TABLE A5.
Candidate predictors of sense of control: sensitivity analysis with unstandardized variables (Health and Retirement Study [HRS]: N = 13,771).
| Candidate predictor | Beta | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Health behaviors | ||
| Frequent physical activity | 0.01 | −0.04, 0.06 |
| Smoking | −0.05 | −0.17, 0.08 |
| Heavy drinking | 0.01 | −0.09, 0.11 |
| Sleep problems | −0.05 | −0.09, −0.01* |
| Physical health | ||
| Number of physical conditions | −0.02 | −0.06, 0.01 |
| Diabetes | −0.04 | −0.12, 0.05 |
| Hypertension | 0.00 | −0.08, 0.07 |
| Stroke | −0.03 | −0.11, 0.06 |
| Cancer | 0.03 | −0.05, 0.11 |
| Heart disease | 0.00 | −0.08, 0.08 |
| Lung disease | 0.02 | −0.07, 0.12 |
| Arthritis | −0.06 | −0.17, 0.04 |
| Overweight/obese | −0.06 | −0.12, 0.00 |
| Physical functioning limitations | −0.07 | −0.14, 0.00* |
| Cognitive impairment | −0.02 | −0.09, 0.05 |
| Chronic pain | −0.04 | −0.10, 0.01 |
| Self‐rated health | 0.07 | 0.03, 0.10** |
| Hearing | 0.00 | −0.02, 0.03 |
| Eyesight | 0.03 | 0.00, 0.06* |
| Psychological well‐being | ||
| Positive affect | 0.17 | 0.13, 0.21*** |
| Life satisfaction | 0.06 | 0.04, 0.08*** |
| Optimism | 0.12 | 0.09, 0.15*** |
| Purpose in life | 0.13 | 0.08, 0.19*** |
| Health mastery | 0.04 | 0.03, 0.05*** |
| Financial mastery | 0.03 | 0.02, 0.05*** |
| Psychological distress | ||
| Depression | −0.10 | −0.18, 0.00 |
| Depressive symptoms | −0.03 | −0.04, −0.01** |
| Hopelessness | −0.10 | −0.13, −0.08*** |
| Negative affect | −0.16 | −0.19, −0.13*** |
| Anxiety | −0.16 | −0.21, −0.11*** |
| Trait anger | −0.06 | −0.09, −0.03** |
| State anger | −0.07 | −0.11, −0.03** |
| Cynical hostility | −0.05 | −0.07, −0.03*** |
| Stressful life events | −0.03 | −0.08, 0.02 |
| Financial strain | −0.05 | −0.08, −0.01* |
| Daily discrimination | −0.08 | −0.11, −0.05*** |
| Major discrimination | −0.01 | −0.07, 0.04 |
| Social factors | ||
| Loneliness | −0.13 | −0.18, −0.09*** |
| Living with spouse | −0.07 | −0.16, 0.01 |
| Contact children | ||
| <Every few months | Reference | Reference |
| 1–2×/month | 0.05 | −0.04, 0.15 |
| 1–2×/week | 0.06 | −0.03, 0.15 |
| >3×/week | 0.09 | −0.01, 0.18 |
| Contact other family | ||
| <Every few months | Reference | Reference |
| 1–2×/month | 0.03 | −0.02, 0.08 |
| 1–2×/week | 0.02 | −0.04, 0.07 |
| >3×/week | 0.02 | −0.05, 0.09 |
| Contact friends | ||
| <Every few months | Reference | Reference |
| 1–2×/month | 0.05 | −0.02, 0.12 |
| 1–2×/week | 0.06 | −0.02, 0.13 |
| >3×/week | 0.08 | 0.01, 0.14* |
| Closeness with spouse | −0.01 | −0.06, 0.04 |
| Number of close children | 0.00 | −0.01, 0.04 |
| Number of close other family | 0.00 | 0.00, 0.00 |
| Number of close friends | 0.00 | 0.00, 0.01 |
| Positive social support from spouse | 0.05 | −0.01, 0.12 |
| Positive social support from children | 0.08 | 0.04, 0.12*** |
| Positive social support from other family | 0.00 | −0.02, 0.03 |
| Positive social support from friends | 0.03 | 0.00, 0.07 |
| Social strain from spouse | −0.08 | −0.14, −0.02* |
| Social strain from children | −0.10 | −0.15, −0.05*** |
| Social strain from other family | −0.03 | −0.08, 0.01 |
| Social strain from friends | 0.03 | −0.06, 0.10 |
| Volunteer | ||
| 0 h/year | Reference | Reference |
| 0–49 h/year | 0.05 | −0.02, 0.11 |
| 50–99 h/year | 0.02 | −0.06, 0.09 |
| 100–199 h/year | 0.09 | −0.01, 0.18 |
| >200 h/year | 0.10 | 0.01, −0.19* |
| Helping friends/neighbors/relatives | ||
| 0 h/year | Reference | Reference |
| 1–49 h/year | 0.04 | −0.01, 0.08 |
| 50–99 h/year | 0.03 | −0.03, 0.09 |
| 100–199 h/year | 0.04 | −0.05, 0.13 |
| >200 h | 0.11 | 0.02, 0.19** |
| Religious service attendance | ||
| Not at all | Reference | Reference |
| <1×/week | 0.03 | −0.02, 0.08 |
| >1×/week | 0.00 | −0.06, 0.05 |
| Social status ladder | 0.04 | 0.01, 0.06** |
| Change in social status ladder | ||
| Moved down | Reference | Reference |
| No change | 0.08 | 0.00, 0.15* |
| Moved up | 0.11 | 0.04, 0.19** |
| In labor force | 0.07 | 0.01, 0.14* |
Notes: The analytic sample was restricted to those who had participated in the pre‐baseline wave (2006 or 2008). Multiple imputation was performed to impute missing data on the exposures, covariates, and outcome. Candidate antecedents were assessed, one at a time, in wave 2 (2010/2012), and the outcome (sense of control) was assessed in wave 3 (2014/2016). The following covariates were controlled for at wave 1 (2006/2008): sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, total wealth, level of education, health insurance, geographic region), personality factors (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism), childhood abuse, and all of the predictor variables, including health behaviors (physical activity, smoking, heavy drinking, sleep problems), physical health (heart disease, cancer, stroke, arthritis, hypertension, overweight/obese, diabetes, lung disease, chronic pain, hearing, eyesight, self‐rated health, physical functioning limitations, cognitive impairment), social factors (living with spouse, frequency of contact with children, frequency of contact with other family, frequency of contact with friends, loneliness, closeness with spouse, number of close children, number of close other family, number of close friends, positive social support from spouse, positive social support from children, positive social support from friends, positive social support from other family, social strain from spouse, social strain from children, social strain from other family, social strain from friends, religious service attendance, volunteering, helping friends/neighbors/relatives, perceived social status, change in perceived social status, in labor force), psychological well‐being factors (life satisfaction, positive affect, purpose in life, optimism, health mastery, financial mastery, mastery), psychological distress (depressive symptoms, hopelessness, negative affect, perceived constraints, anxiety, trait anger, state anger, daily discrimination, major discrimination, cynical hostility, stressful life events, financial strain), and pre‐baseline values of the outcome (sense of control). All continuous candidate antecedents were standardized (mean = 0; standard deviation = 1). An exposure‐wide analytic approach was used, and a separate model for each exposure was run. Higher scores indicate higher sense of control. The p value cutoff for Bonferroni correction is p = .05/59 predictors = p < .00084.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio.
p < .05 before Bonferroni correction.
p < .01 before Bonferroni correction.
p < .05 after Bonferroni correction.