Subjective Social Status and Mental Health Outcomes: The Role of Mindfulness

Abstract

Positive personal resources have been shown to buffer the relationship between low subjective social status and poor mental health outcomes. However, limited data exist in relation to the role of mindfulness. The current study investigated how mindfulness moderates the relationship between subjective social status with life satisfaction and subjective well-being. Three hundred and twenty-two adults completed measures assessing subjective social status, as measured by the society and community ladders, mindfulness, life satisfaction, and well-being. Using PROCESS, a macro for SPSS and SAS, mindfulness was found to significantly moderate the relationship between society ladder and life satisfaction (△R² = .02, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.93, −0.15], p = .007) as well as the community ladder and life satisfaction (△R² = .01, 95% CI [−.92, −0.11], p = .013). No significant moderating effect was found between the society ladder and subjective well-being (95% CI [−0.59, 1.73], p = .335) or the community ladder and subjective well-being (95% CI [−0.82, 1.54], p = .551). These findings underscore the value of investigating how positive personal resources, such as mindfulness, impact the subjective social status-well-being relationship. Additional research examining the subjective social status–health relationship through a strengths-based lens will be fruitful in identifying resources that promote positive outcomes in the face of economic marginalization.

Keywords

subjective social status socioeconomic status strengths-based mindfulness mental health

Subjective Social Status and Mental Health Outcomes: The Role of Mindfulness

Substantial evidence exists for the association between economic marginalization and poorer mental health outcomes, such as depressive symptoms (Hoebel et al., 2017). While it is important to acknowledge that people with economic marginalization face greater contextual stressors compared to people with economic privilege, examining outcomes that consider the continuum of well-being, as described by the dual-factor model, is also valuable (Rashid, 2015; Wang et al., 2011). The dual-factor model invites a strengths-based approach, which emphasizes identifying factors that promote positive mental health and well-being (Xie, 2013). Applying a strengths-based approach, the current study examined mindfulness as a moderator of the relationship between subjective social status, a reflection of multiple facets of economic marginalization, with subjective well-being and life satisfaction. It was hypothesized that the benefits of mindfulness on subjective well-being and life satisfaction would be most pronounced among people with low subjective social status.

Economic Marginalization and Health from a Traditional Mental Health Model

Research has shown a relationship between economic marginalization and poorer health outcomes (Stringhini et al., 2017). For example, Meyer et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between socioeconomic status and health outcomes in a sample of nearly 45,000 adults living in the United States. Results showed that greater socioeconomic status, defined as a composite score using education and income, was associated with better mental health, such as decreased feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness, and greater self-reported general health (Meyer et al., 2014). In addition, a meta-analysis of 43 studies concluded that lower socioeconomic status is associated with elevated inflammatory markers (Muscatell et al., 2018); further, chronic inflammation has been linked with adverse mental and physical health outcomes (Ershler & Keller, 2000).

Subjective Social Status and Health

Economic marginalization is often measured through singular indicators, such as education, occupation, and income (Adler, 2009). The inclusion of only singular objective indicators of economic marginalization and the inconsistency in measurement across studies presents a gap in the literature (Adler, 2009; Liu, 2012). Indicators of economic marginalization that capture a more complete perception and experience of economic inequality, including access to resources and economic privilege, are needed (Liu, 2012). One approach to acknowledging and measuring economic marginalization more holistically is the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Stewart, 2007; Callan et al., 2015). There are two variations of this scale: the society ladder and the community ladder (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Stewart, 2007). The society ladder asks people to determine their place in the context of the United States after considering money, education, and occupation. The society ladder reflects these objective indicators as well as other relevant details like material possessions, such as vehicles, housing, and clothing (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Stewart, 2007; Brown et al., 2008; Singh-Manoux et al., 2003). The community ladder asks people to consider their standing in the context of their “self-defined community” (Zell et al., 2018, p. 4). This ladder leaves the conceptualization of “standing” up to the respondent (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Stewart, 2007). Research has shown that low subjective social status is associated with poorer mental health outcomes (Kraus et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2014; Senn et al., 2014). In a meta-analysis of 38 studies, people who perceived themselves as having higher subjective social status, defined using the society and community ladders, were healthier, as measured by mental and physical health, as compared to people who perceived themselves as having lower subjective social status (Zell et al., 2018). While higher ratings on the society and community ladders were both associated with positive outcomes, each ladder has been shown to predict unique variance in health outcomes (Cundiff et al., 2013; Zell et al., 2018). However, few studies have investigated the continuum of well-being, such as subjective well-being and life satisfaction, in relation to subjective social status. Based on the existing literature, it seems reasonable to expect that people with high subjective social status will have higher rates of subjective well-being and life satisfaction, compared to people with low subjective social status.

Subjective Social Status and Positive Mental Health from a Strengths-Based Approach

The reserve capacity model (RCM; Gallo & Matthews, 2003) is one framework that can be used to understand the role of psychosocial variables in the association between low subjective social status and health outcomes. The RCM posits that people with low socioeconomic status face more chronic stressors that deplete both social and emotional resources and ultimately contribute to adverse mental health outcomes. More specifically, chronic stressors lead to a diminished capacity to manage stress, subsequently increasing vulnerability to negative thoughts and emotions. The model incorporates two major explanations for diminished resources in the context of low socioeconomic status: (1) frequent exposure to negative, stressful events and (2) few opportunities for the individual to develop and replenish resources. Consistent with relationships depicted in the RCM, protective factors may also buffer the effects of low socioeconomic status on health. Studies indicate that positive personal resources such as self-esteem, optimism, and interpersonal support have been shown to relate to healthy coping strategies and a decreased physical response to stressors (Gallo & Matthews, 2003).

