Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 15, No.

2, 1992
The Survey of Recent Life Experiences:
A Decontaminated Hassles Scale for Adults
Paul M. Kohn I and Jenni f er E. Macdonal d 1
Accepted for publication: May 19, 1991
A new decontaminated hassles measure for adults, the Survey of Recent Life
Experiences, was developed and validated. An initial pool of 92 items was
administered to 100 subjects along with the Perceived Stress Scale. Fifty-one
items were selected, based on significant correlations with the latter scale. The
alpha reliability of the resultant final form of the Survey of Recent Life
Experiences and its correlation with perceived stress were both high. In a
separate cross-replication sample of 136 adults, the alpha reliability of the
Survey and its correlation against the Perceived Stress Scale remained
acceptably high. Moreover, separate-sex analyses supported the reliability and
validity of the Survey of Recent Life Experiences across gender. Factor analysis
of the Survey yielded six interpretable factors. Intercorrelations among subscales
based on these factors were generally modest, suggesting that the scale is
relatively free from contamination by psychological distress.
KEY WORDS: hassles; stress; adults; measurement.
INTRODUCTION
It has been repeatedly reported that "daily hassles" or mundane ir-
ritants and stressors predict measures of negative physical and mental
well-being (e.g., De Longis et al., 1982; Flannery, 1986a, b; Johnson and
The work reported was facilitated by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada' s Small Grant Program, administered by the Office of Research
Administration, York University. The authors appreciate the cooperation of staff at the
Ontario Science Centre, Toronto, and the assistance of Maria Gurevich in verifying the data.
1Graduate Programme in Psychology, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J
1P3.
221
0160-7715D2/0400-0221506.50/0 9 1992 Plenum Publishing Corporation
222 Kohn and Macdonal d
Stone, 1987; Lichtenberg et al., 1986; Miller et al., 1985; Nakano, 1988),
although not all studies have found this (Baer et al., 1987; Nowack, 1986).
Indeed, the apparent impact of hassles on well-being exceeds that of major
life events (De Longis et aL, 1982; Holahan and Holahan, 1987; Holahan
et aL, 1984; Ivancevich, 1986; Kanner et aL, 1981; Monroe, 1983; Weinberger
et aL, 1987). It has even been suggested that the effects of major life events
on well-being are mediated through daily hassles (Eckenrode, 1984; Kanner
et aL, 1981). Wagner et al. (1988) demonstrated a good quantitative fit be-
tween their data and a model which makes that assumption in a longitu-
dinal causal-modelling study.
Critics, however, have argued that the most commonly used hassles
measure, Kanner and co-workers' (1981) Hassles Scale, is contaminated
by items and a format which imply distressed physical and mental re-
sponses to stress as well as exposure to daily hassles (Burks and Martin,
1983; Dohrenwend et al., 1984; Dohrenwend and Shrout, 1985; Ewedmi
and Linn, 1987; Green, 1986; Marziali and Pilkonis, 1986; Reich et aL,
1988). Some items, for example, concern alcohol and drug use, sexual dif-
ficulties, physical illness, and personal fears. Moreover, subjects are spe-
cifically instructed to indicate how severe the hassles were which they
experienced in the past month, and hassles are explicitly named and de-
fined as irritants which range "from minor annoyances to fairly major pres-
sures, problems, or difficulties" (Kanner et al., 1981, p. 25). Also, no
allowance is made for the possibility that exposure to an itemized event
might not be severe at all, because alternative responses are limited to a
scale running from "somewhat severe" to "extremely severe." If impaired
mental health or emotional upset predisposes subjective overreaction to
everyday stressors, then high Hassles Scale scores, given the foregoing in-
structional format and some of the items, could result from either im-
paired mental health or emotional upset, on one hand, or heavy exposure
to everyday stressors, on the other. Subjects' responses to the Hassles
Scale could, therefore, reflect the very disturbance in physical and mental
health they were intended to predict.
The importance of developing measures of exposure to hassles which
are relatively free of such contamination is, therefore, clear (Flannery,
1986b, p. 1004). Kohn et al. (1990) developed such a scale recently, albeit
one tailor-made for college students specifically. Beginning with a pool of
85 candidate items, they selected 49 for their final scale, the Inventory of
College Students' Recent Life Experiences (ICSRLE). Selection was based
on significant correlation with Cohen and co-workers' (1983) Perceived
Stress Scale (PSS), a measure of subjectively appraised stress which shares
no items with the ICSRLE.
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 223
The alpha reliability of the ICSRLE was .89 in the initial sample from
whose data the item-selection decisions were made and .88 in an inde-
pendent cross-replication sample. Correlations against the PSS were .67 and
.59 in those respective samples (p < .0005 in both cases). Because one
would expect hassles exposure to induce appraised stress, these findings
support the reliability and validity of the ICSRLE.
