Table 3.

Critical Tests Across Models and Studies

Study	Outcome	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
		Stressor Exposure β	Subjective Stress Severity β	Test of Coefficient Difference p value	Stressor Exposure β	Sample-Estimated Stress Severity β	Test of Coefficient Difference p value	Subjective Stress Severity β	Sample-Estimated Stress Severity β	Test of Coefficient Difference p value
Study 1	Poor Health
	Sum severity predictor	−.323	.999	<.001	−.301	.948	<.001	.920	−.229	.001
	Mean severity predictor	.542	.162	<.001	.597	.011	<.001	.391	−.059	<.001
Study 2	Depression-Specific Symptoms
	Sum severity predictor	−.215	.184	.010	−.063	−.002	.624	.223	−.236	.017
	Mean severity predictor	−.081	.133	.025	−.045	−.019	.769	.104	−.042	.375
Study 2	Anxiety-Specific Symptoms
	Sum severity predictor	−.214	.428	<.001	−.010	.188	.231	.444	−.217	<.001
	Mean severity predictor	.116	.171	.006	.150	−.084	.118	.208	−.150	.001
Study 2	Internalizing Symptoms
	Sum severity predictor	.264	.046	.023	.423	−.144	<.001	.402	−.138	.001
	Mean severity predictor	.268	.138	.055	.303	.043	.476	.214	−.055	.103

Note: Because of the high collinearity between stressor exposure and stress severity sum scores, each model was run twice—once with stress severity as a sum score, and once with stress severity as a mean score. When the model coefficients significantly differed, the stronger predictor was bolded for emphasis. The critical comparisons between subjective stress severity and sample-estimated stress severity are in model three. As shown in model three, consistent across both studies, subjective stress severity was a stronger predictor of poor health outcomes than sample-estimated stress severity. These results therefore show that subjective stress severity contains important health-relevant variability that is not captured by “weighting” stressors to a greater extent than stressor exposure scores.