Research on positive resources has primarily focused on sense of control, self-esteem, optimism, and forms of social support as moderators that mitigate the relationship between economic marginalization and adverse health outcomes (Matthews & Gallo, 2011). One potential psychological resource that has received little attention is mindfulness. Mindfulness is grounded in Buddhism, among other contemplative traditions, and has received increased attention in the United States over the past few decades in relation to its mental health benefits (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Coffey et al., 2010). Mindfulness is defined as “awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 64) or as Thich Nhat Hanh (1976), Zen monk, poet, and peace activist, defined mindfulness, “keeping one’s consciousness alive to the present reality” (p. 11). Greater mindfulness is associated with better mental health, such as decreased depression symptoms, decreased anxiety, increased emotion regulation (Coffey et al., 2010), and improved life satisfaction (Kong et al., 2014). While studies have shown that mindfulness can buffer the effects of stress (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown-Iannuzzi et al., 2014), mindfulness has not received as much attention in the relationship between subjective social status with subjective well-being and life satisfaction.

The Current Study

The current study sought to examine the role of mindfulness in the relationship between subjective social status with subjective well-being and with life satisfaction. While the relationship between subjective social status, psychological variables, and mental health outcomes is typically evaluated through the lens of the deficit model (Euteneuer, 2014; Zell et al., 2018), we evaluated this relationship utilizing a strengths-based approach—exploring how mindfulness is related to well-being and life satisfaction. Based on the RCM (Gallo & Matthews, 2003) and the existing literature (e.g., Gallo et al., 2005), we predicted that increased mindfulness would moderate the relationship between subjective social status, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction. In particular, we predicted that the benefits of mindfulness would be highest for people with low subjective social status, whereas the benefits for high subjective social status would be less pronounced.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Cross-sectional data were collected from 322 participants using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as part of a broader study examining socioeconomic position and self-reported health. Inclusion criteria were age 18 or older, in a romantic relationship, and living in the United States at the time of participation (Mitchell et al., 2019). Data collected via MTurk have been shown to maintain good psychometric properties and can increase socioeconomic and ethnic diversity of a sample compared to physical data collection methods (Casler et al., 2013; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2013). MTurkers have also been found to be more attentive than other samples, such as college students (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016). Only people who had a master’s qualification within the MTurk system, which means they have consistently maintained accuracy and attentiveness across MTurk tasks, were eligible for the study (FAQs, n.d.). The study focused on economic marginalization in the United States; thus, it was restricted by geographical location.

The current analyses focused on subjective social status, mindfulness, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction. Participants were compensated $4.00 via MTurk following completion of the survey. This amount is higher than the average hourly rate for MTurk, which is $1.38 (Horton & Chilton, 2010). This amount of payment for participants was chosen based on the federal minimum hourly wage guidelines in the United States and the amount of time participants were expected to spend on the study (United States Department of Labor, 2018). Following completion of the survey items, participants were thanked for their time and given a unique completion code to enter into MTurk to receive compensation. The University of Louisville Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Measures

Demographics

Data on participant age, relationship status, education level, gender identity, and racial/ethnic identity were collected through MTurk. Participants had the option to self-describe race/ethnicity and gender. Data was collected in reference to gender identity and included options of male, female, non-binary, and genderqueer. Based on current updated APA guidelines, these options would have been different (e.g., including man and woman rather than male and female).

Subjective Social Status

Subjective social status was measured using two one-item versions of the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 1994; Adler & Stewart, 2007). The two versions of this measure asked respondents to place themselves on a 10-rung ladder that reflects either their social standing in the United States, based upon annual household income, education level, and occupation status (society ladder), or their social standing in the context of their own community (community ladder). Based on the ladder, a score of one indicates lower perceived social standing and a score of 10 indicates higher perceived social standing; thus, higher scores indicate greater subjective social status. These ladders have been increasingly used in research (Zell et al., 2018) and show distinct associations with mental and physical health outcomes, compared to objective measures of economic marginalization (Adler, 2009).

Mindfulness

Mindfulness was measured using the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). This 15-item questionnaire assesses an individual’s level of mindfulness, specifically related to awareness of the present moment (e.g., “I rush through activities without being really attentive to them”; Brown & Ryan, 2003). Using the MAAS, higher scores are indicative of greater mindfulness. Consistent with other studies (Brown & Ryan, 2003), the current study found a Cronbach’s alpha of .94.

Outcomes

Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; ), which is a 5-item measure assessing an individual’s overall satisfaction with life (e.g., “So far, I have gotten the important things I want in my life”; Diener et al., 1985). Responses based on a seven-point Likert-type scale (“strongly disagree” = 1 to “strongly agree” = 7) are summed for a total life satisfaction score with higher scores indicating greater levels of life satisfaction. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the SWLS was .93, which is consistent with findings of other studies (Corrigan et al., 2013).