Factor analysis produced a seven-factor solution, interpreted as fol-
lows: devel opment al challenges (primarily academic), time pressure,
academic alienation, romantic problems, assorted annoyances, general so-
cial mi st reat ment (of onesel f by others), and friendship problems.
Importantly, the subscales based on these factors all intercorrelated signifi-
cantly but modestly compared to the remarkably high intercorrelations
among the factor-based subscales of the Hassles Scale (HS) as reported by
Dohrenwend and Shrout (1985). The intercorrelations among subscales
ranged from .15 to .49 for the ICSRLE, as against .38 to .71 for the HS.
Furthermore, whereas 20 of the 21 intercorrelations among ICSRLE sub-
scales fell below .40, only 1 of the 28 subscale intercorrelations for the HS
was that low. If one accepts Dohrenwend and Shrout's contention that the
very high subscale intercorrelations of the HS reflect common contamina-
tion by subjective distress, it seems clear that there must be less such
contamination, if any, on the ICSRLE.
A further study (Kohn, 1991; Kohn et al., 1991) established the use-
fulness of the ICSRLE in predicting physical and mental well-being. It
correlated .68 (p < .005) with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL)
(Derogatis et al., 1974), a commonly used measure of psychiatric sympto-
matology, and .45 (p < .005) with the Health Problem Inventory (Kohn
et al., 1990), a measure of minor physical ailments (e.g., colds, flu, digestive
upsets). Furthermore, the ICSRLE interacted significantly with trait anxiety
in predicting psychiatric symptomatology. Highly anxious persons showed
more adverse mental-health reactions to hassles than did less anxious per-
sons; likewise, the poorer mental health of the highly trait-anxious was
more pronounced at high than at low levels of exposure to hassles. This
interaction along with its marginal main effects accounted for 67% of the
variance in HSCL scores.
The development of special hassles measures such as the ICSRLE
for specific subgroups of the general population is clearly justified by
substantial differences in the frequency of endorsement of various hassles
among them (Kanner et al., 1981; Blankstein and Flett, 1991). This is why
special scales have been developed to assess hassles among children
(Elwood, 1987; Kanner et aL, 1987), adolescents (Bobo et al., 1986; Compas
et al., 1987), medi cal st udent s (Wol f et al., 1989), college st udent s
(Blankstein and Flett, 1991; Kohn et al., 1990), and even computer users
224 Kohn and Macdonal d
(Hudiburg, 1989). It becomes easy in the circumstances to overlook the
need for a decontaminated hassles measure for adults generally, i.e., ones
who are not necessarily college students, medical students, computer users,
or members of any other such special subgroup. Accordingly, we are re-
porting herein on the development and validation of such a measure, the
Survey of Recent Life Experiences (SRLE).
Ninety-two items were generated for the initial pool. The items of
Kanner et aL (1981) and Kohn et al. (1990) were considered initially and
some were adapted for use in our item pool. Further items were generated
by the authors to ensure coverage in the following areas: mundane annoy-
ances, domestic responsibilities, work, romance, friends, family, other social
relationships, finances, environment, time pressure, competitive standing
(in terms of abilities, attractiveness, etc.), and future security. Items per-
taining to one' s physical or mental health or the perception of being
stressed were specifically avoided.
Rather than calling our measure a "hassles scale," we gave it a de-
liberately innocuous title, the "Survey of Recent Life Experiences" (SRLE).
Also, instead of having subjects rate each item for its severity, we had them
indicate the extent of their experience with it over the past month on the
following 4-point scale: 1 = not at all part of my life; 2 = only slightly part
of my life; 3 = distinctly part of my life; and 4 = very much part of my
life.
Our item-selection strategy, like that of Kohn et al. (190), was to re-
tain only items which correlated positively and significantly with Cohen and
co-workers' (1983) Perceived Stress Scale, a measure of appraised stress
which shared no items with the SRLE' s item pool. In this way, we ensured
that the final form of the SRLE would retain an indirect relationship to
the stress-appraisal process, which Lazarus and his associates maintain is
a critical determinant of the adverse consequences of stress (e.g., De Longis
et al., 1982; Folkman, 1984; Kanner et aL, 1981; Lazarus, 1984; Lazarus
et al., 1985; Lazarus and Folkman, 1987). We adopted this "indirect ap-
proach" to avoid the potential contamination inherent in Kanner and
co-workers' method of tapping into stress appraisal, namely the use of se-
verity ratings.
