Influencing Factors on Mid-Life Crisis

Hae Kyung Chang

doi:10.7475/KJAN.2018.30.1.98

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.30(1) > 1076523

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Chang: Influencing Factors on Mid-Life Crisis

Original Research

Korean J Adult Nurs 2018;30(1):98-105.

Published online: 18 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7475/KJAN.2018.30.1.98

Influencing Factors on Mid-Life Crisis

Hae Kyung Chang

Department of Nursing, Hanseo University, Seosan, Korea

Corresponding author: Chang, Hae Kyung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2039-1064 Department of Nursing, Hanseo University, 46 Hanseo 1-ro, Haemi-myun, Seosan 31962, Korea. Tel: +82-41-660-1070, Fax: +82-41-660-1087, E-mail: hkchang@hanseo.ac.kr

- This work was supported by Hanseo University Research Fund in 2017.

Received 9 November 201722 December 2017 Accepted 16 February 2018

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe the factors which may influence a reported mid-life crisis.

Methods

The research design was a descriptive survey design using a convenience sampling. Data were collected from 209 middle aged men and women by using self-reported questionnaires including Korean versions of Mid-life Crisis Scale, Meaning in Life Questionnaire, Perceived Stress Scale, Ego-resiliency Scale and Multipledimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Data were analyzed using the SPSS/WIN 22.0 program for descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficients and hierarchical multiple regression.

Results

The mean for mid-life crisis was 2.69±0.58. A mid-life crisis was statistically significant in relationship to education (F=3.79, p=.024) and to econom-ic status (F=4.07, p=.019). Further, there were significant correlations among meaning of life (r=-.34, p<.001), health status (r=-.42, p<.001), stress (r=.46, p<.001), ego resilience (r=-.29, p<.001), social support (r=-.47, p<.001), and mid-life crisis. Social support (β=-.29, p<.001), stress (β=.27, p<.001), and health status (β=-.22, p<.001) were significant predictors which explained 34% of the variance reported in a mid-life crisis.

Conclusion

The results indicate that these factors influencing mid-life crisis should be considered when developing nursing intervention to cope with a mid-life crisis.

Keywords: Health status, Ego, Social support, Middle age

REFERENCES

1.Statistics Korea. Population projections for Korea [Internet]. Seoul: Statistics Korea;2015. [cited 2017 October 08]. Available from. http://meta.narastat.kr/metasvc/svc/SvcMetaDcDtaPopup.do?orgId=101&confmNo=101033&kosisYn=Y.

2.LeShan EJ. The wonderful crisis of middle age: some personal reflections. Philadelphia: David McKay Company;1973.

3.Fitzpatrick JJ. Meaning in life: translating nursing concepts to research. Asian Nursing Research. 2008. 2(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1976-1317(08)60023-7.

4.Neugarten BL. Middle age and aging: a reader in social psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago press;1968. p. 93–8.

5.Steger MF., Frazier P., Oishi S., Kaler M. The Meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2006. 53(1):80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80.

6.Won DR., Kim KH., Kwon SJ. Validation of the Korean version of meaning of life questionnaire. The Korean Journal of Health Psychology. 2005. 10(2):211–25.

7.Bonebright CA., Clay DL., Ankenmann RD. The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2000. 47(4):469–77.

8.Bosworth HB., Bastian LA., Kuchibhatla MN., Steffens DC., Mc-Bride CM., Skinner CS, et al. Depressive symptoms, meno-pausal status, and climacteric symptoms in women at midlife. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2001. 63(4):603–8.

9.Chang HK., Cha BK. Influencing factors of climacteric women's depression. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2003. 33(7):972–80. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2003.33.7.972.

10.Juffer F., Stams GJJM., van IJzendoorn MH. Adopted children's problem behavior is significantly related to their ego resilien-cy, ego control, and sociometric status. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2004. 45(4):697–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00264.x.

11.Chang KM. The relation ego-resiliency, stress coping style and psychological growth environment. Korean Journal of Youth Studies. 2003. 10(4):143–61.

12.Cha BK. A path analysis of factors influencing health-related quality of life among male adults. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing. 2016. 27(4):399–409. https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2016.27.4.399.

13.Lee JS. Rural area people's mental health relating factor. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2001. 10(2):220–8.

14.Kim AS., Yoon G. Factor analyses of mid-life crisis scale in the Korean adults. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1991. 4(1):73–87.

15.Lee AL. The effects of middle-aged women's self-esteem and marital intimacy on mid-life crisis [master's thesis]. Busan: Kyungsung University;. 2013. 1–107.

16.Chang HK., Oh WO. Factors influencing ego-integrity in community dwelling elders. Journal of Korean Academy of Fun-damentals of Nursing. 2011. 18(4):529–37.

17.Cohen S., Kamarck T., Mermelstein R. A global measure of per-ceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983. 24(4):385–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404.

18.Block J., Kremen AM. IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology. 1996. 70(2):349–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349.

19.Yoo SK., Shim HW. Psychological protective factors in resilient adolescents in Korea. Korean Journal of Educational Psycho-logy. 2002. 16(4):189–206.