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective psychological well-being was measured using the World Health Organization (WHO) Well-Being Index, which is a 5-item survey based on a 6-point Likert-type scale (WHO-5; Krieger et al., 2014). Items assess frequency of positive mood and interest in life (e.g., “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits”), with responses ranging from zero to five (“at no time” = 0 to “all of the time” = 5; Krieger et al., 2014). A raw total score is calculated by summing all responses, with 25 as the highest possible value. Percentage scores are calculated by multiplying the total raw score by four to produce a score ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better well-being. Consistent with prior work (Topp et al., 2015), percentage scores were used for the current study. In the current study, the WHO-5 Cronbach’s alpha was .93, similar to prior research (Krieger et al., 2014).

Statistical Analyses

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp, 2019) and PROCESS v2.13 (Hayes, 2013). Prior to beginning data analysis, key assumptions for performing moderation analyses were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all participants. Associations among variables of interest were analyzed using Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations, as appropriate. In order to examine the moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between subjective social status (society ladder or community ladder) and positive mental health outcomes (i.e., life satisfaction and subjective well-being), four models were tested using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). Control variables included age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education level. Five cases were excluded from moderation analyses due to missing values. The moderation was evaluated at one standard deviation above and below the mean. To discern the exact point at which mindfulness moderated the relationship of subjective social status and the respective outcomes, the Johnson–Neyman technique was utilized (Hayes, 2013). This technique tests all levels of the moderator (e.g., mindfulness) in order to determine the point at which the relationship between the predictor (e.g., subjective social status) and outcome(s) (e.g., subjective well-being and life satisfaction) are no longer significant (Carden et al., 2017; Johnson & Neyman, 1936). To better clarify the relationships between subjective social status, mindfulness, and the outcomes, follow-up analyses using subjective social status as a moderator were also conducted.

Results

Sample Characteristics and Relationships Among Key Variables

Data screening showed that all participants were aged 18 or older. In terms of geographical location, 14 participants reported residing outside of the United States and were therefore excluded from further analyses. One participant did not respond to this item and was retained. Screening also showed that 37 participants reported being single. Because the criterion of being in a romantic relationship was not theoretically relevant for these analyses, these participants were retained for analyses, resulting in a sample of 308 participants. The mean age of participants was 39.5 (SD = 10.7) years old. The majority of participants identified as female with three people who declined to respond. Participants also provided information about their racial/ethnic identity and relationship status (see Table 1 for full sociodemographic characteristics). Given the limited variability (see Table 1), gender (45.5% male/53.6% female), race/ethnicity (77.6% White/21.1% People of Color), and education level (37.0% less than a college degree/62.7% college degree or more) were recoded into dichotomous variables for analyses.

Table 1

Demographic, Subjective Social Status, and Outcome Measures

Variable		N/Mean	%/SD
Race^a	White	239	77.6
	Asian	19	6.2
	Black or African American	20	6.5
	Biracial	9	2.9
	Latinx	8	2.6
	American Indian or Alaskan Native	7	2.3
	Multiracial	2	0.6
Gender^b	Male	140	45.5
Gender^b	Female	165	53.6
Relationship status	Single	37	12.0
	In a relationship	113	36.7
	Married	151	49.0
	Divorced	5	1.6
	Widowed	1	0.3
Education	Less than a college degree	114	37.0
Education	College degree or higher	193	62.7
Subjective Social Status^c	Community	4.90	1.71
Subjective Social Status^c	Society	4.67	1.81
MAAS^c		4.40	1.00
SWLS^c		21.72	8.51
Well-being^c		57.12	24.60

Race was recoded dichotomously (0 = White; 1 = People of Color) for analyses.

Data was collected in reference to gender identity and included options of female, male, non-binary, genderqueer, prefer to self-describe, and prefer not to disclose. Based on inclusive language guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2021), these options would be presented differently now.

Variable information is presented as means/standard deviations for those denoted.

Mean scores for mindfulness (M = 4.4, SD = 1.00), subjective well-being (M = 57.1, SD = 24.60), and life satisfaction (M = 21.72, SD = 8.51) in the current sample were consistent with prior studies (Brown & Ryan, 2003; MacKillop & Anderson, 2007; Pavot & Diener, 1993; 2008; Topp et al., 2015). Correlations among subjective social status, mindfulness, subjective well-being, life satisfaction, and other key variables can be found in Table 2. As expected, greater subjective social status, as measured by both the society and community ladders, was significantly positively associated with mindfulness, subjective well-being, and satisfaction with life.

Table 2

Correlations Between Variables of Interest

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1 Gender	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2 Edu.	−.072	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
3 Race	−.069	.069	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
4 Age	.130*	−.038	−.268**	—	—	—	—	—	—
5 COM	−.114*	.262**	.044	−.075	—	—	—	—	—
6 SOC	−.034	.252**	.026	−.017	.875**	—	—	—	—
7 MAAS	.016	.104	−.065	.060	.152**	.163**	—	—	—
8 SWLS	.044	.129*	−029	−.053	.428**	.455**	.378**	—	—
9 WHO	−.107	.093	−.030	.009	.309**	.300**	.495**	.610*	—

Note. Spearman’s correlations were used when education, race, and gender were included. COM = community ladder; SOC = society ladder; MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; WHO = WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (WHO-5). Education: 0 = less than a college education, 1 = college education or higher; race: 0 = white, 1 = person of color; gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

*p ≤ 0.05; **p < 0.01. Sample size ranged between 303 and 308.