METHOD
Subjects were recruited at the Ontario Science Centre, a museum in
Toronto, Canada, via a large signboard which described this study briefly
in terms of its subject matter, content, and probable time demands. (These
were respectively characterized as experience and morale, questionnaire
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 225
responding, and 20 to 30 min.) The signboard was posted prominently on
a landing through which most visitors passed, and the investigator, i.e.,
ei t her aut hor , st ood near by to answer quest i ons and admi ni st er
questionnaires. In general, more people evaded contact than approached
the investigator, but most of the latter did participate in the study. (No
systematic track was kept of the numbers of people avoiding contact, not
noticing the signboard, or declining to participate after consultation.)
The eventual subjects were 106 men and 130 women with mean
ages of 27.57 (SD = 7.13, range = 18 to 54) and 29.59 (SD = 11.30,
range = 18 to 69), respectively. The distribution of highest levels of edu-
cation in the total combined sample was as follows: some elementary
school, 0.4%; completed elementary school, 0.0%; some high school,
8.1%; completed high school, 18.4%; some college or university, 30.8%;
completed college or university, 28.6%; some graduate or professional
education, 7.7%; and completed graduate or professional education,
6.0%.
The subjects responded to the initial item pool of the SRLE plus
Cohen and co-workers' (1983) Perceived Stress Scale, a reliable, valid, and
widely used measure of subjectively experienced stress. For purposes of
analysis, 100 subjects were randomly selected to serve as an item-selection
subsample. The remaining 136 subjects constituted the cross-replication
subsample. Items were retained for the final form of the SRLE if they
correlated positively with the PSS at a one-tailed alpha of .05 in the item-
selection subsample. (We used this rather relaxed criterion because we did
not necessarily expect individual hassles to correlate very highly with per-
ceived stress.) We selected 51 items for the final form of the SRLE, which
appears in the Appendix. Their individual correlations with the PSS ranged
from .17 (p < .05) to .46 (p < .01). Thus, given 51 items on the final form
of the SRLE, each with a possible score from 1 to 4, total scores on the
SRLE could logically range from 51 to 204.
RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, alpha reliabilities, and intercorrela-
tions of the SRLE and the PSS in the item-selection and cross-replication
subsamples appear in Table I. The alpha reliability of the SRLE in the
item-selection subsample was .92, and its correlation against the PSS was
.57 (p < .01). To correct for possible inflation of these estimates through
capitalization on chance, we cross-replicated them on the remaining sub-
sample. Here the alpha reliability of the SRLE was .91 and its correlation
against the PSS was .60 (p < .01).
226 Kohn and Macdonal d
Table I. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Intercorrclations of t he
SRLE and t he PSS in Two Subsampl cs a
Item-selection subsampl e
(n = 100)
Cross-replication subsampl e
(n = 136)
SRLE PSS SRLE PSS
SRLE . . . .
PSS .57* - - .60 ~ - -
M 94.51 23.26 96.24 23.58
SD 20.44 7.47 20.73 8.29
Al pha .92 .83 .91 .83
a, SRLE, Survey of Recent Life Experiences; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale.
p < .01.
The alpha reliabilities of the SRLE for men and for women from the
two subsamples combined were .90 and .92, respectively. The correlations
of the SRLE with the PSS were .70 (t9 < .01) for men and .51 (p < .01)
for women. The correlation for men was significantly higher than that for
women, z = 2.20 (t9 < .05). However, the mean scores of men (M = 93.99,
SD = 18.66) and women (M = 96.73, SD = 22.00) did not differ signifi-
cantly on the SRLE or, for that matter, the PSS (M = 23.19, SD = 7.58,
for men and M = 23.65, SD = 8.24, for women).
The three most commonly endorsed items for the combined sample
were "a lot of respons~ilities," "too many things to do at once," and "struggling
to meet your own standards of performance and accomplishment." The
proportions of subjects acknowledging at least some exposure to these
experiences over the preceding mont h were 89. 4, 87. 7, and 87.2%, respec-
tively. However, the variances for these items were reasonably high because
the high percentages of endorsement were distributed over three degrees
of exposure, i.e, "only slightly part of my life," "distinctly part of my life,"
and "very much part of my life."
Insight into the conceptual content of the SRLE emerges from an
item factor analysis of the full sample' s data, as summarized in Table II.
It shows for each factor its eigenvalue, the highest-loading items, and the
alpha reliability of the corresponding subscale as formed by unit-weighing
each contributing item. Principal-axis factoring, followed by an oblimin ro-
tation, was used. (The delta value utilized for the rotation was zero.) A
six-factor solution which accounted for 43.3% of the total variance was
used, based on the combined criteria of a minimum eigenvalue of one, the
scree test, and interpretabilty.
