.. .0- O’v’vu—Q —---.—.------- --_fl~_-------wn‘-‘.l.¢ SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND THE AGED WIDOW . .- AND WIDOWER . - , esis for the Degree of MA . . . IAI I .l’ - ~ . . 4 I u . - . . -a D . . . . ._. ' I - ..' ' c- . \‘ - - - o . Q- . ‘ ’4. .fl‘ ‘., _ ._'_‘ . . ~.-—A - - - ..‘o _ .--. . u - . ’ . . .~-. . , _ . v~“. . < I ‘ -. ‘ - ,.V. - - _<.—' . ‘ ' - n f- n 4 ... , . A . ' - .. - ' fi 0’ . . . . - _. v ,._ _ - , ' ' o ' . e . . - ' . . . . ‘ ' ' . . ‘ . . . «.- ,- o . . V. . _ . . .‘ v. y . ~ ' - _ _ - . . . . . - _ ._ . . o » - -,- .. _ . - . . . . . _ _ .. - _ >. ‘_ _ __ . . ‘ _ . . . . . . . . -. , . . .- . . , . ’ . . . . - ,.- . - . . e _. _ _ _ . - - . . . - . _ ' ,' . . ‘ _ *.' - , '__ . - . _.- ' . _ _ , _- ‘, .- . . . V _ e _._7 .-- , A ,- - .r— ' . ~- _ . .. - - v— - ~ ‘ . _ , , , .. . -_ _ ‘ .- A - o— _ ' ' - ‘ ' _ . I- ' n. L > . _' > w _ >_ " - .- - -. - n. .. _-. - _ . , _. ‘ . , . _. . - - a - - - . - . , . .. A ‘ ‘ .. > . . . ’ , ‘ e .' . - -... .- - . , - ., , ' ' * I’r- ' . - _ . ' ‘ . - . ‘ .A . ‘r ' ' i - o is -' " i . . , . r , -o . r '- - . ' . . ‘ - . - _, ' .r . ' - -‘ ‘ . n. - . . < - - -. a - .. , z ' __ 4 ' ~ - ‘ »- .. — ,-- -. - , 4. _ _ . . _ . - '- ' - ' ' o -. - — 'r - -r -~- _ . ‘ - < <'. o -. ‘ , ¢ _ r , _ ._ ' . . . . - . . . r n a. - . V o _ ‘, , _. - » . -— _ - , .. . .‘ -_. V _. -’ - ' ‘ ..fiv‘- _"' . o e ' " ' ‘ ' " ' .4 - " -» a o ‘- ‘ —(. p. .-- .- ,_ . . -, , ' - . _ -.. . . " - . l , ‘ '- - - . a -- — e“ e . - — . . . . _ ' . . o - 1-' ‘ c , --° . - -' .1. e . .. . . . .. .- ‘ ., . . . . - ' -_ _ ' . A " - . . - A— - -, . O l .' ' u ' .10 ‘v 1 . - ._ . ' . . - a r . u l , — ' . 4 ,. , V _ ._. - . . - .. , . .- _ , , . . -, —... . . Us ' ' ' fl " " - ‘ . ‘ a _ . 1 ~ ‘ - ~ . w; I V - '. . A -, _ ,. .. . . _ .‘ f _- - -- - M. .... --. _, . ._ _- .' .j ,5 _ .. . . _ . . , . . na- 4" . . . - _ - _ -- , . . . i ‘ or ~ - . a ~ . n I. . ‘ ' " I .f" v -o .-. . . . o . 4 — . 0 ,. -- ~v' '~- 1- .-— . - . I ' , . . . - ..— . . . .‘ . . y _ _ _ .__ .,. -. A. - _ , ‘ ' ‘ ' ‘ ' ' ‘ ‘4 o - ' '- ' " ' 'I 'c -. u - v . -. . f. ,' . - ' .. . " “ "" "l""‘ ' " .- . e . ,- " ' " 'fflf'“ “v r" ‘ v - . . n’ , -- . . . -. ~- - o v ‘ '~ ‘ - g H ,. ,.. , . . . ~.-" . ..» a (v ' . . - . _ . _, _ _ .. . . -- I . . . ‘ . - , . . ,. . . _ ‘_ ~. ‘ ,- _ . . - __ ~ . r . ';"','. _ '_ ., .. , . . - ‘ . ~ , . 41- '- o- - . . v-‘. - , . . e- ,-..“ ~¢.. ' _ . , . _ . o . . ., - . .4 ‘ .v . ., .,' , . 4..._ .u. . , . . . a ’1'. ., -.- ' 0' -. 4...-.. n- A- ,.- ,,_. . . . . . . ' . - o .1 - - n- . ., , . .V 4.9- . ,. , , . ‘ . c .- - - .., .v , . , . .., . » v . .o' - — - . r. .-.-.v. ., n .'-4. . - I ,_ . - ' ‘ -~ . z » ‘ . v r . r ‘ an. - - ‘-‘ 1 . \— . o n ‘ 'n 4’ . I ' ’ 'l - .‘ (u v 4. w p- .- f , . , . - _ . u. .. - , , -,_ . . . . , , . ,,. - . . - _ .. c -- . . o , —a- . ' ' o ’ O 1‘- n I -n ' . .. - - - - , —' 0 -7- 7 . y vo ABSTRACT SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND THE AGED WIDUW AND WIDOWER By Barbara Leviton The period of aging is an interesting one. develop- mentally. in that it demands tremendous adjustments to change while concomitantly challenging the aging individ- ual'with declining physical capacities and less Oppor-' tunity within society at large. The aged individual is also subject to the disruption of the most ubiquitous of all social relationships. the marital and family group- ing. through the event of widowhood. This study investigates the effects of widowhood on the elderly as measured by a life satisfaction scale. a subjective self-report measure. It explores. further. whether there are other kinds of substitutive relation- ships or social contacts which could serve in a supportive fashion for those who were widowed. The individuals in this study constitute a broad and representative sample drawn from a survey by the State of Michigan. They participated in an hour long interview Barbara Leviton covering many aspects of their life. They are all 60 years and older. and 37% are widowed. It was found that while there is a difference be- tween the widowed and nonwidowed on measures of life satisfaction. much of this difference can be attributed to demographic characteristics which generally accompany being a widowed individual. It was shown that those widowed within the past two years showed a significantly lower level of present life satisfaction than those who had been widowed for longer periods of time. This study also investigated whether widowhood is more stressful when it is developmentally off-schedule. that is. occurs earlier than one would expect. The re- sults on this hypothesis were inclusive owing. in part. to the restricted age range of the sample (60 and over) which only provides a limited test of this hypothesis. In investigating variables which might serve as ameliorators. it was found that those who reported having a confident exhibited significantly higher levels of life. satisfaction. Having friends and relatives in the neigh- borhood. and visits with neighbors. also contributed sig- nificantly to higher life satisfaction. Contacts with children (telephone conversations. visits. living close by) were not associated with reported life satisfaction suggesting that. contrary to widely held beliefs. inter- generational independence is preferred by many aged indi- Barbara Leviton viduals. In a more general look at what contributes to life satisfaction. it was found that self-assessed health explains the largest amount of variance (19%). while social support and its converse. isolation. explain only 1% of the total variance in life satisfaction. Based on the results and their interpretations. a number of suggestions were made for refining a measure of social support and isolation. and for future research. SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND THE AGED wloom AND WIDOWER By Barbara Leviton A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment for the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ART Department of Psychology 1976 To my grandmother. Sarah who has grown old with grace and courage ii ACKNOWLEDCNENTS I would like to thank Robert J. Calsyn. my thesis chairman. for his continued SUpport and guidance. I also wish to thank the members of my committee - John Schweitzer. Robert A. Zucker. and in particular. Amanda A. Back. for the generous use of her data and time. Also. thanks to Stephen. who endured my midnight vigils at the computer center. iii LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES . . . . . FIGURES . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . widowhood and Aging Aging: A DeveIOpmental Paradox e e 0 Theoretical Arguments Models of Adaptation How is Adaptation or Adjustment Measured? . . . Determinants of Life Satisfaction Contacts with Others Social SUpport Systems Social Support Systems and the Elderly e e e e Isolation . . Definitional and Behavioral Difficulties . widowhood: Theoretical Con- siderations . . METHOD . . . . . Sampling 0 e e Questionnaire Development Respondent Selection Interviews . Sampling Distributions Sampling for Present Study Items for Analysis . Data Analysis . . iv Page vi viii \lmb N II. III. IV. METHOD (Continued) . . . Instruments: Life Satisfaction Instruments: Isolation-Support IHdQX e e e e e 0 RESULTS . . . . . e Hypothesis 1 . Demographics and Life Satis- faction . . Testing an Alternative Hypo- thBSlSe e e e e e Hypothesis 2 . . . . HypOthQSIS 3 e e e e Hypothesis 4 Predicting Life Satisfaction Hypothesis 5 . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . APPENDICES o o o o o o 0 Appendix A. Selected Original Items from State of Michigan Survey . . . B. Sampling Methods from Original Study C. Demographic Distribution Within Original Sample (N: 2500). 0. Life Satisfaction Scale and Statistics E. Isolation-Support Index . Page 25 27 29 29 34 36 39 46 59 63 69 7B 82 82 100 101 101 104 107 Table l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. LIST OF TABLES Differences in Demographic Composition Between Widowed and 1a. Income . 1b. Age 0 0 10. Education 1d. Sex 0 0 Partial Correlations Nonwidowed Samples Between Widowed/Non- widowed on Life Satisfaction . . . . Differences Between Widowed and Nonwidowed on Total Life Satisfaction Scores Across Age Categories . Analysis of Variance Between Age Groups on Total Life Satisfaction for Those Widowed Within Past 2 Years (Ns95): Mean Scores on Total L.S. . 5a. Differences Between Age Groups and Men and Women on Total Life Satisfaction for Those Widowed Within the Past Two Years (N=95). 5b. Deviations of Category Means from Grand Mean for Facto Significance Levels f rs of Age and Sex . or Individual Isolation-Support Variables and Life Satisfaction . . If One Does Have a Confident. To Whom Does One Likely Turn? . . . . . . Breakdown of Mean Dif ferences of Isolation-Support Index on Life Satisfaction Measures . . . . . . Bivariate Regressions of Isolation-Support and Measures of Life Satisfaction . . Prediction of Total Life Satisfaction With Variables of Income. Education. Isolation- Support Index. Heal Ch. A99 0 e e 0 vi Page 31 31 32 33 37 42 43 45 45 45 51 53 57 60 62 Table 11. 12. 13. 14. Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (N32500): Age. Sex. Sex Within A93 e e e e e e e e e e e 0 Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (N:2500)u Race. Income. Educa- tiOfl e e w e e e e e e e e 0 Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (N32500): Living Arrangement. Marital Status. Length of Widowhood . Factoring of Life Satisfaction: Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix After Rotation. Factor Loadings: Communalities . . . vii Page 101 102 103 104 Figure 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. LIST OF FIGURES Social Causation Model of Dohrewend and Dohrewend with Widowhood as Stressor . . Social Causation Model of Dohrewend and Dohrewend with Widowhood as Stressor. Life Satisfaction as Outcome . . . . Social Causation Model with Widowhood as Stressor. Life Satisfaction as Outcome. Social Support as Mediator . . . . . Isolation-Support as Mediator of Life Satisfaction for Widowed and Nonwidowed . Interaction Effects: Marital Status. Total Life Satisfaction. Isolation-Support . . Interaction Effects: Marital Status. Life Satisfaction Measures. Isolation-Support. 6a. RetrOSpective . . . . . . . . 6b. present mOOd e e e e e e e 0 6C. AntiCipatOPY e e e e e o 0 viii Page 10 11 1B 64 65 67 67 67 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The most ubiquitous of all social relationships is the marital and family grouping: while at the same time. one of the most common events for the aged individual is ‘ widowhood. or the disruption of this basic relationship. The period of aging is an interesting one. develop- mentally. in that it demands tremendous adjustments to change while concomitantly. the individual is faced with declining physical capacities and less Opportunities within society at large. How does widowhood affect the aged person within this developmental context? Does it result in lowered life satisfaction or morale? Are there ways in which this disruption can somehow be anticipated and some elements of continuity be provided? This study will investigate the effects of widowhood on the aging individual. It will explore. further. whether there are not other kinds of substitutive rela- tionships or social contacts which can serve in a suppor- tive or mediating fashion. The individuals in this study constitute a broad and representative sample drawn from a study by the State of Michigan. They participated in an hour long interview covering many aspects of their life. They are all 60 years or older. and 37% of them are widowed. It is hoped that some recommendations for preventive programs can be made from the results of this study. Widowhood and Aging It is possible to conceptualize the period of aging as one with increased environmental stress and an increase in the number of objective stressors. where one could de- fine a stressor as an objective event that has the po- tential to disrupt the individual's normal activities (Dohrewend and Dohrewend. 1973). V Clearly. what one calls a stressful event is often presumptive. and also an empirical question. For in- stance. lower socioeconomic status is more closely asso- ciated with mental illness among older men. while the de- velopment of psychiatric disorder among women in later life is more closely associated with levels of self-esteem (Lowenthal. 1967). But the research of Lowenthal and Boler (1965) does show that some of the normal developmental losses of aging. poor health. re- tirement and widowhood serve as stressful events as reflected in lower levels of morale. In examining one of the most ubiquitous events for the aged population. widowhood. there are several pieces of evidence which point to its potentially stressful na- ture: suicide rates are higher for widowed individuals among the aged than for the nonwidowed. particularly among older men without family ties (Bock. 1972): mortality rates are considerably higher for the widowed than the nonwidowed (Shurtleff. 1955): the widowed report greater unhappiness. greater anticipation of death in the future. and greater worry (Gurin. 