Subjective Social Status, Mindfulness, and Well-Being

Contrary to the hypothesis, no significant moderating effect was found for mindfulness on the relationship between the society ladder and subjective well-being (b = 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−0.59, 1.73], p = .335). Similarly, no significant moderating effect was found for mindfulness on the relationship between the community ladder and subjective well-being (b = 0.36, 95% CI [−0.82, 1.54], p = .551).

Subjective Social Status, Mindfulness, and Life Satisfaction

The overall regression model with the society ladder, mindfulness, and life satisfaction was significant (see Table 3). There was a significant interaction between the society ladder and mindfulness (△R² = .02, p = .007) in predicting life satisfaction, even after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education level. The interaction was probed by testing the conditional effects of the society ladder at three levels of mindfulness: one standard deviation below the mean, at the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean. Higher ratings on the society ladder were significantly related to higher life satisfaction when mindfulness was one standard deviation below the mean (M = 3.39, p < .001), at the mean (M = 4.39, p < .001), and above the mean (M = 5.39, p < .001). In addition, when the interaction was further probed using the Johnson–Neyman technique, the relationship between the society ladder and satisfaction with life remained significant across all levels of mindfulness observed (see Figure 1). This effect remained significant in a follow-up analysis with the community ladder as an additional control variable.

Table 3

Moderation Analysis for Model With Society Ladder and Life Satisfaction

Predictors	(b)	Se	95% CI	△R²	p-value
Age	−0.07	0.04	−0.15, 0.01		.09
Gender	1.10	0.82	−0.52, 2.70		.18
Race/ethnicity	−1.22	1.02	−3.22, 0.78		.23
Education level	−0.06	0.86	−1.76, 1.63		.94
Society ladder	4.20*	0.86	2.51, 5.89		< .001
Mindfulness	5.23*	1.02	3.22, 7.25		< .001
Society ladder x mindfulness	−0.54*	0.20	−0.93, −0.15	.02	.007
Total R²	0.34				< .001

Figure 1.

Society ladder and life satisfaction moderated by low, medium, and high levels of mindfulness.

The overall regression model with the community ladder, mindfulness, and life satisfaction was significant (see Table 4). There was a significant interaction between the community ladder and mindfulness (△R² = .01, p = .013) in predicting life satisfaction, even after controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education level. All regression coefficients for the model are reported in Table 4. The interaction was probed by testing the conditional effects of the community ladder at three levels of mindfulness: one standard deviation below the mean, at the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean. Higher ratings on the community ladder were significantly related to higher life satisfaction when mindfulness was one standard deviation below the mean (M = 3.39, p < .001), at the mean (M = 4.39, p < .001), and above the mean (M = 5.39, p < .001). In addition, when the interaction was further probed using the Johnson–Neyman technique, the relationship between the community ladder and satisfaction with life remained significant across all levels of mindfulness observed (see Figure 2). This effect remained significant in a follow-up analysis with the society ladder as an additional control variable.

Table 4

Moderation Analysis for Model With Community Ladder and Life Satisfaction

Predictors	(b)	Se	95% CI	△R²	p-value
Age	−0.05	0.04	−0.13, 0.03		.19
Gender	1.43	0.84	−0.21, 3.08		.09
Race/ethnicity	−1.03	1.03	−3.07, 1.00		.32
Education level	−0.12	0.88	−1.85, 1.61		.89
Community ladder	4.10*	0.91	2.32, 5.89		< .001
Mindfulness	5.31*	1.11	3.12, 7.51		< .001
Community ladder x mindfulness	−0.51*	0.21	−0.92, −0.11	.01	.01
Total R²	0.31				< .001

Figure 2.

Community ladder and life satisfaction moderated by low, medium, and high levels of mindfulness.

To better understand the relationships among subjective social status, mindfulness, and life satisfaction, regression models were also tested with subjective social status as the moderator, as opposed to mindfulness. Analyses using the Johnson–Neyman technique determined that the relationship between mindfulness and life satisfaction was significant for people reporting subjective social status under eight. Specifically, the relationship between mindfulness and life satisfaction was significant at ladder rankings of six and below for the society ladder (p = .010) and at ladder rankings of seven and below for the community ladder (p = .013). When considering these findings together and that respondents provide rankings in whole numbers, the most meaningful interpretation of these findings is that significant relationships emerge for people reporting subjective social status ratings below eight.

Discussion

The current study demonstrated that subjective social status interacts with mindfulness in predicting life satisfaction. Specifically, the relationship between subjective social status and life satisfaction was moderated at every level of mindfulness observed. This study replicates research on the relationship between subjective social status and health outcomes (Singh-Manoux et al., 2005; Zell et al., 2018), and extends this work by showing that mindfulness amplifies the positive relationship between subjective social status and life satisfaction. This result was consistent for both the society and community ladders. Examination of the relationships among subjective social status, mindfulness, and life satisfaction with subjective social status as the moderator showed that greater mindfulness was associated with higher life satisfaction in people who reported subjective social status ratings below eight. In this sample, ratings were observed across the full range of the ladders (i.e., 1 to 10), with the averages falling between a 4 and a 5. While the factors that inform ladder ratings vary across people and samples (Adler, 1994; Singh-Manoux et al., 2003) and warrant further exploration, these findings indicate that mindfulness amplified life satisfaction across most subjective social status ratings in this sample (i.e., below seven was 84.1% of the sample for the society ladder and below eight was 93.5% of the sample for the community ladder).