The 11 items loading principally on Factor 1 have diverse content:
whereas many concern such close interpersonal relationships as friendship,
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 227
family, and romance, others cover more impersonal aspects of modern so-
ciety such as high noise levels and complex technology. We, therefore,
interpret Factor 1 as reflecting social and cultural difficulties. Factor 2, in
contrast, dearly pertains to work, Factor 3 to time pressure, and Factor 4
to finances. Because the items defining Factor 5 all concern either social
rejection or dissatisfaction with one' s attractiveness, we view it as a social-
acceptability factor. Finally, the four items loading on Factor 6 all pertain
to some kind of social mistreatment by others; accordingly, we interpret
this factor as reflecting social victimization.
An anonymous reviewer suggested that a short form of the SRLE
could be constituted by omitting the 10 items which failed to load on any
factor. Following that suggestion, we have marked those items with asterisks
in the Appendix. The short form is marginally less reliable than the full-
length SRLE: .90 (as against .92) in the item-selection subsample and .90
(as against .91) in the cross-replication subsample. Correlations against per-
ceived stress are also slightly lower in the short form: .55 (p < .01; down
from .57) in the item-selection subsample and .58 (p < .01; down from
.60) in the cross-replication subsample. The short form, of course, has an
attenuated range of logically possible scores, namely, 41 to 164 (compared
to 51 to 204 for the full-length SRLE).
To determine the interrelationships among the six dimensions iden-
tified t hrough factor analysis, we i nt ercorrel at ed the scores on the
corresponding factor-based subscales. These were formed by unit-weighing
the items with appreciable loadings on each factor as per Table II. The
resulting intercorrelations appear in Table III. [Kohn et al. (1990) reported
how they established by personal communication that this was the proce-
dure used by Dohrenwend and Shrout (1985) in their critique of the
Hassles Scale despite their referring to "factor correlations" in their article.]
Intercorrelations between pairs of factor-based subscales ranged from .26
to .50 (p < .01, two-tailed in all cases).
DISCUSSION
The need for a decontaminated hassles measure to determine ac-
curately how much everyday stressors affect physical and mental health
has been evident for some time. In response to that need, Kohn et al.
(1991) devel oped and validated the Invent ory of College St udent s'
Recent Life Experiences, which seems satisfactory in its reliability and
validity as well as its absence of contamination by negative well-being
and subjective distress. Its main limitation is its parochial reference to
the hassles of college students. The presently report ed measure, the
228 Kohn and Macdonal d
Table,II. Factor Pattern Loadings for the Survey of Recent Life Experience a
Factor 1:
Social and cultural difficulties
Gossip about someone you care about
Being let down or disappointed by friends
Having your trust betrayed by a friend
Conflict with friends(s)
Gossip about yourself
Decisions about intimate relationship(s)
Conflicts with family member(s)
Experiencing high levels of noise
Ethnic or racial conflict
Difficulty dealing with modem technology (e.g., computers)
Conflicts with in-laws or boyfriend's/girlfriend's family
Eignvalue = 10.16, alpha = .78
Factor 2:
Work
Dissatisfaction with work
Disliking your work
Finding work uninteresting
Disliking your daily activities
Conflict with supervisor(s) at work
Lower evaluation of your work than you think you deserve
Lower evaluation of your work than you hoped for
Eigenvalue = 3.06, alpha = .82
.60
.56
.49
48
.46
.41
37
.37
.35
.34
.33
.87
.80
.60
.55
.48
.47
.40
Factor 3:
Time pressure
Too many things to do at once .77
Not enough time to meet your obligations .76
A lot of responsibilities .70
Not enough leisure time .67
Finding your work too demanding .51
Hard work to look after and maintain home .36
Unwanted interruptions of your work .36
Struggling to meet your own standards of performance and accomplishment .33
Eigenvalue = 2.79, alpha = .81
(Continued)
Survey of Recent Life Experiences, attempts to fulfill the need for a
comparably reliable, valid, and decontaminated hassles measure for the
general adult population. The SRLE appears adequate in its reliability
and its validity against the criterion of subjectively appraised stress;
Decontaminated Hassles Measurement
Table II. (Continued)
229
Factor 4:
Finances
Cash-flow difficulties
Financial burdens
Trying to secure loan(s)
Failing to get money you expected
Unsatisfactory housing conditions
Financial conflicts with family members
Eigenvalue = 2.18, alpha = .76
Factor 5:
Social acceptability
Dissatisfaction with your physical fitness
Being ignored
Social isolation
Dissatisfaction with your physical appearance
Social rejection
Eigenvalue = 2.00, alpha = .68
Factor 6:
Social victimization
Being taken for granted
Being taken advantge of
Getting "ripped off" or cheated in the purchase of goods
Having your contributions overlooked
Eigenvalue = 1.90, alpha = .76
.84
.77
.49
.47
.37
.33
52
.51
.49
46
.37
.63
.62
.50
.44
a For ease of interpretation, items are listed within factors in declining order of magnitude
for pattern loadings.
however, the immediate generalizability of this conclusion is obviously
limited to populations like that s ampl e d- voluntary, quite young on
average, well educated, and with some demonstrable degree of cultural-
scientific interest.