1960). Within a developmental context. Neugarten (1975) suggests that a developmental change or loss such as widowhood becomes significant when it is age-inappropriate or occurs too late. or. in some instances of widowhood. tod early. thus defying the normal developmental course. One would then expect that the loss of a spouse would be potentially more disruptive or stressful to younger in- dividuals. In support of this notion. Kutner (1956) found that only those widowed within the previous ten years showed any differences in morale when compared with the non- widowed. This would suggest that adaptation is also a .function of time. Summarily. evidence tends to show that widowhood is both a common event within the aged population. and often. a stressful one. A loss of this magnitude becomes par- ticularly important when examined within the context of the developmental period of old age. A in : De e 0 me tal P ado During each stage of life. normative developmental issues arise. In the transition from adolescence to early adulthood. for example. some of the salient de- veIOpmental concerns are the separation from parents and family of origin. greater autonomy and responsibility for regulating one's own behavior. and greater pressures to- wards establishing intimate relationships (Hamburg. 1967). However. the deve10pmental demands of old age differ markedly from the earlier stages of deveIOpment. While the early and middle years are characterized by a con» tinued expansion of roles and activities. the develop- mental tasks of old age more specifically imply an ad- justment to losses: decreasing health and physical capacities. retirement and reduced income. restricted living conditions. and a loosening of social ties (Riley and Foner. 1968). While the early and middle years involve gains in competence. authority and respon- sibility. the latter years are marked by a decrease in the breadth and number of roles with which an individual is involved (Riley and Foner. 1968). Old age is the first stage where there appears to be a systematic status loss for an entire age group (Rosow. 1973). Rosow describes this loss as a cumula- tive crisis. chronic and prolonged. In addition to unique deveIOpmental demands. there also appear to be normative changes in personality char- acterstics in the aged. The TAT responses of old per- sons are more passive and accomodating to outer world de- mands than the middle-aged (Neugarten. 1963). Behavior- ally. old people are more rigid and inflexible in tests which require finding camouflaged items. writing back- wards. and in tests involving habit interference (Schaie. 1964). They also exhibit greater problem solving rigidity (although it has been suggested that this ob- served rigidity is contingent on declining perceptual and motor abilities). On personality dimensions. older per- sons exhibit a greater intolerance of ambiguity. are more likely to fall into_sequential response patterns or to impose structure by agreeing with conflicting evidence (Taylor. 1955). They also show higher mean restraint scores on a Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. and less impulsiveness on the MMPI (Wagner. 1960). And in general. old persons seem to express less affect than younger subjects in response to Reitman Stick Figures and the TAT (Neugarten. 1968). Developmentally. then. the aged individual is faced with a most unusual paradox. S/he is likely to be called upon to adjust to tremendous changes in living conditions. occupation and place in family and society at a time when declining capacities would seem to make adaptations to change much more difficult (Geist. 1968). In the aged. increasing rigidity of abilities and personality char- acteristics. diminishing resources and health. mean an increasing sensitivity to environmental demands and a greater inability to assume active efforts to deal with them. Theoretical Arguments There is an on-going theoretical dialogue as to how the aged best adapt to this develOpmental paradox. One well-worn theory on aging. the theory of disengagement. prOposes that the decrease in the number of roles and the gradual withdrawal from society that researchers observed in aged papulations. are natural concomitants of aging. Most importantly. this theory further proposes that this withdrawal leads to an increasing sense of satisfaction among the aged. Others propose that society makes the first subtle (and often not so subtle) gesture towards withdrawing from the aged individual. the older person's subsequent retreat merely a response to this felt removal of support. Evidence does not universally support the contentions of the disengagement theory that increasing withdrawal from society with age necessarily leads to increasing morale or life satisfaction. Rather. this withdrawal must be interpreted in the context of an earlier lifestyle. There are some for whom role constriction is a continuation of a person's earlier lifestyle. and some for whom disengagement is the result of a constraint imposed by society or fate. a response to sudden age-related losses. Indeed. Lowenthal and Boler (1965) found that with- drawal was associated with a decrease in measured life satisfaction only if associated with what they termed in- voluntary withdrawal - the consequences of forced retire- ment. poor health. or widowhood. Modglg of Adaptation There are many theoretical models which can place this develOpmental issue within a broader conceptualiza- tion. To look first in a general way at Helson's theory of adaptation. a kind of psychological theory of homeo- stasis borrowed from psychOphysical research. adaptive behavior is a function of three sources of variation: 1) stimuli in the person's immediate environment 2) all other stimuli present and forming a background and 3) the residual effects of stimuli from past experiences. Adap- tation occurs when the combination of these three sources of variation produce either no response or a neutral re- aponse on a continuum of responding. adaptation varying with a change in either one of these sources. Individual differences in response to a stimulus are a function of the different interactions of stimulus. background factors and residuals from past experience. (”91300: 1959) A refinement and extension of the theory of adapta- tion comes with Wohlwill's Optimization principle (1970). Wohlwill's model of adaptation describes a transactional relationship between environmental demands and personal resources. According to this model. when a person shifts from a stable level of adaptation. for whatever reason. there are four adaptive maneuvers that can be used to bring the individual's behavior back into what Wohlhill calls a positive outcome zone: 1) an active response by the environment in relation to the individual 2) an active response by the individual towards adaptation 3) a passive response by the environment 4) or a passive response by the individual. For example. an environmental change with