The RCM is a framework to organize the psychosocial factors that contribute to the relationship between economic marginalization and health outcomes (Gallo & Matthews, 2003). While research has assessed the role of positive personal factors, such as optimism and locus of control within the RCM, fewer studies have focused on positive resources or strengths in the context of subjective social status (Dueweke et al., 2015; Howarter & Bennett, 2013; Kan et al., 2015), with no known data related to mindfulness. Greater mindfulness has the potential to decrease reactivity to stressors at both the emotional and physiological level, thus mitigating the negative health effects of those stressors (Brown-Iannuzzi et al., 2014; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017). This conclusion has been supported by research (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown-Iannuzzi et al., 2014; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017). The current study demonstrated that mindfulness may amplify the likelihood that people can experience life satisfaction.

While several theoretical models exist describing how life satisfaction may relate to well-being, life satisfaction is considered to be a sub-domain of subjective well-being in each model (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). Given that life satisfaction is often considered a component of subjective well-being (Busseri & Sadava, 2011), it is notable that mindfulness played a moderating role in models with life satisfaction but not subjective well-being. Diener (1984) posited that subjective well-being is composed of three components: life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. Models conceptualizing the relationship between the three factors of subjective well-being differ; yet, several models posit that life satisfaction accounts for judgments or evaluation of life, whereas positive and negative affect account for emotional reactions to life (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). The theoretical distinction between subjective well-being and life satisfaction is also supported by empirical data (e.g., correlations ranging from r = .39 to r = .65; Cowan, 2019; Leung et al., 2011). As such, examining the role of mindfulness in models with subjective social status and affect may provide more insight into the discrepancy in findings between life satisfaction and subjective well-being. Additionally, it is possible that this finding is a result of the two outcomes requiring different degrees of perspective taking. Life satisfaction calls on someone to engage in reflection about their satisfaction from a holistic lens spanning their full lived experience, as opposed to subjective well-being, which asks people to reflect on feelings and mood within a specific 2-week time period. Higher levels of mindfulness indicate that one stays present in the current moment, which could support the process of perspective taking that is involved in life satisfaction. Additional research on perspective taking and intrapersonal mindfulness in relation to positive mental health outcomes will help further explicate this unexpected result (Pratscher et al., 2018).

Given that the current findings indicated that even small increases in mindfulness can amplify the relationship between subjective social status and life satisfaction, the accessibility of mindfulness resources warrants further attention. Some resources that foster increased mindfulness, such as courses and retreats, are most accessible to people with greater economic resources. Therefore, there needs to be increased efforts to enhance accessibility for people living with less economic resources (Blum, 2014). In recent years, research has demonstrated that digital and short-term mindfulness interventions and education-based programs, which may be more accessible, show promising benefits and could be meaningful methods to promote mental health (Hall et al., 2018; Mrazek et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2014; Visted et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that most intervention research has disproportionately focused on middle-to-high income White people (Chin et al., 2019), and some research suggests that mindfulness may be harmful for certain populations (Kaufmann et al., 2020). In the current study, our hope was to increase the racial and economic diversity of the sample by using the MTurk platform to recruit participants. While variability emerged in subjective social status ratings, participants in the study were predominately White with some type of educational degree. Therefore, as efforts to increase the availability of accessible, affordable mindfulness-focused preventive interventions and resources continues, thoughtful consideration of when mindfulness might be contraindicated (e.g., Kaufmann et al., 2020) warrants attention.

In addition to taking a strengths-based approach, the current study considered the dual-factor model (Rashid, 2015; Wang et al., 2011) or the continuum of well-being in the examination of the relationship between economic marginalization and mental health. In contrast, most of the existing research has focused on subjective social status in relation to poor health outcomes, consistent with the traditional mental health model. In a meta-analysis of 56 studies examining subjective social status and health outcomes, only three studies included well-being or life satisfaction, with most studies focusing exclusively on clinical outcomes (e.g., depression, hypertension) (Zell et al., 2018). A framework that highlights outcomes like well-being and life satisfaction operates from the position that health is about more than decreasing risk—it is also about positive outcomes such as meaning-making, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction. Research conducted from the lens of a dual-factor model of mental health can provide additional insight into the continuum of mental and physical health that is not captured when examining risk and mortality alone.

This study examined the relationships between subjective social status, mindfulness, life satisfaction, and subjective well-being. This approach considered personal strengths that people utilize when facing stressors related to economic marginalization. In addition, our measurement of subjective social status provided space for people to consider a multidimensional conceptualization of economic marginalization, including factors like wealth and debt; however, it did not consider upstream variables, such as institutional practices, laws, and healthcare practices, relevant for understanding the relationship between economic marginalization and health (Braveman et al., 2011; Cole, 2009). These upstream factors are crucial to understanding the intrapersonal context of economic marginalization. Research that incorporates these upstream factors along with intrapersonal factors will provide greater implications for the benefits of structural changes on individual well-being and health.

