Hassles and uplifts: including interpersonal events - Wiley Online Library

Stress and Health Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

Hassles and uplifts: including interpersonal events D. J. Maybery1, *, † and D. Graham2 1 2

Latrobe University (Albury/Wodonga), Wodonga, Vic, Australia James Cook University (Cairns), Australia

Summary An examination of hassle and uplift scale factor structures and checklists from daily diary research revealed a paucity of interpersonal events on the former. In addition, interpersonal positive and negative events were found to be prominent predictors of distress and well-being outcomes in diary research. Using Lazarus and Folkman’s appraisal model of stress this paper illustrates day to day interpersonal events as important inclusions on hassle and uplift scales and as predictors underlying the person–environment relationship. The study (n D 124) examined the predictive utility of including a range of interpersonal events to one of the most commonly used hassle and uplift measures (developed by Delongis et al.) in the literature. Four outcomes, encapsulating distress and well-being concepts were used. The Percieved Stress (PSS) and Satisfaction with Life Scales (SWLS) measure global concepts of perceived distress and life satisfaction and the Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS) allowed for investigation of events with dichotomous distress and well-being outcomes. Regression analyses ordered the entry of the interpersonal events to follow the Delongis measures and a new group of events relevant to a University student population. The results supported the notion that groups of both positive and negative interpersonal events were important measures over and above other hassles and uplifts (including the Delongis measure). These findings in combination with diary research suggest that current hassle and uplift scales may inadequately measure daily interpersonal sources of distress and well-being. Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key Words hassles; uplifts; interpersonal events; distress; well-being; life satisfaction; mood; content validity Introduction Up until the 1980s, event measurement was characterized by important life events such as marriages, accidents and deaths until Richard Lazarus and colleagues highlighted that daily hassles are better predictors of negative psychological and somatic * Correspondence to: Dr D. J. Maybery, Latrobe University (Albury/Wodonga), PO BOX 821, Wodonga, Vic, 3689, Australia. Tel: (02) 60583891. † E-mail: [email protected] Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

outcomes.1 It is thought that daily events capture much of the turmoil associated with major life events but also measure the more mundane aspects of daily life.2 Hassles have been defined as the little things arising from daily living that can irritate and distress people2 and uplifts are ‘. . . positive experiences such as the joy derived from manifestations of love, relief at hearing good news, the pleasure of a good nights rest. . .’.1 The most commonly used hassle and uplift scales were developed during the 1980s by Kanner and others1 and a later amended version by Delongis (A. M. Delongis, unpublished data). More recently, Kohn et al. have developed several hassle scales (i.e. an adolescent scale,3 college student version,4 a general adult measure5 ). The Kohn et al. measures probably have greater content validity than the Received 10 June 1999 Accepted 9 November 2000

D. J. Maybery and D. Graham Kanner and DelongisŁ scales but fail to measure uplifts.

General concerns with hassle and uplift measurement Over the years hassle and uplift measurement has received considerable criticism. It has been suggested that the hassle scales of Kanner and Delongis are perhaps flawed because they confound frequency of event occurrence and severity information in each item.6 Hassle items on the Kanner scale are also thought contaminated with outcome measures of stress.4 Others have suggested that items on these scales are not representative of a broad range of population subgroups7 (being designed for a middle-aged population). In addition, the Kanner hassle scale asks subject’s to rate the severity of the The Kanner et al.1 and Delongis (unpublished data) developed measures will be termed as such for ease of expression throughout this paper.

Ł

hassle while the uplift version asks subject’s to rate frequency (see Manual for the Hassle and Uplift Scales8 ). Finally, there has been a general lack of emphasis on positive or uplifting events.9 The contamination of items with outcomes has been of central concern10 leading to Delongis (unpublished data) and colleagues8 improving on the Kanner version by removing items thought confounded with outcomes and rewording others to deemphasize subjective reactions.8 The revised Hassle and Uplift Scales (i.e. Delongis measures) generally accommodate these confounding concerns.3 – 5,10

Events on hassle and uplift scales While these have been important improvements, little research has focused on the content of hassle and uplift scales and their respective subscale relationships with distress and well-being. In particular there may be a lack of interpersonal events on these scales. These are the concerns of this paper. Table I summarizes the factor structures reported

Table I. Common factors on Hassle scales. Author

Kanner et al.1

Sample Scale

Middle agedŁ The Kanner Hassle Scale

Non-interpersonal events Factor summary Time Pressures Time pressures Work Work Money Financial responsibilities Health Health Environment Neighbourhood/ environment Inner concerns Inner concerns Household Household responsibilities Future Future security