The fact that the SRLE correlates more highly with the PSS for men
than for women deserves explanation. Another recent study by the present
authors (Kohn and Macdonald, 1992) suggests two possible clues: (1) Both
hassles and trait anxiety, as measured by the SRLE and the Trait Subscale
of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970), respectively,
related positively to adults' scores on the PSS; however, the incremental
perception of stress with increasing hassles exposure was less pronounced
230 Kohn and Macdonal d
Table IIL Intercorrelations Among the Six Factor-Based Subscales for the Survey
of Recent Life Experiences a
Subseale 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Social and cultural difficulties
2. Work .34 - -
3. Time pressure .35 .30 - -
4. Finances .44 .31 .26 - -
5. Social acceptability .38 .31 .32 .38 - -
6. Social victimization .50 .44 .39 .38 .35
a The factor-based subscales were formed by unit-weighting all items for a subscale
which had pattern loadings equal to or greater than .30 on the corresponding
factor. All correlations above are significant at an alpha level of .01, two-tailed.
for high than low trait-anxious subjects. (2) Women scored higher than
men on trait anxiety.
The latter finding, i.e., higher trait anxiety in women than in men,
has been quite common (e.g., Abdel-Khalek and Omar, 1988; Bander and
Betz, 1981; Bernstein and Carmel, 1986; Nakazato and Shimonaka, 1989;
Nigro and Galli, 1985; Simon and Thomas, 1983). Our explanation of the
former result, notably that highly anxious adults are less responsive to has-
sles in their perceptions of stress than are low-anxious adults, was that
highly anxious adults so overreact to modest levels of hassles-based stress
as to limit severely their possibilities of further response. Thus, the fact
that hassles relates more strongly to perceived stress in men than in women
may reflect the overrepresentation of high anxiety in women. This should
predispose more women than men to so overreact to relatively minor levels
of hassles-based stress as to limit seriously the possible range of incremental
response to further stress.
As was true for the ICSRLE (Kohn et aL, 1990), the claim that the
SRLE is less contaminated by negative well-being or subjective distress than
the Hassles Scale (as should be true based on item content and response
format) finds support in the relatively modest, albeit statistically significant,
intercorrelations among the SRI~E's six factor-based subscales. Dohrenwend
and Shrout (1985) plausibly ascribed the very high intercorrelations among
the Hassles Scale's eight factor-based subscales to their common contami-
nation by subjective distress. The corresponding correlations among the
SRLE' s subscales were generally lower, ranging from .26 to .50 as against
.38 to .71 for the HS. Whereas 12 of the 15 intercorrelations among SRLE
subscales were under .40, only 1 of the 28 subscale intercorrelations for
the HS was that low. Thus, if, as Dohrenwend and Shrout suggest, the very
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 231
high intercorrelations among subscales for the HS reflect contamination by
subjective distress, it seems clear that there must be less such contamina-
tion, if any, on the SRLEo
The factor structure of the SRLE is generally clear-cut and sensi-
ble. Work, time pressure, and finances are obviously areas in which
adults encounter hassles. The social-victimization factor rather resem-
bles the general social-mistreatment factor in the Inventory of College
Students' Recent Life Experiences (Kohn et al., 1990), and the social-
accept abi l i t y fact or makes good sense in light of cur r ent cul t ural
emphases on physical attractiveness, fitness, and social popularity. Para-
doxically, the least obviously interpretable factor in light of its diverse
content is the first factor, which we labeled "social and cultural diffi-
culties." Given the modest size of our sample in relation to the number
of items, a ratio of 4.63:1, it would seem desirable to replicate the factor
analysis of the SRLE, although Kline (1987) claims, on the basis of his
research, that ratios of cases to variables as low as 3:1 produce depend-
able factor solutions.
Following the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we tested the
psychometric properties of a short form of the SRLE which included only
the 41 items loading appreciably on any of the scale's six factors. The short
form showed only a marginally lower reliability and validity than the 51-
item full-length SRLE. Nonetheless, we do not consider the modest saving
of 10 items' worth of subjects' time ordinarily to justify choice of the short
form, given the importance of psychometric sensitivity and the greater
length of comparable measures, e.g., 117 items in Kanner and co-workers's
(1981) Hassles Scale. One exception would be contexts where subjects' time
is at a real premium.