Limitations

These findings must be situated within the study limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data means that causal attributions cannot be determined. This type of data also informed the type of analyses used, specifically encouraging the use of moderation rather than mediation. Mediation analyses would allow for investigation of the role of mindfulness as a pathway between subjective social status and life satisfaction. In addition, future studies that utilize longitudinal data would be helpful to understand the durability of this relationship and how it might change over time.

Second, the sample was not fully representative of the United States population. The predominantly White sample had a lower proportion of participants who identify as Latinx or Black compared to United States census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Given that People of Color experience disproportionately greater economic marginalization compared to White people due to racism and classism (Beech et al., 2021, it is possible that the benefits of mindfulness may be more pronounced in a sample with greater racial and ethnic diversity. However, additional research examining mindfulness among People of Color is needed (Bhambhani & Gallo, 2021; Chin et al., 2019). In addition, approximately two-thirds of the study population achieved a college degree or higher, in contrast to the United States census estimate that one in three residents of the United States have attained a college degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Thus, relationships among the study constructs may vary in samples with greater variability in multiple indicators of economic marginalization. Further, the sample was drawn from a broader project that included an inclusion criterion that participants be in a romantic relationship. Of note, data screening revealed that 37 participants self-identified as single. Given that being in a romantic relationship was not a theoretically relevant inclusion criterion for the current examination, these participants were retained for these analyses. Even though some single people were included, these numbers do not reflect the broader United States population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). There is some evidence that there are psychological benefits to being married, such as higher levels of life satisfaction and subjective well-being (DeMaris, 2018; Williams, 2003). Of note, our sample demonstrated mean scores of subjective well-being and life satisfaction, which align with other study samples including people who identify as single (e.g., Hajos et al., 2013; Krieger et al., 2014; Park et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the current findings may not generalize to study samples with a greater number of single people.

Third, the conceptualization of mindfulness in this study was focused on being aware and attentive to the present moment. While scholars generally share this definition of mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn, 2015), data indicate that additional components of mindfulness are important to consider (e.g., acceptance; Leach et al., 2020; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017), including in their relationship between indicators of economic marginalization (e.g., income) and psychological well-being (e.g., Sugiura & Sugiura, 2018). Studies examining the implications of the components of mindfulness in the relationship between subjective social status and mental health outcomes would be fruitful.

Fourth, and finally, the variables in each respective moderation model accounted for 32% to 34% of variance in life satisfaction. Of note, the interactions between the ladders and mindfulness contributed only 1% to 2% additional variance in life satisfaction. Thus, while statistically significant, it is possible that these are spurious interaction effects and their replication should be explored in future studies. While these small effects make it difficult to determine the translational value of the interactions, the significant contributions of subjective social status and mindfulness on life satisfaction should be considered in health promotion initiatives.

Conclusions

In sum, the findings of the current study highlight the benefits of mindfulness on the association between subjective social status and mental health outcomes, specifically life satisfaction. Notably, mindfulness did not moderate the relationship between subjective social status and subjective well-being. Mindfulness may be fruitful to incorporate in future applied research on well-being, including physical and objective measures of well-being and mental health among adults experiencing economic marginalization and low subjective social status. In addition to identifying risk factors associated with economic marginalization and health outcomes, it is important to simultaneously explore positive resources. This research will better reflect the continuum of health experiences across economic status rather than centering risk factors and adverse outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by a University of Louisville College of Education and Human Development Research & Faculty Development Grant awarded to Amanda M. Mitchell in 2018.

ORCID iD

Hannah K. Heitz

Author Biographies

Hannah K. Heitz, B.A. is a doctoral student in counseling psychology at the University of Louisville. Her research is focused on social inequities in health and feminist therapy. Complementing her research, she has worked in the healthcare technology field and enjoys clinical practice in a variety of settings.

Amanda M. Mitchell, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Human Development at the University of Louisville. Her research, teaching, and service interests include health equity, socioeconomic disparities in health, and the intersection of mental and physical health.

References

Adler

N. E

. (2009). Health disparities through a psychological lens. American Psychologist, 64(8), 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.663

Adler

N. E.

Boyce

Chesney

M. A.

Cohen

Folkman

Kahn

R. L.

Syme

S. L

. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.1.15

Adler

N.E.

Stewart

(2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health. https://www.macfound.org/networks/research-network-on-socioeconomic-status-health

American Psychological Association . (2021). Inclusive language guidelines . https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf

Beech

B. M.

Ford

Thorpe

R. J.

Jr. Bruce

M. A.

Norris

K. C.

(2021). Poverty, racism, and the public health crisis in America. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 699049. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.699049

Bhambhani

Gallo

. (2021). Developing and adapting a mindfulness-based group intervention for racially and economically marginalized patients in the bronx. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, In Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.04.010

Blum

H. A.

(2014). Mindfulness equity and western buddhism: Reaching people of low socioeconomic status and people of color. International Journal of Dharma Studies, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi-org/10.1186/s40613-014-0010-0

Braveman

Egerter

Williams

D. R

. (2011). The social determinants of health: Coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32(1), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218

Brown-Iannuzzi

J. L.

Adair

K. C.

Payne

B. K.

Richman

L. S.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2014). Discrimination hurts, but mindfulness may help: Trait mindfulness moderates the relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 56(1), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.015

10.