Delongis (unpublished data) Middle aged Delongis Hassle Scale

Ł Factor

92

Holm and Holroyd11

University Students Inventory of College Students Recent Life Experiences

University Students The Kanner Hassle Scale

Time pressures

Time pressures Work Financial concerns

Work Finances Health Environmental/ social issues

Health Environmental Inner concerns

Household, home maintenance Developmental challenge Assorted annoyances, academic alienation

Other Interpersonal Events Spouse or partner Family and friends

Kohn et al.4

Personal life Family and friends

Romantic problems General social mistreatment Friendship problems

Family

structure by Lazarus and Folkman.8

Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

Hassles and uplifts in four studies4,8,11 (A. M. Delongis, unpublished data) that used three of the more prominently used hassle scales in the literature (by Kanner, Delongis and Kohn). No uplift factor structure could be found. It appears that Kanner1 and Delongis (unpublished data) did not factor their uplift measures during development and the Manual for the Hassle and Uplift Scales8 does not report any such structures. Although from diverse subject samples (e.g. students to middle-aged) there is considerable similarity and agreement between factors from these studies (Table I), the most notable factors are time pressures, work, money, health, and environment, each represented in at least three of the four studies. Factors reported in at least two studies are inner concerns, family and friends, household, future and personal problems. Three factors on the Kohn scale–assorted annoyances, academic alienation and romantic problems–are not reported in the other three studies. Somewhat surprisingly Table I highlights few interpersonal factors. The Delongis scale has two subscales that could be termed interpersonal (i.e. family/friends and personal life) while the Kohn scale includes romantic problems, social mistreatment and friendship problems. From the two studies reporting factor structures of the Kanner scale (i.e. Kanner et al.1 and Holm and Holroyd11 ) Holm and Holroyd highlight only a single interpersonal (family) factor.11 Overall, this is a small representation when compared to the considerable weighting given to interpersonal items in daily diary research.

Events in diary research Although hassle and uplift scales are the most regularly used daily event measures, diaries are considered the most valid.12 Two diary data collection methods are commonly employed. Participants either employ free event recall of happenings during the recent day, from which, event themes are then generated by the researchers.13 Checklists are also commonly used from which participants choose and record their responses.14 It must be noted that checklists are often summaries of the key themes from earlier research that used free recall by participants.12 In diary research there are generally fewer problems with recall,14 there is less bias by pre-existing emotional problems15 and it allows for testing the transactional theory of stress.12 Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diaries also have considerable drawbacks (for a comprehensive review see Stone and Neale12 ) but as their recall period is short, they can perhaps be regarded as the most valid and reliable daily event measures. Table II highlights the common daily event themes from diary self-report data and checklists. In the studies reviewed factor analysis was not commonly employed to develop the diary event subcategories. Instead items were generally grouped together on a conceptual basis. The development of the various categories was undertaken by the authors of those studies or from previous developers of checklists. Items of an interpersonal nature are well represented on the measures outlined in Table II. Included are such things as activities with family and friends,12 spouse, children, family, friends and social,16 social events,13 family demands and interpersonal conflicts15 and social entertainment and social responsibilities.17 In the four studies almost half of the subscales (themes) are of an interpersonal nature.

Important events on hassle and uplift scales Table III illustrates the most frequently cited events recorded by subjects in hassle and uplift and diary research. It also illustrates correlations between events and distress and well-being outcomes. The aim in compiling this table was not to review all research but to give a general overview of the most frequently recalled events and the important event relationships with outcomes. The examination of correlations between individual events or subscales with distress and well-being outcomes is limited as most researchers aggregate the daily event impact (e.g. total hassles) on outcomes.15 In addition Table III generally illustrates only the negative (hassle) dimension of these scales, with just two studies1,8 highlighting uplift data. This emphasis is consistent with the literature generally. The most frequently reported hassle items in the studies reviewed were related to time constraints. Participant’s reported too many things to do,1 amount of free time (A. M. Delongis, unpublished data) too many interruptions, not enough time for family,19 not enough time to do the things you need to,8 a lot of responsibilities,4 and too many things to do at once.4,5,19 Time-related items featured prominently in all studies except for the elderly sample.18 These items were consistently reported across other Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

93

D. J. Maybery and D. Graham Table II. Common categories within diary measures. Clark and Watson13

Author

Ł

Sample Format

Married, middle aged University Students Assessment of Daily Open-ended format Experience

