PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Socioeconomic Status, Resources, Psychological Experiences, and Emotional Responses: A Test of the Reserve Capacity Model Linda C. Gallo San Diego State University Laura M. Bogart and Ana-Maria Vranceanu Kent State University Karen A. Matthews University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine The current study used ecological momentary assessment to test several tenets of the reserve capacity model (L.C. Gallo & K. A. Matthews, 2003). Women (N = 108) with varying socioeconomic status (SES) monitored positive and negative psychosocial experiences and emotions across 2 days. Measures of intrapsychic and social resources were aggregated to represent the reserve capacity available to manage stress. Lower SES was associated with less perceived control and positive affect and more social strain. Control and strain contributed to the association between SES and positive affect. Lower SES elicited greater positive but not negative emotional reactivity to psychosocial experiences. Women with low SES had fewer resources relative to those with higher SES, and resources contributed to the association between SES and daily experiences. Considerable research has indicated that socioeconomic status (SES) has a powerful influence on health (Adler et al., 1994; Lynch & Kaplan, 2000). The association is monotonic, so that at every point of the gradient, individuals with lower SES show greater vulnerability to diverse causes of morbidity and mortality when compared with their higher SES counterparts (Adler, Boyce, Chesney, Folkman, & Syme, 1993; Macintyre, 1997). SES appears to shape health through varied pathways, including health behav- iors, physiological mechanisms, environmental conditions, access to health care, and psychosocial factors (Adler & Ostrove, 1999; Andrulis, 1998; Robert & House, 2000). Gallo and Matthews (2003) developed the reserve capacity model as a framework for understanding how emotional factors, in particular, can contribute to the socioeconomic gradient in health. This model asserts that lower SES environments foster greater exposure to stress, which, in turn, elicits more negative and less positive emotions. In addition, lower SES environments can lead to greater use and depletion of mitigating psychosocial resources as well as fewer opportunities to develop resource reserves. Re- source discrepancies and changes may contribute directly to emo- tional distress and may contribute to the relatively greater emo- tional reactivity to stress exhibited by individuals with low SES. Subsequently, negative emotions and low positive emotions may foster deleterious health outcomes (Gallo, Ghaed, & Bracken, in press; Gallo & Matthews, 2003). The current study examined several tenets of this framework, using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to assess daily psychosocial experiences. SES, Stress, Resources, and Emotions Substantial research has suggested that SES exhibits an inverse, typically linear association with negative emotions and emotional disorders (for reviews, see Gallo & Matthews, 2003; Lorant et al., 2003). In part, this relationship may reflect variation in stress exposure attributable to socioeconomic environments (Baum, Ga- rofalo, & Yali, 1999). Nonetheless, some research has suggested that even after accounting for stressful experiences, individuals with lower SES report more emotional distress than their higher SES counterparts (Brown & Harris, 1978; Kessler & Cleary, 1980; McLeod & Kessler, 1990; Turner & Noh, 1983). In other words, exposure does not tell the whole story—individuals with low SES also exhibit differential emotional reactivity to stress. To understand this phenomenon, it may be informative to con- sult current models of stress, which emphasize the roles of mate- rial, social, and personal resources in determining psychological Linda C. Gallo, SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psy- chology, San Diego State University; Laura M. Bogart and Ana-Maria Vranceanu, Department of Psychology, Kent State University; Karen A. Matthews, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Laura M. Bogart is now with the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. This research was supported by a Kent State University Summer Re- search and Creativity Grant. Linda C. Gallo was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant MH66101-01 during preparation of this article. We thank Evangelia Banou, Amy Jones, and Lisa Walt for assistance with data collection and data entry. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda C. Gallo, SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego State University, 6363 Alvarado Court, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92120. E-mail: lcgallo@sciences.sdsu.edu Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005, Vol. 88, No. 2, 386 –399 Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.386 386