the individual assuming a passive role might in- volve intervention by an agency in finding a new home or in helping an individual to move. An active effort by the individual to produce envi- ronmental change is possible only when the environmental demand is within the potential range of the individual's resources. The amount of tolerable variation in environ- mental demand is much smaller where low amounts of re- sources exist. For a person with low resources. adaptive behavior is possible only at low levels of environmental stress. In a somewhat abstract way. in its eXplanation of a relative balance between personal resources and environmental demands. this model serves to highlight a dilemma inherent in aging: the lowered resources in aging papulations - less income. declining physical capacities. etc. - increase the susceptibility of the individual to the many changes and losses which accompany age. and thus threaten adaptation. One final model in completing this theoretical backdrOp is the social causation hypothesis of Dohrewend and Dohrewend (1973). an adaptation of Seyle's stress paradigm to eXplain social and psychological stresses. This adaptation syndrome contains three basic elements 1) antecedent mediating factors or stress-producing stimuli 2) mediating factors which either increase or de- crease the felt impact of the stressors 3) the adaptation syndrome or outcome. a product of the two previous factors. Thus. mediating factors. be they inner values or Mme-u" ‘fia .. .r- “w; 4-W‘ fih" beliefs or material resources or social contacts. serve 4"." -1 ‘ 1"4'1- «not... .,..._ to decrease or increase the effects of the antecedent mm."¢'? "up fldh‘fin.‘ nun—y ,urrw-thr : stressggggand the result is the adaptive state. The structure of these models offers a framework in which to place the developmental problem of adaptation. and can be used to help pose some major hypotheses. In examining the problem of widowhood using Dohrewend and Dohrewend's model. one gets the following diagram: 10 Figure 1. Social Causation Model of Dohrewend and Dohrewend with Widowhood as Stressor STRESSOR OUTCOME (Widowhood: Disruption of enduring social support system.) MEDIATING OR COMPENSATORY VARIABLES At this stage. it might be helpful to explore just how adjustment or adaptation is defined and measured. How is Adaptation or Adjustment Measured? Typical measures of adjustment often seek to compare competence of behavior in various roles. i.e. spouse. parent. worker. By comparing performance in these roles to societal expectations. a measure of social competence can be derived. Many researchers. however. have sought measures of adaptation that were particularly salient to' the period of the elderly where roles are changing and not as clearly definable. Kutner developed a morale scale based on the assumption that morale refers to a set of dispositions reflecting adjustment. adjustment a set of behaviors stemming from these dispositions (Neugarten. Tobin. Havighurst. 1961). Similarly. Neugarten. Tobin and Havighurst defined successful adaptation to aging in terms of an inner 11 subjective feeling or happiness with one's present and past life. They concluded that if one is happy and satisfied with one's life. one is said to be aging suc- cessfully. This kind of definition avoids the potential danger of a measure of adaptation which too rigidly determines what is ‘apprOpriate' role behavior. The model of Dohrewend and Dohrewend outlined earlier now looks like this: Figure 2. Social Causation Model of Dohrewend and Dohrewend with Widowhood as Stressor. Life Satisfaction as Outcome. STRESSOR \ _; OUTCOME / (Widowhood: Disruption ,/(Life Satisfaction) of enduring social / sUpport system.) ,/ MEDIATING OR COMPENSATORY VARIABLES Determinants of Life Satisfaction Given this broad definition of life satisfaction. many have sought to find general determinants of morals or life satisfaction in the aged population. both for theoretical understanding. and for purposes of planning and intervention. The literature is replete with studies which isolate one stressor. such as widowhood. and examine its specific relationship to life satisfaction. A second group of studies. multivariate analyses. have been 12 conducted across numerous variables. and some general findings have emerged. Fowler (1969) found that both the level of self-assessed health and family income had direct inde- pendent effects on reported morale. and in turn affected the number of social contacts maintained outside the home. And in two other studies (Thompson. 1972. Palmore and Luikart. 1973) it was found that one's perception of health was the most important predictor of life satisfac- tion. In a study that included a prOportion of middle-aged participants (45 years and over) as well as an aged popu- lation. Edwards and Klemmack (1973) found that socioeco- nomic status. nonfamilial participation and one's health status accounted for most of the explained variance in a measure of life satisfaction. although the combination of all predictors accounted for only 34% of the total variance. And in contradiction to some other findings. both Edwards and Klemmack (1973) and Bortner and Hutsch (1970) found that background characteristics (including age. sex. marital status. family size. community size and length of residence) had little association with life satisfaction. 13 Cogtacts with Others The studies mentioned above typically cover a broad range of variables. and although some of the variables exhibit strong associations with life satisfaction. i.e. self-assessed health. they do not always allow for program intervention: and. it is hoped that this study will result in recommendations for social programs. And more speci- fically. this study is exploring the implications of age-related loss. widowhood. It would seem that. in exploring substitutive factors. the loss of a person can be best ameliorated by supports which include other per- sons and contacts. 1 Indeed. in a study by Lowenthal (1968) on an aging San Franciscan p0pulation. she found that having a confi- dant was related to higher morale and served as a buffer against depression resulting from decreases in social 'interaction. Martel and Morris (1960) found that four-fifths of all old peOple interviewed named visiting or talking with friends among the things they most liked to do. The desire for more friends was associated with morale (Rosow. 1967). with only one-fourth of those with high morale wanting more friendship. Often. limited transportation and diminishing health. leads to an increasing interdependence on a neighborhood support group among the elderly. Ten per cent of old 14 people (primarily those without grown children). say that they would turn to a friend or neighbor in case of illness (Shanas. 