Stone, Neale and Shiffman14

Non-interpersonal Categories Time Pressures

Work Money Health Household Future Other

Work Financial Health and other Household Goals Personal–leisure

Interpersonal Spouse

Spouse

Children

Children

Family or friends Social

Family–leisure, Friends–relatives Social–leisure

Ł Developed

Overload at home, at work, family demands, other demands (e.g. relatives etc). Financial problems Health problems Solo events, school events, Irritants

Transportation problems

Active participation

Conflicts or tensions with spouse Conflicts or tensions with child Social events

Conflicts or tensions with other person/s

Social entertainment, Social responsibilities

and used in earlier studies by Stone and Neale12 and Stone.16

age ranges and for different occupational samples (e.g. students, community residing adults, blue-collar workers). Other frequently reported hassles were concerns about own health18 or the health of a family member,1,19 and weight.1,8 The few interpersonal hassles included your children (A. M. Delongis, unpublished data) and problems with aging parents.19 The most frequently reported non-interpersonal uplifts included completing a task, feeling healthy, getting enough sleep,1 praying, thinking about the past and feeling safe.18 Interpersonal uplifts were relating well with spouse and friends,1 visits, planning or writing to someone, and socializing.18 As highlighted earlier few studies highlighted uplift data. As indicated earlier, reporting of hassle or uplift subscale relationships with outcomes is not common in the literature. Generally analyses only include total hassle or uplift scores. The exception in relation to interpersonal events in 94

Bolger, DeLongis, Watson, Clark, Kessler and Schilling15 McIntyre and Hamacker Married couples University Students Daily event checklist Daily Social Activity Ratings


the studies examined here was that Delongis (unpublished data) in her doctoral dissertation highlighted that the subscale family/friends had a moderate correlation with depression, somatic symptoms and daily mood. The data presented in Table III once again shows that interpersonal events appear more frequently in diary research. For example in dairy frequency recordings Stone and Neale12 found that interactions with spouse were almost twice as frequently recorded compared to any other event. Interpersonal events are also consistently correlated with outcomes in diary research. Positive and negative interpersonal or social events have been found to consistently impact on both positive (PA) and negative (NA) affect.13,15,16 In addition, Bolger et al. suggest that ‘Interpersonal conflicts were by far the most distressing events’.15 In summary, diary research has highlighted interpersonal items as prominent daily events that are consistently associated with distress and Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Dependent Variable: Life Event Scale

Bradburn Morale Scale (Bradburn and Caplowitz, 1965); Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1970, 1971). Combined Hassle and Uplift Scales

Middle aged

Frequencies

Frequencies and correlations

Middle aged

Daily Health Record (Verbrugge, 1980, 1983, 1985); Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1970, 1971).

Independent Variable: The Hassle Scale (Kanner et al.1 ) The Uplift Scale (Kanner et al.1 )

Kanner et al.1 also see the Manual for the Hassle and Uplift and scales, Lazarus and Folkman,8

Delongis (unpublished data)

Variables

Study/sample/ design

Hassles Your Children Taking care of paperwork Family-related obligations Amount of free time Your workload

Hassles Concerns about weight Health of family member Rising prices of common goods Home maintenance (inside) Too many things to do Uplifts Relating well with spouse Relating well with friends Completing a task Feeling healthy Getting enough sleep

Most cited items/events

(Continued overleaf )

Household, work, health and family/friends correlated with somatic symptoms and daily mood Environment correlated with somatic symptoms and finances with daily mood

All factors correlated with depression (0.28 to 0.41)

n/a

Events related to outcomes

Table III. Most cited events (items and or subscales) and correlations with distress and well-being outcomes from hassle and uplift and diary.

Hassles and uplifts


95

96

Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Uplift Scale (Kanner et al.1 ).

Blue collar workers

The Hassle Scale (Kanner et al.1 ).


Ivancevich19

Frequencies Young (1987 as cited in Lazarus and Folkman, 1992).

The Uplift Scale (Kanner et al.1 ).


Variables

Frequencies

Miller and Wilcox

18


Table III. (continued).

Hassle Troubling thoughts about future Misplacing or losing things Concerns about weight Not enough time to do the things you need to

Hassles Worries about physical illness Concerns about health in general Being lonely Too much time on hands Declining physical abilities. Uplifts Praying Thinking about the past Visits, planning or writing someone Feeling safe Socializing Hassles–frequencies Health of family member Too many things to do Misplacing or losing things Trouble relaxing Too many interruptions Unchallenging work Hassle–severity Problems with aging parents Too many things to do Not enough time for family Prejudice and discrimination Not enough personal energy Concerns about money for emergencies


n/a

n/a

n/a


D. J. Maybery and D. Graham



Correlations

Middle-aged married men

Frequencies Stone16

Middle-aged, married couples

Frequencies Stone and Neale12

Average age 28 years

Kohn and Macdonald5

University Students Frequencies

Community residing adults. Frequencies Kohn et al.4

Nowlis Mood Adjective Checklist (Nowlis, 1965)

Dairy: Assessment of Daily Experience

Dairy: Assessment of Daily Experience

Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al.20 ).

Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al.20 ) Survey of Recent Life Experiences

Inventory of College Students Recent Life Experiences

Not illustrated

Close interaction with spouse You getting on well with children Hobbies, reading, letter writing General housework Family-related duties non-home Children getting on well together General contact with relatives Dining or entertaining Emotional interaction with boss Socializing with staff

Too many things to do at once Important decisions about future Important decisions about education

A lot of responsibilities Too many things to do at once Struggling to meet own standards

(Continued overleaf )

Significant correlations higher than 0.1 (negative relationship where shown) Desirable event with NA; spouse(-), family-leisure (-) Undesirable event with NA; work, spouse, health Desirable event with PA; work (-), spouse, children, family leisure, friends-relatives, social leisure

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hassles and uplifts


97

98

Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Positive and negative mood (Watson, 1984); Bradburn Morale Scale (Bradburn & Caplowitz, 1965); Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1970, 1971).

Japanese College students

Correlations

University students.

Dairy: Daily Social Activity Ratings PANAS Personality variables.

Affect Balance Scale (Derogatis, 1975).

Married couples

Pooled within-person analysis Watson et al.17

Dairy: Daily Event Checklist

Bolger et al.15

t-tests.

Dairy: Open-ended response format

Variables

Clark and Watson13


Table III. (continued).

Not illustrated

Not illustrated

Not illustrated


Social activity related to PA and not NA At least one subscale was associated with PA but no individual subscale was consistently associated with PA

High NA was associated with arguments, hassles, relationship concerns and health problems Interpersonal conflict variables had highest influence on mood

Undesirable event with PA; Spouse (-), Family-leisure(-) Social events showed strongest relationship to PA. Almost all non-sedentary social events associated with high PA Low PA was associated with arguments, home alone, work and health


D. J. Maybery and D. Graham


Hassles and uplifts well-being outcomes. Alternatively interpersonal subscales are not prominent on hassle and uplift measures. They are not frequently identified in hassle and uplift research nor highlighted as significant in correlations with distress and wellbeing outcomes. Some diary researchers suggest ‘. . . that daily stress research, to the extent that it is concerned with the negative events that influence emotional distress, should be reoriented toward the study of interpersonal conflicts’.15 This reorientation appears necessary as far as hassle and uplift scales are concerned. Generally interpersonal events are either absent or secondary to other dayto-day events such as time pressures and health problems.

The present study The central aim of this study was to examine if the predictive utility of the Delongis scales would be enhanced with the inclusion of an additional group of interpersonal events. Also, as part of the development of the Positive and Negative Event Scale (PANE21 ) for students, an additional group of new non-interpersonal events were included. These additional events ensured that the interpersonal events had to be predictors over and above all other non-interpersonal events for this group of subjects (see Appendix A). Four outcome measures consistent with the concepts of either distress or well-being were used here and were chosen for a number of reasons. Firstly the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)20 and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)22 were included as global concepts of perceived stress and life satisfaction. The Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)23 was used in accord with a dichotomous model of distress (P. M. Hart, paper presented at the AARE/NZARE 1992 Joint Conference, Deakin University, Geelong). Positive and negative moods have been found to be separate affective dimensions23 and researchers are consistently highlighting that positive events generally only impact on positive mood and negative events only on negative mood (P. M. Hart, paper presented at the AARE/NZARE 1992 Joint Conference, Deakin University, Geelong).24 – 27 The general aim of this study was to investigate if any additional prediction of distress and wellbeing outcomes would be found with the inclusion of a range of new events for a student population, but more importantly by including interpersonal Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

events. Based on the diary literature it was hypothesized: ž

ž

that newly generated non-interpersonal events, would add utility to the Delongis measure in predicting positive and negative outcomes, and, that a group of interpersonal events would add further to these new non-interpersonal and Delongis events, in regard to outcomes.

Method Sample and procedure Subjects were 123 students drawn from Cairns and Townsville Education, Psychology and Sociology faculties of James Cook University, Australia. The mean age of subjects was 27 years ranging from 17 to 58 years. The 24 (19.5 percent) males had a mean age of 31 years and the 99 (80.5 percent) females were 26 years. Subjects completed and returned the surveys during the final 3 weeks of the 1995 University year and first year psychology students received additional marks as inducement for completion of the survey.