Theoretically, Lazarus and his co-workers have emphasized the im-
portance of the cognitive appraisal of stressfulness in mediating the impact
of hassles on negative well-being (De Longis et al., 1982; Folkman, 1984;
Kanner et al., 1981; Lazarus, 1984; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus and
Folkman, 1987). It appears, however, as pointed out in the Introduction,
that the very attempt to tap appraisal through the severity ratings on
Kanner and co-workers' (1981) Hassles Scale contributes substantially to
its contamination by adverse consequences (Dohrenwend and Shrout, 1985;
Reich et al., 1988). The measurement of exposure to hassles as against their
subjective impact in the SRLE as in the ICSRLE (Kohn et al., 1990) cir-
cumvents this difficulty. Yet the hassles to which exposure is measured are
ones which generally relate to appraised stress as measured by the PSS.
Thus, the SRLE, like the ICSRLE, avoids contamination while maintaining
some relationship to the appraisal process.
232 Kohn and Macdonald
As pointed out previously by Kohn et al. (1991) and by Zika and
Chamberlain (1987, p. 161), a further disadvantage of the Hassles Scale is
that it may well obscure interactive relationships between hassles and
personality factors in predicting adverse consequences to well-being. This
is because such personality factors as trait anxiety and locus of control
probably affect the appraisal of hassles and thereby the severity of their
consequences. Therefore, building appraisal directly into hassles measure-
ment should result in an underestimation of the interactive role of such
personality factors with hassles. This should occur specifically because
appraised stress would be credited with accounting for variance which
would be attributed to hassles x personality interactions, had a hassles index
been used which measured primarily exposure rather than appraised
severity, e.g., the SRLE or the ICSRLE.
In this connection, a strong interaction effect has been found be-
tween ICSRLE score and trait anxiety on psychiatric symptomatology
(Kohn, 1991; Kohn et al., 1990). As trait anxiety increased, so did the
adverse impact of hassles on mental health; likewise, as hassles exposure
increased, so did the mental-health differences between more and less
trait-anxious persons. If our speculation is correct, the Hassles Scale
would have been insensitive to this hypothesized interaction, had it been
used rather than the ICSRLE. Certainly, Zika and Chamberlain (1987)
failed to confirm hypothesized interactions between hassles, as measured
by the HS, and the personality factors of locus of control, assertiveness,
and meaning in life, although admittedly the hypotheses might have
been incorrect. In any event, the possible insensitivity of the HS to in-
teractions between personality and stress is an additional disadvantage
to the likely inflation of that scale' s apparent impact on well-being
through contamination by items and a format which directly reflect ad-
verse consequences.
To assess the desirability of directly assessing the primary appraisal
of stressfulness in hassles measurement, as Kanner et al. (1981) did,
Kohn and Gurevich (1990) compared the effectiveness of the Inventory
of College Students' Recent Life Experiences (Kohn et al., 1990) alone
and in conjunction with direct stress appraisal in predicting perceived
stress, psychiatric symptomatology, and minor physical ailments. They
found that the incorporation of stress appraisal into hassles measure-
ment did not improve prediction but did eradicate a significant hassles
trait-anxiety interaction effect on psychiatric symptomatology which
had also appeared in two previous studies (Kohn and Macdonald, 1991;
Kohn et al., 1991). For these reasons, we advocate directly assessing the
primary appraisal of stressfulness separately from exposure to hassles,
if at all.
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 233
APPENDI X:
SURVEY OF RECENT LI FE EXPERI ENCES
( SRLE)
Following is a list of experiences which many people have some time or other. Please
indicate for each experience how much it has been a part of your life over the past month.
Put a "1" in the space provided next to an experience if it was not at all part of your life
over the past month (e.g., "trouble with mother in l a w- 1"); "2" for an experience which
was only slightly part of your life over that time; "3" for an experience which was distinctly
part of your life; and "4" for an experience which was very much part of your life over the
past month.
Intensity of Experience over Past Month
1 = not at all part of my life
2 = only sligh@ part of my life
3 = distinctly part of my life
4 = very much part of my life
1. Disliking your daily activities
*2. Lack of privacy
3. Disliking your work
4. Ethnic or racial conflict
5. Conflicts with in-laws or boyfriend's/girlfriend's family
6. Being let down or disappointed by friends
7. Conflict with supervisor(s) at work
8. Social rejection
9. Too many things to do at once
10. Being taken for granted
11. Financial conflicts with family members
12. Having your trust betrayed by a friend
"13. Separation from people you care about
14. Having your contributions overlooked
15. Struggling to meet your own standards of performance and accomplishment
16. Being taken advantage of
17. Not enough leisure time
"18. Financial conflicts with friends or fellow workers
"19. Struggling to meet other people' s standards of performance and accomplishment
*20. Having your actions misunderstood by others
21. Cash-flow difficulties
22. A lot of responsibilities
23. Dissatisfaction with work
24. Decisions about intimate relationship(s)
25. Not enough time to meet your obligations
*26. Dissatisfaction with your mathematical ability
27. Financial burdens
28. Lower evaluation of your work than you think you deserve
29. Experiencing high levels of noise
*30. Adjustments to living with unrelated person(s) (e.g., roommate) ...