20.Shin JS., Lee YB. The effects of social supports on psychosocial well-being of unemployed. Korean Journal of Social Welfare. 1999. 37:241–69.

21.Ko JW., Yom YH. The role of social support in the relationship between job stress and job satisfaction/organizational com-mitment among hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2003. 33(2):265–74. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2003.33.2.265.

22.Joung YJ., Chae KS. The influence of life incident stress on mid- life crisis -focusing on the moderating effects of psychosocial maturity-. Korean Journal of Family Welfare. 2016. 21(2):201–27. https://doi.org/10.13049/kfwa.2016.21.2.2.

23.Chang HK., Sohn JN. Factors related to meaning of life in middle adults. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Con-vergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology. 2017. 7(7):609–21. https://doi.org/10.14257/ajmahs.2017.07.90.

24.Oh ET., Oh HO. Relationship among mid-life crisis, health pro-motion behavior and life satisfaction. The Korean Journal of Physical Education. 2011. 50(6):325–36.

25.Chung MS. Resilience, coping methods, and quality of life in middle-aged women. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2011. 20(4):345–54. https://doi.org/10.12934/jkpmhn.2011.20.4.345.

26.Shin HS. Subjectivity on stressful life events of middle-aged women: a Q methodology approach. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2002. 32(3):406–15. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2002.32.3.406.

27.Kim MC. Mid-life crisis and it's related variables [dissertation]. Seoul: Ewha Womans University;1989. p. 1–131.

Table 1.

Differences in Mid-life Crisis of Participants according to General Characteristics (N=209)

Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M± SD	Mid-life crisis
Characteristics	Categories	n (%) or M± SD	M± SD	t or F	p
Gender	Male	54 (25.8)	2.63±0.45	-0.89	.374
Gender	Female	155 (74.2)	2.71±0.62
Age (year)	40~49	88 (42.1)	2.63±0.58	1.95	.144
	50~59	111 (53.1)	2.71±0.59
	60~64	10 (4.8)	3.00±0.51
		50.52±5.72
Spouse	Yes	178 (85.2)	2.68±0.60	-0.14	.383
Spouse	No	31 (14.8)	2.70±0.51
Education level	≤ Junior high school ^a	10 (4.8)	3.15±0.42	3.79	.024
	High school ^b	75 (35.9)	2.71±0.62		c＜ a
	≥ College ^c	124 (59.3)	2.64±0.56
Religion	Yes	113 (54.1)	2.62±0.58	-1.68	.094
Religion	No	96 (45.9)	2.76±0.57
Occupation	Yes	140 (67.0)	2.74±0.35	-0.65	.514
Occupation	No	69 (33.0)	2.78±0.34
Economic status	High ^a ^b	12 (5.7)	2.39±0.44	4.07	.019
	Middle ^b	158 (75.6)	2.66±0.56		a＜ c
	Low ^c	39 (18.7)	2.88±0.67

Table 2.

The Descriptive Statistics of the Research Variables (N=209)

Variables	M± SD	Min	Max
Mid-life crisis	2.69±0.58	1.26	4.49
Meaning of life	4.81±1.04	1.30	7.00
Health status	3.29±0.66	1.00	5.00
Stress	2.75±0.34	1.70	3.80
Ego resilience	2.70±0.37	1.71	3.86
Social support	3.75±0.60	2.00	5.00

Table 3.

Correlations Coefficient among the Variables (N=209)

Variables	Meaning of life	Health status	Stress	Ego resilience	Social support
Variables	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)	r (p)
Mid-life crisis	-.34 (＜.001)	-.42 (＜.001)	.46 (＜.001)	-.29 (＜.001)	-.47 (＜.001)

Table 4.

Influencing Factors on the Mid-life Crisis (N=209)

Variables	Categories	B	β	t	p
Model 1	(Constant)	2.80		11.07	＜.001
	Education (dummy 1; high school)	-0.38	-.31	-1.91	.057
	Education (dummy 2;≥ college)	-0.42	-.35	-2.14	.034
	Economic status (dummy 1; middle)	0.26	.19	1.49	.138
	Economic status (dummy 2; low)	0.42	.28	2.18	.031
Adj. R²=.04, F=3.20, p=.014
Model 2	(Constant)	3.36		6.54	＜.001
	Education (dummy 1; high school)	-0.16	-.13	-0.99	.324
	Education (dummy 2;≥ college)	-0.21	-.18	-1.31	.193
	Economic status (dummy 1; middle)	0.18	.13	1.27	.204
	Economic status (dummy 2; low)	0.24	.16	1.52	.131
	Meaning of life	-0.03	-.05	-0.73	.467
	Health status	-0.19	-.22	-3.52	＜.001
	Stress	0.46	.27	4.51	＜.001
	Ego resilience	-0.06	-.04	-0.64	.526
	Social support	-0.27	-.28	-4.28	＜.001
Adj. R²=.38, F=14.98, p＜.001

TOOLS

Similar articles