Instruments There were three independent measures including; the Delongis scales, new events relevant to a student population and the interpersonal events. Each subgroup was neutrally worded in accordance with the Delongis measure and to allow for measurement of both hassles and uplifts. As highlighted above the new events and interpersonal subscales were generated for this study and as part of the development of the PANE Scales.21 Life event measures, interview schedules, hassle and uplift scales (A. M. Delongis, unpublished data),1,4,5,26 – 30 diary research and interviews with students revealed nine individuals and groups that a person could be thought to have a hassle and/or an uplift association with (e.g. students, spouse/partner, parents). Also based on the above literature six types of interactions that these individuals/groups could have, were also identified (e.g. conflict, support). When combined they created 54 interpersonal subscale items. Based on the above literature and from student input, 48 new items were generated to be representative of a student population and once again were neutrally worded. The total event pool was also representative of the key life event domains in quality of life research26 Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

99

D. J. Maybery and D. Graham and important life domain stressors and social resources.31 The Delongis, new and interpersonal events are shown in Appendix A.

Dependent variables As highlighted above the PSS,20 SWLS22 and PANAS23 dependent measures were used in this study. The PSS is regarded as a valid generic measure of psychological distress12 and has been found to be correlated with life event scales,20 physical symptomatology,20,32 depression20,32 and anxiety.32 The SWLS has good validity and reliability.22,33 The PANAS also has good reliability23 and NA has been found to be positively related to physical symptomatology, depression, and other measures of affect. PA has a negative correlation with these outcomes.23

Results The predictive utility of the new events over and above the Delongis scale was examined by stepwise regression equations using severity data. The dependent measures were reduced to single scores using principal component analyses. Reliabilities equivalent to those found by the original authors were found. Adding the relevant items created the independent subscales. Table IV summarizes the Pearson correlations between dependent and independent variables.

In terms of correlations the Delongis (0.28), new events (0.35) and interpersonal (0.26) hassle subscales had a positive relationship with the PSS. These events had consistently higher positive correlations with NA (0.59, 0.60, 0.53). In terms of the positive aspect of the model, the Delongis (0.29), new events (0.27) and interpersonal (0.25) uplift subscales had low positive correlations with the SWLS. Once again, PA had consistently higher positive correlations with these measures (0.38, 0.36, 0.41). All of these relationships were significant to the 0.01 alpha level. In accord with the dichotomous model the positive events were not significantly correlated with NA nor were the negative events with PA. The orders of event entries are shown in Table V. The first two analyses illustrate the dichotomous model, regressing only the negative subscales on NA and positive on PA. The PSS and SWLS analyses included both positive and negative events at the relevant steps. With the exception of life satisfaction the interpersonal subscales (when entered at the final step) improved the prediction of outcomes. This result was marginal with the PSS variable but more strongly with the dichotomous outcomes. The new event subscale, provided additional variance to the Delongis hassles in predicting both perceived stress and NA. The new positive measure was not an additional predictor in regard to PA and the SWLS. With the exception of the SWLS, the interpersonal events were significant predictors of outcomes, generally

Table IV. Summary of Pearson correlations between dependent and independent variables. Variable

2

1 2 3 4

PSS NA SWLS PA

5

Delongis hassles

0.28ŁŁ

6

New hassles

0.35ŁŁŁ

0.60ŁŁŁ

7

I/personal hassles

0.26ŁŁ

0.53ŁŁŁ

8

Delongis uplifts

0.19Ł

9

New uplifts

0.21Ł

I/personal uplifts

0.13 ns

10 ŁŁŁ p

100

1

< 0.001;

0.57ŁŁŁ 0.59ŁŁŁ 0.57ŁŁŁ

ŁŁ p

0.43ŁŁŁ 0.00 ns 0.59ŁŁŁ

0.01 ns 0.11 ns 0.12 ns

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.17 ns 0.15 ns 0.29ŁŁ

0.80ŁŁŁ

9

0.36ŁŁŁ 0.18 ns 0.16 ns 0.08 ns 0.29ŁŁŁ

0.08 ns 0.00 ns 0.02 ns 0.38ŁŁŁ

0.27ŁŁ

0.36ŁŁŁ

0.25ŁŁ

0.41ŁŁŁ

0.82ŁŁŁ 0.60ŁŁŁ

0.53ŁŁŁ

0.23Ł 0.22Ł

0.16 ns 0.25ŁŁ

0.32ŁŁŁ

0.22Ł

0.78ŁŁŁ

0.69ŁŁŁ

< 0.01; Ł p < 0.05; ns, non-significant.