Brown

R. A.

Adler

N. E.

Worthman

C. M.

Copeland

W. E.

Costello

E. J.

Angold

. (2008). Cultural and community determinants of subjective social status among Cherokee and white youth. Ethnicity & Health, 13(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850701837302

11.

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M

. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

12.

Busseri

M. A.

Sadava

S. W

. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310391271

13.

Callan

M. J.

Kim

Matthews

W. J

. (2015). Predicting self-rated mental and physical health: The contributions of subjective socioeconomic status and personal relative deprivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01415

14.

Carden

S. W.

Holtzman

N. S.

Strube

M. J

. (2017). CAHOST: An excel workbook for facilitating the Johnson-Neyman technique for two-way interactions in multiple regression. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01293

15.

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via amazon's mturk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi-org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

16.

Chin

Anyanso

Greeson

. (2019). Addressing diversity in mindfulness research on health: A narrative review using the ADDRESSING framework. Cooper Rowan Medical Journal, 1(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.31986/ISSN.2578-3343_VOL1ISS1.1.2

17.

Coffey

K. A.

Hartman

Fredrickson

B. L

. (2010). Deconstructing mindfulness and constructing mental health: Understanding mindfulness and its mechanisms of action. Mindfulness, 1(4), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010-0033-2

18.

Cole

E. R.

(2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

19.

Corrigan

J. D.

Kolakowsky-Hayner

Wright

Bellon

Carufel

. (2013). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 28(6), 489–491. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000004

20.

Cowan

H. R

. (2019). Can a good life be unsatisfying? Within-person dynamics of life satisfaction and psychological well-being in late midlife. Psychological Science, 30(5), 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619831981

21.

Cundiff

J. M.

Smith

T. W.

Uchino

B. N.

Berg

C. A

. (2013). Subjective social status: Construct validity and associations with psychosocial vulnerability and self-rated health. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-011-9206-1

22.

DeMaris

. (2018). Marriage advantage in subjective well-being: Causal effect or unmeasured heterogeneity? Marriage & Family Review, 54(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017.1359812

23.

Diener

. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

24.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

25.

Dueweke

A. R.

Hurtado

Hovey

J. D

. (2015). Protective psychosocial resources in the lives of Latina migrant farmworkers. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 39(3–4), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000038

26.

Ershler

W. B.

Keller

E. T

. (2000). Age-associated increased interleukin-6 gene expression, late-life diseases, and frailty. Annual Review of Medicine, 51(1), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.51.1.245

27.

Euteneuer

. (2014). Subjective social status and health. Current Opinion in psychiatry, 27(5), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000083

28.

FAQs . (2000). Amazon mechanical Turk. https://www.mturk.com/help

29.

Gallo

L. C.

Bogart

L. M.

Vranceanu

A.-M.

Matthews

K. A.

. (2005). Socioeconomic status, resources, psychological experiences, and emotional responses: A test of the reserve capacity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.386

30.

Gallo

L. C.

Matthews

K. A

. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: Do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.10

31.

Hajos

T. R.

Pouwer

Skovlund

S. E.

Den Oudsten

B. L.

Geelhoed-Duijvestijn

P. H.

Tack

C. J.

Snoek

F. J

. (2013). Psychometric and screening properties of the WHO-5 well-being index in adult outpatients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine: A Journal of the British Diabetic Association, 30(2), Article e63–e69. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12040

32.

Hall

B. J.

Xiong

Guo

Sou

E. K. L.

Chou

U. I.

Shen

(2018). An evaluation of a low intensity mhealth enhanced mindfulness intervention for Chinese university students: A randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry Research, 270, 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.060

33.

Hanh

T.N.

. (1976). Miracle of mindfulness. Beacon.

34.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive turkers: Mturk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

35.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

36.

Hoebel

Maske

U. E.

Zeeb

Lampert

. (2017). Social inequalities and depressive symptoms in adults: The role of objective and subjective socioeconomic status. Plos One, 12(1), Article e0169764. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169764

37.

Horton

J. J.

Chilton

L. B

. (Eds.). (2010). The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on electronic commerce. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1807342.1807376

38.

Howarter

A. D.

Bennett

K. K

. (2013). Perceived discrimination and health-related quality of life: Testing the reserve capacity model in hispanic Americans. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.703973

39.

IBM Corp . (2019). IBM statistics for Mac, version 26.0.

40.

Johnson

P. O.

Neyman

. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.

41.

Kabat-Zinn

. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.

42.

Kabat-Zinn

. (2015). Mindfulness. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1481–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0456-x

43.

Kan

Kawakami

Umeda

. (2015). Mediating role of psychological resources on the association between childhood socioeconomic status and current health in the community adult population of Japan. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22(6), 764–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-015-9476-0

44.

Kaufmann

Rosing

Baumann

. (2020). Being mindful does not always benefit everyone: Mindfulness-based practices may promote alienation among psychologically vulnerable people. Cognition & Emotion, 35(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1825337

45.

Kong

Wang

Zhao

. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Personality and Individual Differences, 56(1), 165–169. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.002

46.

Kraus

M. W.

Adler

Chen

T.-W. D

. (2013). Is the association of subjective SES and self-rated health confounded by negative mood? An experimental approach. Health Psychology, 32(2), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027343

47.