1962). ,And old peOple. if they live alone. are likely to be helped by neighbors or friends in case of an emergency (Rosow. 1967). Generally. older persons turn to neighbors for many kinds of assistance. though nursing or financial assistance usually is requested of relatives (Rosenmayre and Kockeis. 1962: Townsend. 1957: Rosow. 1967). Sogial Support Systems These kinds of variables - neighborhood contacts. con- fidants. etc. - all fall under the broad rubric of social SUpport systems. The notion of social support is a diffuse and often ill-defined one. In its broadest sense. it refers to a network of individuals and institutions with which a person is involved in some kind of interdependent relationship. either formal or informal. Caplan (1975) de- fines social support as an ”enduring pattern of continuous or intermittent ties that plays a significant part in main- taining the psychological and physical integrity of the in- dividual over time." Most important is that this support serves to facilitate a person's mastery of the environment and can offer a degree of continuing guidance and a basis for self-evaluation. It can also serve as a buffer when other relationships or enduring patterns are disturbed. 15 Sogial Suggogt Systgmg and the Elderly Given the amount of change and the challenge to past roles and identity during old age (as described earlier). the notion of a continuing identity and self-evaluation resulting from strong social support seems to be a par- ticularly salient one when applied to the context of aging. In a study of 79 aged men and women (Anderson. 1968). researchers postulated five tasks of aging: 1) an acceptance of aging 2) a reorganization of life space 3) substitute sources of need satisfaction 4) a re-examination of criteria for self-evaluation and 5) a reintegration of values and life goals. They found that substitution is the most critical skill for adaptation to aging. Those who were successfully adapting to increase ing age had deveIOped age-linked codes of values and found workable substitutes offering meaningful involve- ments. personally and socially. This required a shifting of sources of need satisfaction away from those usually employed in earlier years. This process of substitutions allowed for a conintued. though altered. sense of identity. Erik Erikson (1963) talks about the continuation of identity in older individuals: The conscious feeling of having a personal identity is based on two simultaneous observations: the immediate perception of one's basic self-sameness 16 and continuity in time. and the simultaneous perception of the fact that others recOQnize one's continuity. The notion of being displaced from critical and well-established roles is an important one in the study of the aged. The concepts of continuity and personal identity become particularly important when placed within the deveIOpmental paradox described earlier: the demand to adapt to a changing self and environment while at the same time having diminished resources. 1.921311%. The extreme opposite of social support and social interaction is isolation. or the lack of continuity and contacts with others. There have been some studies which would suggest that isolation is a precipitant to high risk in the aged (Lowenthal. 1964) though other studies (Bennett. 1973) found no associations between isolation and age. sex. education and mental status. In a comprehensive study that focused on social iso- lation. 200 aged blacks in Newark were studied in relation to levels of social interaction (Hessel and Moore. 1973). It was found that the main type of interaction was visit- ing with friends and talking on the phone. There was almost no participation in club or grOUp activities. and little use of available social services. One third of all peOple studied had little interaction with others and 17 felt lonely and isolated. There was also a fear of young people and a feeling of insecurity. The authors recom- mended more kin surrogates. a more personal kind of com- munity service. and a security escort service. Definitiongl gnd thgviorgl Difficulties While it is possible to come to a definition of social support. it is a concept which nonetheless encom- passes much diversity. This diversity creates difficul- ties when trying to assess the effects of this sUpport as a unifiable entity. For instance. while it is generally assumed that the more contacts an older person has with others. the greater the satisfaction. Kerchoff (1965). in a study of retirees. found that the morale of elderly parents is higher among those living far from their chil- dren. Similarly. Kutner (1956) discovered that morale is higher among older persons who see their children seldom rather than often. Thus. there is some evidence that high morale in the elderly is associated with indepen- dence from children (as measured by the amount of con- tact). rather than the widely entertained notion of inter- generational dependence. Hence. the notion of support is a complex one. and can alter behavior in unexpected ways. Furthermore. in highlighting the diversity of this concept. some kinds of social sUpport reflect situations that are often beyond the control of the individual. such as having no children. or other relatives. Other 18 variables. such as the amount of contact with neighbors or friends. reflect to a greater extent the initiative of an individual to create that particular situation for himself. Thus. although it is possible to derive a definition of social support. it is not as easy to predict the ef- fects of these SUpports. as seen in some of the studies mentioned above. Widowhoog: Theoretigal Considergtiogg The most prevalent of all support systems is the marital and family grouping. widowhood disrupts this system in a very direct way. Perhaps the presence or ab- sense of support from neighbor. child. friend. other. can serve as a kind of compensatory support to those who are widowed. This hypothesis and an approach to it can be illustrated in the following way: Figure 3: Social Causation Model with Widowhood as Stres- sor. Life Satisfaction as Outcome. Social SUpport as Mediator. smcsson \ ______ > ourcomc (Widowhood: Disruption (Life Satisfaction! of enduring social hypothesized to be support system.) ‘ lowered) MEDIATING OR COMPENSATORY VARIABLES (SoCial SUpport: hypothesized to serve as buffer against lower life satisfaction) 19 From this summary model. and from the foregoing discussion. the following hypotheses can be generated: HYPOTHESIS 1: WIDOWHOOD IS A LOSS THAT WILL DIFFERENTIATE THE WIDOWED FROM THE NONWIDOWED ON MEASURES OF LIFE SATIS- FACTION. THE WIDOWED SHOULD EXHIBIT