Hassles and uplifts Table V. Summary of multiple regression analyses between dependent and independent variables. Dependent variable

Step no.

Independent variable

Adj R2

Change R2

df

F test of change

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Delongis hassles New hassles Interpersonal hassles Delongis uplifts New uplifts Interpersonal uplifts Delongis hassles Delongis uplifts New hassles New uplifts Interpersonal hassles Interpersonal uplifts Delongis hassles Delongis uplifts New hassles New uplifts Interpersonal hassles Interpersonal uplifts

0.34 0.38 0.42 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.15

0.34 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.003 0.15 0.00 0.00

1,119 2,118 3,117 1,119

62.30ŁŁŁ 37.42ŁŁŁ 29.42ŁŁŁ 19.97ŁŁŁ

2,118 2,109 4,107 6.105 2,119

12.73ŁŁŁ 9.21ŁŁŁ 7.59ŁŁŁ 5.45ŁŁŁ 10.24ŁŁŁ

NA

PA

PSS

SWLS

ŁŁŁ p

< 0.001;

ŁŁ p

< 0.01; Ł p < 0.05.

contributing over and above the entry of other variables.

Discussion In general it appears that a range of new interpersonal events should be incorporated on hassle and uplift scales. Three sets of analyses illustrated that the inclusion of these events, after the combined influence of the non-interpersonal (i.e. Delongis and ‘new’) events, enhanced the prediction of outcomes. This was found for perceived distress, where the positive and negative events were combined, and individually in regard to the dichotomous positive and negative mood outcomes. Whether predicting global distress or strictly defined conceptions of distress and well-being the interpersonal events appear worthwhile additional hassles and uplifts. These findings support previous negative13,15,16 and positive13,16 event diary research, tapping important additional sources of distress and wellbeing for this sample. Although the Delongis scale measures potential interpersonal events (e.g. time spent with family, sex, intimacy, family-related obligations) and items that identify individuals or groups (e.g. your child(ren), your spouse, fellow worker/s) the additional groups of interpersonal items were better at measuring the relationship between daily events and distress and well-being outcomes. So why have interpersonal events been underrepresented on hassle and uplift scales compared to diary research? The under-representation is perhaps partly because hassle and uplift scales were developed as a legacy of the limitations of the major Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

life event approach.8 Major life event measurement did not reflect the daily interpersonal contact (i.e. interactions) as is consistently found in daily diary studies. Examination of the Delongis scale highlights several other reasons. Firstly, many of the Delongis events are not specifically focused on their interpersonal nature but on events where interpersonal involvement may occur (e.g. home entertainment, family-related obligations). Second, as the items are neutrally worded they may not evoke recall as diaries do. For example, Stone and Neale’s diary checklist asks respondents to consider ‘arguments or reprimands with spouse’ as opposed to the Delongis item ‘your spouse’.12 Diary items regularly illustrate the type of interaction not only the individual it occurs with. Third, diary checklists also include a range of interactions that could occur with a specific group or individuals. Stone and Neale’s diary checklist12 has seven items associated with ‘your spouse’, such as ‘close interaction with spouse (special sharing, etc)’, and ‘receiving or giving praise to spouse’. As there would be numerous and varying interactions within a close relationship, the Delongis scale (and others) may fail to elicit recall about many relationship events with this sole spousal item. Finally, given the month-long retrospective time-frame a solitary interpersonal item on the Delongis scale may force subjects to either, average their response, choose the most recent interpersonal event, choose the strongest or indicate the easiest to recall, rather than indicate a range of events in relation to that individual. The new event hassles were also useful in predicting negative outcomes. This was not surprising considering many were student-related (e.g. nature Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

101

D. J. Maybery and D. Graham of your course/study, your study load) and were included because the Delongis scales were developed using a middle-aged, married male population. The lack of utility of the positive ‘new events’ was of concern. This may have been due to combining the events (i.e. considering them as like items) or to the problem of positive event recall generally (D. J. Maybery, unpublished data). Similarly, these suggestions may also explain the lack of utility of the interpersonal events in relation to the SWLS. A major limitation of much hassle and uplift compared to diary research is the combining of similar events (e.g. hassles) in regard to outcomes. Diary studies highlight a distinction between event types and their independent impact on outcomes (see Table III). Future research needs to identify hassle and uplift subgroups and to examine their independent contribution to distress and wellbeing outcomes. Such research should also consider the important role of other factors such as personality34,35 and coping.36 In combination with the diary literature these results are important as they illustrate a substantial deficiency in the measurement of hassles and uplifts. More importantly they illustrate a considerable shortcoming within one of the better, more popular hassle and uplift scales in use (i.e. the Delongis measures). This study also lends weight to the suggestion that interpersonal conflicts are important distressing events15 and supports the contention that event measurement should be reorientated toward the study of interpersonal events.15