31~ Lower evaluation of your work than you hoped for
32. Conflicts with family member(s)
33. Finding your work too demanding
34. Conflicts with friend(s)
234 Kohn and Macdonal d
*35. Hard effort to get ahead
36. Trying to secure loan(s)
37. Getting "ripped off" or cheated in the purchase of goods
*38. Dissatisfaction with your ability at written expression
39. Unwanted interruptions of your work
40. Social isolation
41. Being ignored
42. Dissatisfaction with your physical appearance
43 Unsatisfactory housing conditions
44. Finding work uninteresting
45. Failing to get money you expected
46. Gossip about someone you care about
47. Dissatisfaction with your physical fitness
48. Gossip about yourself
49. Difficulty dealing with modern technology (e.g., computers)
*50. Car problems
51. Hard work to look after and maintain home
Note. Asterisks identify items to be omitted from the 41-item short form,
REFERENCES
Abdel-Khalek, A. M., and Omar, M. M. (1988). Death anxiety, state and trait anxiety in
Kuwaitian samples. Psychol, Rep. 63: 715-718.
Baer, P. E., Garmezy, L. B., McLaughlin, R. J., Pokorny, A. D., and Wernick, M. R. (1987).
Stress, coping, family conflict, and adolescent alcohol use. J. Behav. Med. 10: 449-465.
Bander, R. S., and Betz, J. E. (1981). The relationship of sex and sex role to trait and
situationally specific anxiety. Z Res. Personal. 15: 312-322.
Bernstein, J., and Carmel, S. (1986). Trait-anxiety differences among medical students. Psychol,
Rep. 59: 1063-1068.
Blankstein, K. R., and Flett, G. L. (1991). Specificity in the assessment of daily hassles:
Hassles, locus of control, and adjustment in college students. Can. J. Behav. ScL (in press).
Bobo, J. K., Gilchrist, L. D., Elmer, J. E., Snow, W. H., and Schinke, S. P. (1986). Hassles,
role strain, and peer relations in young adolescents. J. Ear~ Adolesc. 6: 339-352.
Burks, N., and Martin, B. (1983). Everyday problems and life-change events: Ongoing versus
acute sources of stress. J. Hum. Stress 11: 27-35.
Cohen, S., Kamarack, T., and Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Z Health Soc. Behav. 24: 385-396.
Compas, B. F., Davis, G. E., Forsythe, C. J., and Wagner, B. M. (1987). Assessment of major
and daily stressful events during adolescence: The Adolescent Perceived Events Scale. J.
Consult. Clin. Psychol. 55: 534-541.
De Longis, A., Coyne, J. C., Dakof, G., Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Relationships
of daily hassles, uplifts and major life events to health status. Health Psychol. 1: 119-136.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., and Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins
Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behav. Sci. 19: 1-15.
Dohrenwend, B. P., and Shrout, P. E. (1985). "Hassles" in the conceptualization and
measurement of life-stress variables. Am. Psychol. 40: 780-785.
Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., and Shrout, P. E. (1984). Symptoms,
hassles, social support and life events: Problem of confounded measures. Z Abnorm.
Psychol. 93: 222-230.
Eckenrode, J. (1984). Impact of chronic and acute stressors on daily reports of mood. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46: 907-918.
Decontami nated Hassl es Measurement 235
Elwood, S. E. (1987). Stressor and coping response inventories for children. PsychoL Rep. 60:
931-947.
Ewedmi, F., and Linn, M. W. (1987). Health and hassles in older and younger men. J. Clin.
PsychoL 43: 347-353.
Flannery, R. B. (1986a). Major life events and daily hassles in predicting health status:
Methodological inquiry. J. Clin. PsychoL 42: 485-487.
Flannery, R. B. (1986b). Negative affectivity, daily hassles, and somatic illness: Preliminary
inquiry concerning hassles measurement. Educ. PsychoL Meas. 46: 1001-1004.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control, stress, and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. J.
Personal Soc. PsychoL 46: 839-852.
Green, B. L. (1986). On the confounding of "hassles" stress and outcome. Am. PsychoL 41:
714-715.