LOWER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION THAN THE NONWIDOWED. The above hypothesis is a test of the notion of widowhood as a stressor. this stress reflected in lower levels of life satisfaction. It is also possible that the effects of this stress are diminished over time. One can then compare those who have.been recently widowed to those who have been widowed over longer periods of time. HYPOTHESIS 2: THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WIDOWED OVER LONGER PERIODS OF TIME SHOULD SHOW HIGHER LEVELS OF LIFE SATIS- FACTION THAN THE MORE RECENTLY WIDOWED. (AS THE DISTANCE FROM THE INITIAL TIME OF WIDOWHOOD.INCREASES. THE RELA- TIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS LOSS AND LIFE SATISFACTION WEAKENS). As mentioned earlier. Neugarten hypothesizes that a deveIOpmental event. whether it involves a loss. or a change. becomes significant when it is somehow off-schedule. Thus: HYPOTHESIS 3: WIDOWHOOD BECOMES MORE 'STRESSFUL' WHEN IT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY OFF-SCHEDULE. THUS. THOSE WHO ARE 2O WIDOWED AT AN EARLIER AGE WILL EXHIBIT A GREATER IMPACT OF THIS LOSS AS MEASURED BY LOWER LEVELS OF LIFE SATIS- FACTION. And to directly test the notion of social support as a mediating factor between widowhood and life satisfac- tion: HYPOTHESIS 4: SOCIAL SUPPORT SERVES AS A BUFFER TO LOSS. IN PARTICULAR. WIDOWHOOD. THOSE WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF SUPPORT SHOULD SHOW HIGHER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION. OR. CONVERSELY. THE GREATER THE ISOLATION. THE LOWER THE FEELINGS OF LIFE SATISFACTION. Is this relationship specific to those who have ex- perienced a loss. or a disruption in some enduring rela- tionship? Given the nature of the stressor. widowhood. or loss of a significant person. contacts with others may act directly as substitutions. That is. social SUpport may more effectively act as an ameliorator or substitu- tive factor within the widowed group since it more closely duplicates that which has been lost. Therefore: HYPOTHESIS S: SOCIAL SUPPORT WILL BE A MORE EFFECTIVE MEDIATOR OF LIFE SATISFACTION FOR THE WIDOWED THAN THE NONWIDOWED. Summarily. these hypotheses test. first. whether 21 widowhood is a stressful event (Hypothesis 1) and whether this stress is reduced over time (Hypothesis 2). or in- creased when age-inappropriate (Hypothesis 3). Hypothesis 4 tests whether alternate forms of social support serve in a mediating fashion. Hypothesis 5 examines. in a more general way. whether social support or isolation is more significant for those who have suffered some identifiable disruption in established rela- tionships. CHAPTER II METHODS ORIGINAL STUDY1 Sampling The original study was conducted by Market Opinion Research. Detroit. for the Office of Services to the Aging. State of Michigan. The survey. comprised of in-depth personal interviews conducted between April 10 and May 17. 1974. resulted in two separate samples. One consists of a 2500 person representative saMple of the population of Michigan. age 60 and over. The second is an oversample of representative black persons. though this sample was not used in the present analysis. The sample compared closely with census data on race. sex. age and geographic distributions. and is thus con- sidered to approximate actual papulation prOportions. us t on 0 lo me Dr. Amanda Beck of the Office of Services to the Aging. State of Michigan. Dr. Barbara E. Bryand. Susan Evans and Andrew Morrison of Market Opinion Research. after reviewing the results of other surveys on aging. and 22 23 questionnaires utilized by ADA. developed the question- naire that was the basis for this study. In order to refine questions on test length. three initial pretests were run. This questionnaire appears in Appendix A. Res 0 e ection Respondents were sampled from residential settings. This encompassed senior citizens_housing projects which were not also medical facilities. residential hotels. as well as houses. apartments. mobile homes. etc. Selection specifically excluded nursing homes. hospitals. or those facilities which serve as institutions. Sampling methods are summarized in Appendix B. Integviggg Each interview. lasting approximately one hour. was conducted in the household of the respondents by a professional interviewer. age 30 or over. Interviewers attended a training and briefing sesSion on the questionnaire. Within sampling points. intervewers were race matched to the majority race so that in most in- stances. blacks were interviewed by blacks and whites by whites. 1This preceding portion of the Methods Section was closely adapted from a Market Opinion Research project description with the permission of Dr. Amanda Beck. 24 Sampling Distribgtions Sampling distributions of important demographics are displayed in Appendix C. These tables were taken directly from Michigan Aging Citizens (1975). analyzed and compiled by Dr. Amanda Back for the Office of Services to the Aging. PRESENT STUDY §gmgle fog Ppesegt Study As mentioned earlier. only the original 2500 indi- viduals. which excludes the over-sample of blacks. will be used for this analysis. Since this sample closely approx- imates census data. the results should be widely general- izable to the population. Items for Analysis Items from the original study were either used di- rectly. or recoded into new indices.‘ A list of both the - original items and recoded indices can be found in ' ' Appendices A. D and E. Dgtg Anglygig A variety of statistical procedures will be used to test the hypotheses. These procedures include one-way to multi-factor analysis of variance and covariance. chi-square. factor analysis and regression analysis. 25 Instruments LIFE SATISFACTION Neugarten. Tobin and Havighurst (1961) deveIOped an index of life satisfaction (LSI) comprised of five com- ponent subscales. each subscale based on five aspects of a subjective definition of life satisfaction: 1) zest vs. apathy 2) resolution and fortitude 3) goodness of fit be- tween desired and achieved goals 4) positive self-concept and 5) mood tone. The scale was validated with interviews conducted over a three year period and covering a broad sample. Although the five components were intercorrelated. original investigators felt that Correlations were low enough to suggest that there was more than one dimension being measured. A sthorter twenty item derivation. the Life Satisfac- tion Index A (LSIA). validated against the Life Satisfac- tion Index (LSI). had a correlation coefficient of .58 with the original index. The scale used in the present study contains nine of the twenty items on the LSIA. Because there are so few items. not all of the original five subscales were equally represented. For