Appendix A: Neutrally worded Delongis, new and interpersonal daily events Delongis scale items Your child(ren) Your parents or parents-in-law Other relative(s) Your spouse Time spent with family Health or well-being of a family member Sex Intimacy Family-related obligations Your friends(s) Fellow workers Clients, customers, patients, etc 102


Your supervisor or employer The nature of your work Your workload Your job security Meeting deadlines or goals on the job Enough money for necessities (e.g. food, clothing, housing, health care, taxes, insurance, etc) Enough money for education Enough money for emergencies Enough money for extras (e.g. entertainment, recreation, vacations, etc) Financial care for someone who doesn’t live with you Investments Your smoking Your drinking Mood-altering drugs Your physical appearance Contraception Exercise/s Your medical care Your health Your physical abilities The weather News events Your environment (e.g. quality of air, noise level, greenery) Political or social issues Your neighbourhood (e.g. neighbours, setting) Conserving (gas, electricity, water, gasoline etc) Pet/s Cooking Housework Home repairs Yardwork Car maintenance Taking care of paperwork (e.g. paying bills, filling out forms) Home entertainment (e.g. TV, music, reading) Amount of free time Recreation or entertainment outside of the home (e.g. movies, sports, eating out, walking) Eating (at home) Church or community organizations Legal matters Being organized Social commitments Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

Hassles and uplifts New events Amount of jobs at home Gardening Your hobby (e.g. artwork, sewing) Movie, concert, a play Watching sporting event/s Shopping Holidaying Voluntary/charity work Prayer Meditation Day-dreaming Thinking about the future Thinking about the past Thinking about retirement Your sleep patterns Feedback you give to yourself (e.g. blame, praise) Your house/land Noise Crime Traffic Owing money Others owing you money Laid-off or out of work Use of your skills at work The ideas you have at work Changing jobs (or changing role in current job) Nature of your course/study Your study load Exam or assignment results Course deadlines Started a new relationship (e.g. new girl/boyfriend) Relationship events (e.g. marriage, anniversary, birthday) Becoming pregnant or contributing thereto Prejudice and discrimination from others Making/receiving a phone call or letter Dealings with police or local authorities Interpersonal events Support received from your supervisor/employer Support given to your supervisor/employer Feedback from your supervisor/employer Communication with your supervisor/employer Conflict with your supervisor/employer Doing things with your supervisor/employer Support received from other workers Copyright  2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Support given to other workers Feedback from other workers Communication with other workers Conflict with other workers Doing things with other workers Support received from teacher/s, lecturer/s Support given to teacher/s, lecturer/s Communication with teacher/s, lecturer/s Feedback from teacher/s, lecturer/s Conflict with teacher/s, lecturer/s Doing things with teacher/s, lecturer/s Support received from other student/s Support given to other student/s Communication with other student/s Conflict with other student/s Feedback from other student/s Doing things with other student/s Support received from your child(ren) Support given to your child(ren) Communication with your child(ren) Conflict with your child(ren) Feedback from your child(ren) Doing things with your child(ren) Support received from parents or parents-in-law Support given to your parents or parents-in-law Communication with your parents or parents-in-law Conflict with your parents or parents-in-law Feedback from your parents or parents-in-law Doing things with your parents or parents-in-law Support received from your spouse/partner Support given to your spouse/partner Communication with your spouse/partner Conflict with spouse/partner Feedback from your spouse/partner Doing things with your spouse/partner Support received from other relative Support given to other relative Communication with other relative Conflict with other relative Feedback from other relative Doing things with other relative Support received from friend/s Support given to friend/s Feedback from your friend/s Communication with friend/s Conflict with a friend/s Doing things with friend/s Stress and Health 17: 91–104 (2001)

103

D. J. Maybery and D. Graham Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for their suggested improvements to this paper.