Krieger

Zimmermann

Huffziger

Ubl

Diener

Kuehner

Grosse Holtforth

. (2014). Measuring depression with a well-being index: Further evidence for the validity of the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) as a measure of the severity of depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 156, 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.12.015

48.

Leach

S. M.

Mitchell

A. M.

Salmon

Sephton

S. E.

(2020). Mindfulness, self-reported health, and cortisol: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Health Psychology. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320931184

49.

Leung

A. S. M.

Ha Cheung

Liu

(2011). The relations between life domain satisfaction and subjective well‐being. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111102182

50.

Lindsay

E. K.

Creswell

J. D

. (2017). Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and acceptance theory (MAT). Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011

51.

Liu

W. M

. (2012). Developing a social class and classism consciousness. In Altmaier

E. M.

Hansen

J. I. C.

. (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology: The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 326–345). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342314.013.0012

52.

MacKillop

Anderson

E. J

. (2007). Further psychometric validation of the mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(4), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-007-9045-1

53.

Matthews

K. A.

Gallo

L. C

. (2011). Psychological perspectives on pathways linking socioeconomic status and physical health. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.031809.130711

54.

Meyer

O. L.

Castro-Schilo

Aguilar-Gaxiola

. (2014). Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: A model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1734–1741. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302003

55.

Mitchell

A. M.

Heitz

Leach

S. M.

Berghuis

K. B

. (2019). The intersection of economic resources and health care access in associations with self-reported health: A latent class analysis [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Louisville.

56.

Mrazek

A. J.

Mrazek

M. D.

Cherolini

C. M.

Cloughesy

J. N.

Cynman

D. J.

Gougis

L. J.

Landry

A. P.

Reese

J. V.

Schooler

J. W.

(2019). The future of mindfulness training is digital, and the future is now. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.11.012

57.

Muscatell

K. A.

Brosso

S. N.

Humphreys

K. L

. (2018). Socioeconomic status and inflammation: A meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 25(9), 2189–2199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0259-2

58.

Paolacci

Chandler

. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

59.

Parker

A. E.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Mathis

E. T.

Scull

T. M.

Sims

. (2014). The impact of mindfulness education on elementary school students: Evaluation of the master mind program. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 7(3), 184–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2014.916497

60.

Park

Peterson

(2010). When is the search for meaning related to life satisfaction? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01024.x

61.

Pavot

Diener

. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164

62.

Pavot

Diener

. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946

63.

Pratscher

S. D.

Rose

A. J.

Markovitz

Bettencourt

. (2018). Interpersonal mindfulness: Investigating mindfulness in interpersonal interactions, co-rumination, and friendship quality. Mindfulness, 9(4), 1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0859-y

64.

Rashid

. (2015). Positive psychotherapy: A strength-based approach. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.920411

65.

Scott

K. M.

Al-Hamzawi

A. O.

Andrade

L. H.

Borges

Caldas-de-Almeida

J. M.

Fiestas

Gureje

Karam

E. G.

Kawakami

Lee

Levinson

Lim

C. C. W.

Navarro-Mateu

Okoliyski

Posada-Villa

Torres

Williams

D. R.

Zakhozha

Kessler

R. C

. (2014). Associations between subjective social status and DSM-IV Mental disorders. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(12), 1400–1408. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1337

66.

Senn

T. E.

Walsh

J. L.

Carey

M. P

. (2014). The mediating roles of perceived stress and health behaviors in the relation between objective, subjective, and neighborhood socioeconomic status and perceived health. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 48(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-014-9591-1

67.

Shapiro

D. N.

Chandler

Mueller

P. A

. (2013). Using mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015

68.

Singh-Manoux

Adler

N. E.

Marmot

M. G

. (2003). Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00131-4

69.

Singh-Manoux

Marmot

M. G.

Adler

N. E

. (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status? Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(6), 855–861. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0

70.

Stringhini

Carmeli

Jokela

Avendaño

Muennig

Guida

Ricceri

d’Errico

Barros

Bochud

Chadeau-Hyam

Clavel-Chapelon

Costa

Delpierre

Fraga

Goldberg

Giles

G. G.

Krogh

Kelly-Irving

Zins

. (2017). Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: A multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women. The Lancet, 389(10075), 1229–1237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32380-7

71.

Sugiura

. (2018). Mindfulness as a moderator in the relation between income and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1477. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01477

72.

Topp

C. W.

Østergaard

S. D.

Søndergaard

Bech

. (2015). The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585

73.

United States Department of Labor . (2018). Minimum wage. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage

74.

U.S. Census Bureau . (2019). U.S. Census bureau quick facts: United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI225219

75.

Visted

Vøllestad

Nielsen

M. B.

Nielsen

G. H

. (2015). The impact of group-based mindfulness training on self-reported mindfulness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 6(3), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0283-5

76.

Wang

Zhang

Wang

(2011). Dual-factor model of mental health: Surpass the traditional mental health model. Psychology, 2(8), 767–772. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.28117

77.

Williams

. (2003). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(4), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519794

78.

Xie

. (2013). Strengths-based approach for mental health recovery. Iranian Journal Of Psychiatry And Behavioral Sciences, 7(2), 5–10.

79.

Zell

Strickhouser

J. E.

Krizan

. (2018). Subjective social status and health: A meta-analysis of community and society ladders. Health Psychology, 37(10), 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000667