SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE Toni C. Antonucci University of Michigan Measuring Social Activity and...
-
Upload
leonard-fields -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE Toni C. Antonucci University of Michigan Measuring Social Activity and...
SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVESOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE
Toni C. AntonucciToni C. AntonucciUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Michigan
Measuring Social Activity and Civic EngagementMeasuring Social Activity and Civic EngagementAmong Older AmericansAmong Older Americans
May 8, 2007May 8, 2007
A Workshop Organized byA Workshop Organized byThe Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related StatisticsThe Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics
The Gerontological Society of America’sThe Gerontological Society of America’sCivic Engagement in an Older America ProjectCivic Engagement in an Older America Project
Washington, DCWashington, DC
OVERVIEWOVERVIEWSOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVESSOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVES
Basic TermsBasic Terms Relevant Theories/Related ModelsRelevant Theories/Related Models Empirical EvidenceEmpirical Evidence Measures/IndicesMeasures/Indices Data SetsData Sets Links to Civic EngagementLinks to Civic Engagement
Social Relations: Basic TermsSocial Relations: Basic Terms
Social NetworksSocial Networks
Social SupportSocial Support
Support QualitySupport Quality
Types of SupportTypes of Support
Aid - instrumental aid, helpAid - instrumental aid, help
Affect - emotional support, Affect - emotional support, affectionaffection
Affirmation - information, Affirmation - information, confirmation confirmation
DefinitionsDefinitions
Emotionally close – love/like, care for, Emotionally close – love/like, care for, confide inconfide in
Roles – spouse, parent, child, friendRoles – spouse, parent, child, friend Provide Support – give aid, affect, Provide Support – give aid, affect,
affirmationaffirmation Receive Support – aid, affect, affirmationReceive Support – aid, affect, affirmation Quality of relations – positiveQuality of relations – positive Quality of relations – negativeQuality of relations – negative Age, race, gender, culturally normativeAge, race, gender, culturally normative
Measures/MethodsMeasures/Methods
Measures: open-ended, targeted/specific Measures: open-ended, targeted/specific questions, objective/subjective, actual perceived questions, objective/subjective, actual perceived
Methods: laboratory studies, daily diary studies, Methods: laboratory studies, daily diary studies, ethnographic/observational studies, beeper ethnographic/observational studies, beeper studies, epidemiological studies, studies, epidemiological studies, interviews/surveysinterviews/surveys
Types of Data:Types of Data: self-reports, observations, self-reports, observations, biomarkers, triangulation reportsbiomarkers, triangulation reports
Social Relations areSocial Relations are
life-span life-span
longitudinal longitudinal
hierarchicalhierarchical
positive, negative --positive, negative --often bothoften both
Relevant Theories/Related ModelsRelevant Theories/Related Models
Multiple Level InfluencesMultiple Level Influences
Environment/Culture
Family/community
IndividualYOUGene/
Biology
Biopsychosocial Cumulative Effects Biopsychosocial Cumulative Effects Model (Model (Seeman & Crimmins, 2001)Seeman & Crimmins, 2001)
Psychological Characteristics (self-efficacy,
self-esteem, etc.)
Social Relationships (structural and
qualitative)
Demographics (age, sex, ethnicity)
Socioeconomic Status
Behavioral Factors
(exercise, smoking, etc.)
