

78.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

79.

Yip

Gee

G. C.

Takeuchi

D. T.

(2008). Racial discrimination and psychological distress: The impact of ethnic identity and age among immigrant and United States-born Asian adults. Developmental Psychology, 44, 787-800.

80.

Zautra

A. J.

Reich

J. W.

(1983). Life events and perceptions of life quality: Developments in a two-factor approach. Journal of Community Psychology, 11(2), 121-132.

The Influence of Stressor Exposure and Psychosocial Resources on the Age–Anger Relationship

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Conceptualizing Age Variation in Anger

A Stress and Coping Perspective on Age and Anger

Summary of Hypotheses

Research Design

Sample

Measures

Anger

Stressor exposure

Social resources

Personal resources

Level of limitation

Analytic Strategy

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References