this reason. these nine items represent a unique scale and further analyses on these items were conducted. Using the standard item alpha. the reliability of the 26 nine item scale was .54. The average inter-item correla- tion was fairly low (.114). although given the assumption by previous researchers that more than one concept was being measured. this was not unexpected. Since alpha is affected by both scale length and the magnitude of inter-item correlations. reliability could have been in- creased with an increase in the number of items in the scale. It seemed possible that because the average inter-item correlations were low while some correlations between items relatively high. and because the original scale (LSI) was composed of component subscales. that more than one simple dimension was being measured. Thus. a factor analysis was undertaken on these nine items. An orthogonal analysis with iterations resulted in three factors. Item 7 and Item 9 (Appendix 0. Table 14) loaded most highly on Factor 1 (.55 and .60 respectively): Item 2 and Item 6 loaded highest on Factor 2 (.41 and .31). only one item. Item 3. loaded on Factor 3. In examining the context of these factors. they ap- peared to conceptually cluster into factors relating to a time dimension. That is. Factor 1 corresponded to a sat- isfaction with past life. or Retrospective Satisfaction. Factor 2 seemed concerned with present satisfaction. or Present Mood. while Factor 3 examined a view towards the future. or Anticipatory Satisfaction. Thus. these factors 27 broke down along a time continuum of past. present and future. The other four items did not clearly load on any of the three prOposed factors. Thus. these items were in- cluded only in analyses where the Total Life Satisfaction scale was used. On subsequent analyses. then. four measures of life satisfaction were used: the total Life Satisfaction scale consisting of all nine items (Total Life Satisfaction). Factor 1 (Retrospective Satisfaction). Factor 2(Present Mood) and Factor 3 (Anticipatory Satisfaction). See Appendix D. Table 14 (Appendix 0) contains the factor load- ings and communalities for the nine items as derived through factor analysis. ISOLATION-SUPPORT INDEX Those items which. based on previous research con- cerning isolation and support. and on preliminary analyses. seemed salient to the areas of aging and life satisfac- tion. were chosen for this index. The isolation-support index is composed of nine items (Appendix E). These nine items fall into four separate content areas: 1) Confident and Helper 2) Neighborhood Contacts 2B 3) Living Arrangements 4) Contacts with Children Items are scored either 0 or 1. one point scored for each item where no contact is reported and all other items scored 0. After adding up points on all the nine items. a total sum score is derived. with a possible range of from 0 to 9. The higher the score. the greater the degree of reported isolation. Consequently. this is an additive index which measures the gmount of contact. or the absence of contact. across various content areas. CHAPTER III RESULTS Hygothegig 1 WIDOWHOOD IS A LOSS THAT WILL DIFFERENTIATE THE WIDOWED FROM THE NONWIDOWED ON MEASURES OF LIFE SATISFAC- TION. THE WIDOWED SHOULD EXHIBIT LOWER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION THAN THE NONWIDOWED. In a covariate analysis controlled for age. scores showed a significant difference between the widowed and nonwidowed on Total Life Satisfaction in the predicted direction (Fa9.36.sig=.003). As hypothesized. the widowed also scored significantly lower on factors of Anticipatory Satisfaction (F37.15.sig= .009) and Present Mood (F:24.50.sig=.001). However. there were no differences between groups on RetrOSpective Satisfaction (F=.092.sig=.99). One can then conclude that although there is no dif- ference in how the widowed and nonwidowed view their past. they do differ on how they view their present circum- stances. and how they anticipate their future to be. The widowed constitute 37% (Na932) of the original sample. which illustrates the ubiquitous nature of this event for the aged pOpulation. Demographically. however. 29 3D the widowed constitute a unique group. --------------------- -fi------------------- Insert Tables 1a to1ci here On the whole. the widowed are less educated (X:32.85. sig=.001) and have less income (X:400.05.sig=.001) than the entire sample (N=2485). This can be explained in part by the fact that the widowed subsample is typically female and typically older than the sample as a whole. Being a woman and being older are both associated with having less income (re-.19 and r=-.21 respectively). and being older is associated with lower levels of educa- tional attainment (rs-.15). In general. then. if one is older. one is more likely to be widowed (rs-.32). to have less income (rs-.24) and have less education (r=.15) and. if widowed. most likely .to be a woman (r=.37). Differential mortality rates amOng men and women account fer the predominance of women inythe widowed sub- sample,. and the incidence of widowhood obviously in- creases with age. thus a relatively older widowed Sub- eample. (There is no difference in racial composition between the widowed and nonwidowed (X=.83.sig=.36). Thus. it could be alternately argued that most of the differences observed between widowed and nonwidowed on measures of life satisfaction could be attributed to some 31 m.mn ans m.nm «hue ¢.F Or m.b mo N.bn mom m.No New? 0. b N.or F one e.m m5 m.r em emu b.rN Pom N.Nr oar «m c» on on on mp «b on or m.mr cm? n.m mm 3.5 N.Fw rm No m.eN o.nN mum now wEoucH >.mr «er m.¢r mar o.NN vow m.mw mom eo< we? .Hee» m.rr mum m.wr mew .ww munch So.v3e.:.ee~ux r.mw «.mr bur mrr m.mN m.on Noe ch mm ca mm «m on om Poo.uvowe.eo.ooeux e.~e e.n m.~ we. mm or e.e n.~ e.