References 1. Kanner AD, Coyne JC, Schaeffer C, Lazarus RS. Comparison of two modes of stress management: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J. Behav. Med. 1981; 4: 1–39. 2. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and coping. Springer: New York, 1984. 3. Kohn PM, Milrose JA. The Inventory of High-School Students’ Recent Life Experiences: a decontaminated measure of adolescent hassles. J. Youth Adolesc. 1993; 22: 43–55. 4. Kohn PM, Lafreniere K, Gurevich M. The inventory of college student’s recent life experiences: a decontaminated hassles scale for a special population. J. Behav. Med. 1990; 13: 619–630. 5. Kohn PM, Macdonald JE. The survey of recent life experiences: a decontaminated hassles scale for adults. J. Behav. Med. 1992; 15: 221–236. 6. Reich WP, Parrella DP, Filstead WJ. Unconfounding the hassles scale: external sources versus internal responses to stress. J. Behav. Med. 1988; 11: 239–249. 7. Wolf TM, Elston RC, Kissling GE. Relationship of hassles, uplifts, and life events to psychological well-being of freshmen medical students. Behav. Med. 1989; 15(1): 37–45. 8. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Manual for the Hassle and Uplift Scales: Research Edition. Mind Garden: CA, USA, 1989. 9. Edwards JR, Cooper CL. Research in stress, coping and health: theoretical and methodological issues. Psychol. Med. 1988; 18: 15–20. 10. Dohrenwend BP, Shrout PE. ‘Hassles’ in the conceptualization and measurement of life stress variables. Am. Psychol. 1985; July: 780–785. 11. Holm JE, Holroyd KA. The daily hassles scale (revised): does it measure stress or symptoms? Behav. Assess. 1992; 14: 465–482. 12. Stone AS, Neale JM. Development of a methodology for assessing daily experiences. In Advances in Environmental Psychology, Volume 4, Environment and Health, Baum A, Singer JE (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey, 1982. 13. Clark LE, Watson D. Mood and the mundane: relations between daily life events and self-reported mood. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1988; 54(2): 296–308. 14. Stone AA, Neale JM, Shiffman S. Daily assessments of stress and copng and their association with mood. Ann. Behav. Med. 1993; 15(1): 8–16. 15. Bolger N, Delongis A, Kessler RC Shilling EA. Effects of daily stress on negative mood. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1989; 57: 808–818. 16. Stone AS. Event content in a daily survey is differentially associated with current mood. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1987; 52: 56–58.

104


17. Watson D, Clark L, McIntyre CW, Hamaker S. Affect, personality, and social activity. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1992; 63: 1011–1025. 18. Miller MJ, Wilcox CT. Measuring perceived hassles and uplifts among the elderly. J. Hum. Behav. Learning 1986; 3: 38–45. 19. Ivancevich JM. Life events and hassles as predictors of health symptoms, job performance, and absenteeism. J. Occupat. Behav. 1986; 7: 39–51. 20. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983; 24: 385–396. 21. Maybery DJ. Validity, reliability and generalizability of the positive and negative event scale (PANE). In Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Stress. Secretariate, International Convention Management Services: Melbourne, 1998. 22. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J. Personality Assess. 1985; 49: 71–75. 23. Watson D, Clark L, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1988; 54(6): 1063–1070. 24. Zautra AJ, Reich JW. Life events and perception of quality of life: developments in a two factor approach. J. Community Psychol. 1983; 11: 121–132. 25. Headey B, Wearing AJ. Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: toward a dynamic equilibrium model. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 1989; 57: 731–739. 26. Headey B, Wearing AJ. Understanding Happiness: A Theory of Subjective Well-being. Longman Cheshire: Melbourne. 27. Holmes TH, Rahe RH. The social readjustment rating scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 1967; 11: 213–218. 28. Sarason IJ, Johnson JH, Siegel JM. Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the life experiences survey. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1978; 46(5): 932–946. 29. Tennant C, Andrews G. A scale to measure the stress of life events. Austral. NZ J. Psychiatry 1976; 10: 27–30. 30. Henderson S, Byrne DG, Duncan-Jones P. Neurosis and the Social Environment. Academic Press: New York. 31. Swindle RW, Moos RH. Life domain stressors, coping and adjustment. In Person-Environment Psychology Models and Perspectives, Walsh WB, Craik KH, Price RH (eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey. 32. Pbert L, Doerfler LA, DeCosimo D. An evaluation of the perceived stress scale in two clinical populations. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 1992; 14: 363–375. 33. Pavot W, Diener E, Colvin CR, Sandvick E. Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. J. Personality Assess. 1991; 57: 149–161. 34. Hart PM, Wearing AJ, Headey B. Assessing police work experiences: development of the Police Daily Hassles and Uplifts Scales. J. Crim. Just. 1993; 21: 553–572. 35. Watson D, Clark L. On traits and temperament: general and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. J. Personality 1992; 60: 441–476. 36. McCrae RR, Costa PT. Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. J. Personality 1986; 54: 385–405.
