





|
Vitality
and Vigor
Summary prepared by Brooks Gump in collaboration with the
Psychosocial Working Group. Last revised November, 1997.
Table of Contents
a. Definition
b. Measurement
c. Relationship to SES
d. Relationship to Health
e. Limitations
f. Selected Bibliography and References
Definition
It is difficult to draw clear distinctions between vitality and vigor. Both refer to
the presence of energy, enthusiasm and, in general, "aliveness" and the absence
of fatigue, weariness, and exhaustion. Although some questionnaires are described as
measures of vitality, others are described as measures of vigor. Measures of vitality and
vigor have a high degree of item overlap and, therefore, these terms are used
interchangeably.
"Energy" is a defining feature of vitality and vigor. However, this energy is
not well defined in the literature. For example, Selye (1956) proposed that individuals
possess a limited reservoir of "adaptation energy" that is expended when facing
environmental and disease stressors. Selye made the distinction between caloric energy and
adaptation energy, however, the nature of adaptation energy is largely unknown.
In the absence of clear measures of this hypothesized "energy," more recent
conceptualizations have referred to vigor and vitality as moods or subjective states.
Measurement
The most widely used measure of vitality is the Vitality
subscale in the short form (SF-36) of the health status survey of the Medical Outcomes
Study (MOS). The vitality subscale is a 4-item scale, with two positively worded items and
two negatively-worded items. (Did you feel full of pep? Did you have a lot of energy? Did
you feel worn out? Did you feel tired?)
Ryan and Frederick (1996) have developed a scale of
Subjective Vitality. In a series of studies, this scale was shown to be, in varied
samples, associated with self-actualization, mental health, self-esteem, positive
emotions, and greater self-motivation. Conversely, distress, negative emotions, and
external locus of control were associated with less vitality. This scale seems to have
reasonably good validity and internal consistency, however, reliability estimates were not
reported. In addition, this scale is reported in an unpublished manuscript and seems to
have found limited use outside of Ryan's lab.
The most widely used measure of "Vigor" is the Vigor subscale of the Profile
of Mood States (POMS). Items are endorsed on a 5-point scale ranging from "Not at
all" to "Extremely". Some items from the Vigor subscale include: alert,
weary, exhausted, energetic, vigorous, and worn out. In some studies, a short form of the
POMS is administered with a 3-item measure of Vigor (energetic, vigorous, and lively).
Relationship to SES
The MOS and POMS are typically used as measures of outcomes
in studies of health and well being. Therefore, few reports of associations between SES
and vitality or vigor are available. However, in Karen Matthews and Michael Scheier's CABS
study (Scheier, Matthews, Owens, Schulz, Bridges and Magovern & Carver, 1999) (N =
309), the vitality subscale of the MOS was administered as well as measures of SES and
health. In this study, the vitality subscale was significantly correlated with both
reported income and education (rs = .14 and .17, respectively, ps < .01). Therefore,
those with higher incomes and more education report greater vitality. There is also some
evidence that negatively-worded items (feeling tired and worn out) may be more strongly
associated with SES (rs = -. 17 and -.16, respectively) than positively worded items
(feeling full of pep and energy; rs = .09 and .15, respectively).
Relationship to Health
Again, the MOS and POMS are typically used as measures of
subjective well-being outcomes. Therefore, studies typically report associations of
vitality/vigor with other measures of physical and psychological health (see
"Limitations" section for discussion of problems with these cross-sectional
designs). For example, greater vitality (measured with the MOS) is associated with fewer
chronic physical conditions (Lerner, Levine, Malspeis, & D'Agostino, 1994), fewer
symptoms reported by those with HIV (Wu et at., 1991), and fewer sore throats and painful
nodes for those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Buchwaid, Pearlman, Umali, Schmaling, &
Katon, 1996).
In Matthews and Scheier's CABS study, vitality was significantly associated with
measures of underlying disease severity (ejection fraction, r = -.12, p =.03; and New York
Heart Association classification (NYHAC) category, r = -. 10, p < .05; age was
controlled in all analyses). In addition, significant associations between SES and health
were found (including an association of ejection fraction with income as well as NYHAC
with both income and education, ps <.05). In a formal test of mediation, vitality was
found to significantly predict ejection fraction (p =.04) and reduced the previously
significant association of ejection fraction with income (p = .16). However, the
associations of income and education with NYHAC were not found to be mediated by vitality.
Limitations
Measures don't distinguish between physical and
psychological forms of vitality/vigor. Therefore, endorsement of "exhaustion"
may represent feelings of physical exertion in the context of poor physical fitness or it
may represent psychological demands (stressors) in the context of poor coping. Given the
effects of poor physical health on physical fitness and physical exhaustion,
distinguishing these alternative forms of vigor may become particularly important in
studies of health.
In addition, most studies of vitality and health are cross-sectional. Therefore, it is
possible (and likely) that poor physical health reduces vitality and vigor. If vitality
and vigor are to be considered as variables with predictive utility, it is necessary to
conduct longitudinal studies with vitality and vigor predicting health outcomes.
Finally, the overlap between vitality and vigor and vital exhaustion must also be
considered.
Selected Bibliography and References
Anderson M, & Lobel M (1995). Predictors of health self-appraisal: What's involved
in feeling healthy? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 121-136.
Buchwald D, Pearlman T., Umali J, Schmaling K & Katon W. (1996). Functional status
in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, other fatiguing illnesses, and health
individuals. American Journal of Medicin,e 101, 364-370.
Cowen E L (1991). In pursuit of wellness. American Psychologist, 46, 404-408.
Lerner D, Levine S, Malspeis S, & DAgostino R B (1994). Job strain and
health-related quality of life in a national sample. American Journal of Public Health,
84,1-580-1585.
McHorney C S, Ware J E , Raczek A. E (1993). The MOS 36-item short-form health status
survey (SF-36), II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and
mental health constructs. Med. Care, 31:247-263.
McNair, D M, Lorr, M, & Droppleman, L F (1971). Profile of Mood States. San
Diego, CA:Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Ryan R M, & Frederick C (1996). On energy, personality and health: Exploring the
dynamics of subjective vitality, unpublished manuscript.
Scheier, M F, Matthews K A, Owens J F, Schulz R, Bridges M W, Magovern G J & Carver
C S (1999). Optimism and rehospitalization after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Archives
of Internal Medicine, 159(8):829-35.
Selye, H (1956). The stress of life (rev. ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill
Wu A W, Rubin H R, Mathews W C, Ware J E, Brysk L T, Hardy W D, Bozzette S A, Spector S
A, & Richman D D (1991). A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medical
Outcomes Study: Preliminary validation in persons with early HIV infection. Medical
Care, 29, 786-798. |
   |
|