Biological Pathways
(e.g., cardiovascular
system, immune system)
Health Outcomes
• physical
• mental
• mortality
Macro-level
Convoys Over the Life CourseConvoys Over the Life Course
Well-being
Properties of the Person
Properties of the Situation
Social Network
Social Support
Support Quality
•Multiple types of relations – e.g. close, peripheral
•Influence of personal and situational
characteristics, e.g. age, gender, race, roles, environment
•Life-span, longitudinal; dynamic
•Effects well-being
The Convoy Model
Empirical EvidenceEmpirical Evidence Age and Cohort differences in social Age and Cohort differences in social
contact, religion, organizational contact, religion, organizational membershipmembership
SES – Health link modified by Social SES – Health link modified by Social SupportSupport
Depressive symptom subscales in 4 Depressive symptom subscales in 4 countriescountries
Profiles of relationships/well-beingProfiles of relationships/well-being Positive and Negative support Positive and Negative support mortality mortality Cultural differences in reciprocityCultural differences in reciprocity Volunteering and HealthVolunteering and Health
Social Contact with Friends and Relatives
Time 1 (1957)Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992)Time 3 (1992)
Cohort 1Cohort 1(born < 1892)(born < 1892)
65+65+MM=1.85=1.85
Cohort 2 Cohort 2 (1893-1912)(1893-1912)
45-6445-64MM=1.96=1.96
65+65+MM=1.89=1.89
80+80+MM=1.89=1.89
Cohort 3Cohort 3(1913-1932)(1913-1932)
25-4425-44MM=2.08=2.08
45-6445-64MM=1.84=1.84
60-7960-79MM=1.75=1.75
Cohort 4Cohort 4(1933-1951)(1933-1951)
25-4425-44MM=2.02=2.02
41-5941-59MM=1.65=1.65
Cohort 5Cohort 5(1952-1967)(1952-1967)
25-4025-40MM=1.81=1.81
Across CohortsAcross Cohorts MM=2.00=2.00 MM=1.94=1.94 MM=1.75=1.75
Religious InvolvementReligious Involvement
Time 1 (1957)Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992)Time 3 (1992)
Cohort 1Cohort 1(born < 1892)(born < 1892)
65+65+MM=3.72=3.72
Cohort 2 Cohort 2 (1893-1912)(1893-1912)
45-6445-64MM= 3.83= 3.83
65+65+MM= 3.74= 3.74
80+80+MM= 3.59= 3.59
Cohort 3Cohort 3(1913-1932)(1913-1932)
25-4425-44MM= 3.80= 3.80
45-6445-64MM= 3.52= 3.52
60-7960-79MM= 3.65= 3.65
Cohort 4Cohort 4(1933-1951)(1933-1951)
25-4425-44MM= 3.12= 3.12
41-5941-59MM= 3.20= 3.20
Cohort 5Cohort 5(1952-1967)(1952-1967)
25-4025-40MM= 2.97= 2.97
Across CohortsAcross Cohorts MM= 3.80= 3.80 MM= 3.38= 3.38 MM= 3.20= 3.20
Community Organization MembershipCommunity Organization Membership
Time 1 (1957)Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992)Time 3 (1992)
Cohort 1Cohort 1(born before 1892)(born before 1892)
65+65+MM=.41=.41
Cohort 2 Cohort 2 (1893-1912)(1893-1912)
45-6445-64MM=.51=.51
65+65+MM=.43=.43
80+80+MM=.53=.53
Cohort 3Cohort 3(1913-1932)(1913-1932)
25-4425-44MM=.57=.57
45-6445-64MM=.47=.47
60-7960-79MM=.64=.64
Cohort 4Cohort 4(1933-1951)(1933-1951)
25-4425-44MM=.45=.45
41-5941-59MM=.75=.75
Cohort 5Cohort 5(1952-1967)(1952-1967)
25-4025-40MM=.73=.73
Across CohortsAcross Cohorts MM= .52= .52 MM=.45=.45 MM=.71=.71
:
SES, Social Relations & Health in SES, Social Relations & Health in Mid and late life (40-93)Mid and late life (40-93)
HYPOTHESES:HYPOTHESES:
1. Social Support will be different 1. Social Support will be different for men and women at different for men and women at different education levelseducation levels
2. Social Support will effect the 2. Social Support will effect the SES-health link differently SES-health link differently depending on the type and source depending on the type and source of support of support
Table 4. Predicting Health Problems with Education, Confide in Child, and Interaction—Males(n=304)
Model 1 Model 2 B SE B B SE B Age 0.02 0.01 0.18 ** 0.03 0.01 0.18 **
Married -0.78 0.22 -0.19 *** -0.79 0.22 -0.19 ***
Education -0.10 0.03 -0.17 ** -0.11 0.03 -0.20 ***
Confide in Child -0.04 0.08 -0.03 -0.03 0.07 -0.02
Ed. x Confide in Child 0.09 0.03 0.19 ***
R2 0.11 0.14 R2 change 0.03
F 10.07 *** 10.73 ***