Holahan, C. K., and Holahan, C. J. (1987). Life stress, hassles, and self-efficacy in aging: A
replication and extension. J. AppL Soc. PsychoL 17: 574-592.
Holahan, C. K., Holahan, C. J., and Belk, S. S. (1984). Adjustment in aging: The roles of
life stress, hassles and self-efficacy. Health Psychol. 3: 315-328.
Hudi bur g, R. (1989). Psychology of comput er use. VII. Measuri ng t echnost ress:
Computer-related stress. PsychoL Rep. 64: 767-772.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1986). Life events and hassles as predictors of health symptoms, job
performance and absenteeism. J. Occup. Behav. 7: 39-51.
Johnson, M,, and Stone, G. L. (1987). Social workers and burnout: A psychological description.
J. Soc. Sci. Res. 10: 67-80.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., and Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two
modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J. Behav.
Med. 4: 1-39.
Kanner, A. D., Feldman, S. S., Weinberger, D. A., and Ford, M. E. (1987). Uplifts, hassles
and adaptational outcomes in early adolescence. J. Early Adolesc. 7: 371-384.
Kline, P. (1987). Factor analysis and personality theory. Eur. J. Personal 1: 21-36.
Kohn, P. M. (1991). Reactivity and anxiety in the laboratory and beyond. In Strelau, J., and
Angleitner, A. (eds.), Explorations in temperament, Plenum, New York.
Kohn, P. M., and Gurevich, M. (1990). On the adequacy of the "indirect method" of
measuring the primary appraisal of hassles-based stress, Unpublished manuscript, York
University.
Kohn, P. M., and Macdonald, J. E. (1992). Hassles, anxiety, and negative well-being, Anxiety,
stress, and coping (in press).
Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., and Gurevich, M. (1991). Hassles, health, and personality. J.
Person. Soc. PsychoL, 61: 478-482.
Kohn, P. M., Lafreniere, K., and Gurevich, M. (1990). The Inventory of College Students'
Recent Life Experiences: A decontaminated hassles scale for a special population. J.
Behav. Med. 13: 619-630.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles, J. Behav. Med. 7: 375-389.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and
coping. Eur. J. Personal 1: 141-169.
Lazarus, R. S., De Longis, A., Folkman, S., and Green, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational
outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. Am. PsychoL 40: 770-779.
Lichtenberg, P. A., Swensen, C. H., and Skehan, M. W. (1986). Further investigation of the
role of personality, lifestyle and arthritic severity in predicting pain. J. Psychosom. Res.
30: 327-337.
Marziali, E. A., and Pilkonis, P. A. (1986). The measurement of subjective response to stressful
life events. J. Hum. Stress 12: 5-12.
Miller, M. J., Wilcox, C. J., and Soper, B. (1985). Measuring hassles and uplifts among
adolescents: A different approach to the study of stress. School Counsellor 33: 107-110.
Monroe, S. M. (1983). Major and minor life events as predictors of psychological distress:
Further issues and findings. Z Behav. Med. 6: 189-205.
Nakano, K. (1988). Hassles as a measure of stress in a Japanese sample: Preliminary research.
PsychoL Rep. 63: 252-254.
236 Kohn and Macdonald
Nakazato, K., and Shimonaka, Y. (1989). The Japanese State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Age
and sex differences. Percept. Motor Skills 69: 611-617.
Nigro, G., and Galli, I. (1985), On the relationship between Machiavellianism and anxiety
among Italian undergraduates. PsychoL Rep. 56: 37-38.
Nowack, K. (1986). Type A, hardiness, and psychological distress. J. Behav. Med. 9: 537-548.
Reich, W. P., Parrella, D. P., and Filstead, W. J. (1988). Unconfounding the Hassles Scale:
External sources versus internal responses to stress. Z Behav. Med. 11: 239-249.
Simon, A., and Thomas, A. (1983). Test data for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for British
Further Education, Certificate of Education and B.Ed. students. Personal. Indiv. Differ.
4: 199-200.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., and Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI Manual for the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Wagner, B. M., Compas, B. E., and Howell, D. C. (1988). Daily and major life events: A test
of an integrative model of psychosocial stress. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 16: 189-205.
Weinberger, M., Hiner, E. L., and Tierney, W. M. (1987). In support of hassles as a measure
of stress in predicting health outcomes. Z Behav. Med. 10: 19-31.
Wolf, T. M., Eiston, R. C., and Kissling, G. E. (1989). Relationship of hassles, uplifts, and
life events to psychological well-being of freshman medical students. Behav. Med. 15:
37-45.
Zika, S., and Chamberlain, K. (1987). Relations of hassles and personality to subjective
well-being. Z Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53: 155-162.