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