Figure 4. Confide in Child--Malesn=304
-1
0
1
2
low ed hi ed
Hea
lth
Pro
ble
m
Inde
x hi confide
low confide
Figure 3. Financial Care from Child--Males n=305
-1
0
1
2
low ed hi ed
He
alt
h P
robl
em
In
de
x hi fin care
low fin care
Figure 5. Sick Care from Child--Males n=303
-1
0
1
2
low ed hi ed
He
alt
h P
rob
lem
Ind
ex
hi sick care
low sick care
Four Nation Samples: Ages 60-90Four Nation Samples: Ages 60-90Depressive SymptomotologyDepressive Symptomotology
FrenchFrench
GermanyGermany
USA USA JapanJapan
Four Subscales of CES-D DepressionFour Subscales of CES-D Depression
I felt sadI felt lonelyI felt fearfulI felt depressedI had crying spellsI thought my life had been a failureI felt I could not shake off the blues
I could not get ‘going’My sleep was restlessI talked less than usualI felt that everything I did was an effortI did not feel like eating; my appetite was poorI was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me
Depressed Affect
Somatic Activities
I was happyI enjoyed lifeI felt hopeful about the futureI felt as good as other people
Positive Affect
People were unfriendlyI felt that people disliked me
Interpersonal Depression
Subscales Composition in CES-D by Subscales Composition in CES-D by CountriesCountries
24.3
36.6
30.3
8.8
12
18.2
62.0
7.9
26.4
28.5
41.2
3.9
15.6
22.5
58.1
3.8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
USA (70-93)
JAPAN (70-92)
FRANCE (70-103)
GERMANY(70-105)
Depress Somatic Positive Interpersonal
Figure 1. Relationship quality profiles for married people with and without best friends
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Positivefamily
Negativefamily
Positivespouse
Negativespouse
Positivefriend
Negativefriend
Relationship quality
T s
core
s
High network quality High family/friend qualityHigh spouse/family quality Low family/spouse qualityLow network quality
Married People With Best FriendMarried People With Best Friend
Married People Without Best FriendMarried People Without Best Friend
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Postivefamily
Negativefamily
Positivespouse
Negativespouse
NA NA
Relationship quality
T s
core
s
High network quality High family qualityModerate network quality Low quality family/high spouseLow spouse quality Low network quality
Profiles and Well-being…Profiles and Well-being…
Among marrieds with a best friendAmong marrieds with a best friend• Good relationships of 2 types Good relationships of 2 types well- well-
beingbeing Among marrieds without best friendAmong marrieds without best friend
• Good relationships with spouse Good relationships with spouse necessary for well-beingnecessary for well-being
Table 2
Psychological Wellbeing by Social Relationship Clusters
Life Satisfaction Depressive Symptoms Self Esteem
Participants with best friend
High quality network 6.09(.12) a 6.42(.81) a 3.74 (.04) a , b
High quality family / friend 5.68(.12)a 8.82 (.82) a, b 3.59 (.04) a
High quality spouse /family 6.02(.15) a 7.92 (1.01)a,b 3.67 (.05) a
Low quality spouse/family 4.73(.19) b 12.45 (1.30)b 3.37(.06) b
Low quality network 5.40(.14) c 11.47 (.89) b 3.47 (.04) b
Participants without best friend
High quality network 6.06(.24) a 6.43(1.26) a 3.76(.06) a
High quality family 5.95(.26)a, b 8.82(1.40) a, b 3.71(.06)a, b
Moderate quality network 5.50(.26)a,b 7.24(1.35)a 3.48(.06) b
Low quality family 5.36(.32)a, b 11.03(1.69)a,b 3.57(.08)a, b
Low quality spouse 5.05(.25) b 11.45(1.37)a,b 3.49(.06) b
Low quality network 5.33(.33) a,b 13.63(1.70) b 3.48(.08) b
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. Means in the same column that do not share subscripts differ at
p < .05 in the Bonferonni comparison, with two exceptions: 1) Life satisfaction comparisons among people
without a best friend were marginally significant. 2) The self esteem comparison among people without a
best friend between the low quality network and high quality network was marginal. All estimates control
for gender, age, ethnicity, and number of family members.
Summary: Negative and Summary: Negative and Positive Relations Positive Relations Mortality Mortality
Positive relationships with family and friends Positive relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people associated with higher survival among people those who are well but lower with those who are those who are well but lower with those who are illill
BUTBUT
Negative relationships with family and friends Negative relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people associated with higher survival among people who are illwho are ill
Social RelationsSocial Relations
Reciprocity among older peopleReciprocity among older people
In three groupsIn three groups
French, African American and French, African American and White AmericansWhite Americans
Ages 65+Ages 65+
US whitesUS whites US blacksUS blacks FrenchFrench
65-7465-74 75-9775-97 65-7465-74 75-9775-97 65-7465-74 75-9775-97
Rec. lessRec. less 126 126 (38%)(38%)
58 58 (27%)(27%)
15 15 (47%)(47%)
7 7 (37%)(37%)
53 (4%)53 (4%) 48 (4%)48 (4%)
EqualEqual 154 154 (46%)(46%)
105 105 (48%)(48%)
12 12 (36%)(36%)
8 8 (37%)(37%)
790 790 (59%)(59%)
766 766 (63%)(63%)
Rec. Rec. moremore
51 51 (15%)(15%)
54 54 (25%)(25%)
5 (15%)5 (15%) 5 5 (26%)(26%)
502 502 (37%)(37%)
406 406 (33%)(33%)
Table 4. Regression Analysis for Self-Rated Health with Interaction Variables. N=313
Model 1Model 2 Model 3
Predictor Variables B SE(B) B SE(B) B SE(B)
Education.06*** .0
2.07*** .02 .08*** .02
Volunteer1.14*** .3
2-.58 .46 -3.39† 1.76
Network size.07*** .0
2
Volunteer X Network size
-.10** .03
Network age -.01 .01
Volunteer X Network age
.02† .01
Pos. child .17 .15
Volunteer X Pos. child
.73* .36
Adjusted R2
F0.09
9.0***0.06
6.2***0.07
6.2***
Notes: Each column represents a significant regression model. Only significant models and interactions are presented. †p<.10, *p<.05; **p=.01; ***p<.001
5.04.54.03.53.02.52.0
Positive Relationship Quality with Child
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Sel
f-R
ated
Hea
lth
Volunteer
Non-Volunteer
Volunteer
Non-Volunteer
volunteer in wave 2
R Sq Linear = 0.087
R Sq Linear = 0.627
Data SetsData Sets
• Social Relations over the Life CourseSocial Relations over the Life Course• National Survey of American LifeNational Survey of American Life• Americans Changing Lives Americans Changing Lives • Berlin Aging StudyBerlin Aging Study• French PAQUID studyFrench PAQUID study• National Study of Households and FamiliesNational Study of Households and Families• Panel Study of Income DynamicsPanel Study of Income Dynamics• National Survey of American LifeNational Survey of American Life
• National Social Life Health and AgingNational Social Life Health and Aging • Heath and Retirement StudyHeath and Retirement Study
Measures/IndicesMeasures/Indices
Positive and negativePositive and negative Giving and ReceivingGiving and Receiving Perceived and actualPerceived and actual Spouse, family, friendsSpouse, family, friends Life-time/currentLife-time/current Crises, non-crises i.e. direct/bufferingCrises, non-crises i.e. direct/buffering
Links to Civic EngagementLinks to Civic Engagement
In our culture people like to giveIn our culture people like to give Norm of reciprocityNorm of reciprocity Investments in the Support BankInvestments in the Support Bank ‘‘National registry’ of support given National registry’ of support given
and receivedand received
This work was conducted with This work was conducted with many colleagues - especiallymany colleagues - especially
Kristine Ajrouch Kristine Ajrouch Hiroko AkiyamaHiroko Akiyama Kira BirdittKira Birditt James Jackson James Jackson French teamFrench team Japanese teamJapanese team