~ as am en +ooamra mower:owa mmmmlma mommlea mmmn:na mmoNINu mowelru ¢mma:o wcmz vacuums som pcoou .woaoewm owsooaacoz new posooqa coosuwm cowuwwoasou uacoouooswo cu woocowomwuc eeeeeea nosouwscoz eeeeees coaooaacoz we efieee Table 1. Continued. Count 32 Column Percent No Schooling Some Elementary Completed 8 Grades Some H.S. Completed H.S. Some College College Graduate Advanced Degree Other X332.89.sig<:.001 Nonwidowed 20 1.3 311 20.1 337 21.7 347 22.4 302 19.5 108 7.0 86 5.5 35 2.3 5 .3 1551 63.0 Table 1c: Education Widowed 24 2.6 235 25.8 228 25.0 170 18.6 150 16.4 57 6.3 35 3.8 9 1.0 4 .4 912 37.0 33 Table 1. Continued. Table 1d: Sex Count Column Percent Nonwidowed Widowed Male 861 164 55.0 17.6 Female 705 768 45.9 82.4 1566 932 62.7 37.3 X3335 09,819< .001 34 very basic differences in demographic COMposition. It would seem important. then. to examine some of the rela- tionships between demographics and life satisfaction MOESUI‘BSO Demographics and Life Satisfaction In examining the associations between demographics and life satisfaction. it was found that. in the pOpula- tion as a whole. income has a clear relationship with Total Life Satisfaction (F:3.047.sig:.003). As shown in other studies. those with lower levels of income also have lower levels of Total Life Satisfaction. High income is also somewhat associated with higher scores on Present Mood (F=1.85.sig=.065) and Anticipatory Satisfaction (F:2.28.sig=.02). And on RetrOSpective Satisfaction. al- though statistically non-significant when compared across all groups (F=.730.sig=.99). the lowest income group has the lowest mean score while the upper two income groUps have the highest Retrospective Satisfaction scores. Total Life Satisfaction also has a significant rela- tionship with educational attainment (F23.18.sig=.002) with the lowest level of education associated with low Total Life Satisfaction scores. The same is true of Present Mood (Fa4.98.sig=.001) and Anticipatory Satisfac- tion (F:3.072.sig=.002). In general. the higher the level of educational attainment. the higher the Life Satisfac- tion. 35 In the population as a whole. there is no signifi- cant difference between sexes on Total Life Satisfaction (sigs.740). on RetroSpective Satisfaction (sig=.790) or on Anticipatory Satisfaction (sigs.92). although women do score significantly lower on Present Mood (sig=.032) which is consistent with much of the literature. This is an in- teresting finding in light of the fact that among the widowed. there is a significant difference between males and females on Total Life Satisfaction (Fa4.57.sig=.031) and Anticipatory Satisfaction (F:4.32.sigs.038) with males scoring lower than females. And the mean of the males on all life satisfaction factors falls consistently below the female means. There are no significant differences across age for any of the satisfaction measures. either within the total sample (N32500) or widowed subsample. though within the total sample. means did tend to decrease with age. Thus. several demographic variables have significant associations with life satisfaction measures and could possibly obscure the original conclusion of a difference between the widowed and nonwidowed on measures of life satisfaction. Therefore. further analyses were done in order to examine the relationship between marital status and life satisfaction measures with various demographic variables partialled out. 36 Testing an Alternative Hypothesis A series of partial correlations between marital status and life satisfaction were obtained in order to examine this relationship with the effects of background characteristics removed. First. in examining the zero-order correlation be- tween marital status and Total Life Satisfaction. the zero-order correlation is very low (r=.07). as is Anticipatory Satisfaction (r:.08). There is no associa- tion between Retrospective Satisfaction and marital status. Present Mood is most strongly associated with marital status out of all the life satisfaction variables (r=.12). with the widowed exhibiting lower scores. In general. when partially out the demographic vari- ables separately. one finds a small reduction from the zero-order correlations (see Table 2). with income and education producing the largest decrements in correla; tions. Partially out age. however. very slightly in- creases the correlations across all factors. In partially age. sex. income and education concur- rently. one again finds decrements from the original zero-order correlations. The alternative hypothesis asked whether it was not 37 auo.uaao nano.- soo.ucao «Nao.- Poo.uoao -oo.- noo.udae memo.u Foo.udae omao.- aoo.umae ameo.u Foo.ucao n¢m0.1 .oo.uoee coco.- roo.noao coca.: Foo.uaao Pwao.- Poo.ucao amco.- Poo.udao meaa.- Poo.uoae sooe.- Poc.ucae same.- oan.uoao Nose. nne.uoae snag. For..aae sews. are..aae eecc.- ece.ecaa secs. can.ucao mmoo.- mee.ucao mNoo. .xqmqmqqmflmqq.umeIMdmwmwm o>waoo mo aux .coauoomwwuwm and; co nosouwscoz\uosoo«3 comsaom wcowuwawunou kupuwa .N wane» was..aae ces.- sco.uaae aces. emc.uaae ounc.- Foo.uaaa omoo.- Foo.naeo ~nso.- Noo.ncao memo- .coaumosou oco oeoocH .xmw .mm< .conpmuonu .mEouqm .mom cow.om< mom ouadomkzou cmsotas nosouascoz 38 the attributes that generally accompany the widowed in the present cohort grOUp that accounts for the original observed difference between widowed and nonwidowed on measures of satisfaction. However. the initial zero-order correlations are so low that this question can- nOt be meaningfully answered with this data. That there were small decreases in correlations across all factors when demographic characteristics were partialled out might suggest this is a question worthy of pursuing further. Indeed. in performing a covariate analysis control- ling for sex. age. income and education. any differences between widowed and nonwidowed on Total Life Satisfaction are eliminated when these demographic characteristics are cOntrolled (Fs.755.sig=.999). Interestingly. on RetrOSpective Satisfaction. where there were no differences between widowed and nonwidowed on the previous analysis with age controlled (Fa.092.sig= .999). there are now significant differences between widowed and nonwidowed (Fs4.879.sig=.027) when controlling for age. sex. income and education suggesting that these factors mask the relationship between widowed and non- widowed on Retrospective Satisfaction. But while there were significant differences between widowed and nonwidowed on Present Mood before demographics were covaried (F:24.SO.sig=.OO1). there were no 39 significant differences after demographic variables were controlled (F=.516.sig=.999): and while there were significant differences before demographics were covaried on the measure of Anticipatory Satisfaction (F=7.147.sig= .009). there were no significant differences after these variables were covaried (F=.108.sig=.999). Hypothesis 2 THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WIDOWED OVER LONGER PERIODS OF TIME SHOULD SHOW HIGHER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION THAN THE MORE RECENTLY WIDOWED. (As THE DISTANCE FROM THE INITIAL TIME OF WIDOWHOOD INCREASES. THE RELATIONSHIP BE- TWEEN THIS LOSS AND LIFE SATISFACTION WEAKENS). On a covariate analysis controlled for age. those widowed within the past two years (N=95) were compared with the remainder of the widowed sample (N=822). those widowed two years or more. On Total Life Satisfaction. there were no significant differences between new and old widowed (F=.012.sig=.999). However. there were significant differences between the two groups on both Retrospective Satisfaction (F=4.811.sig=.027). with new widowed scoring pighpr than old widowed. and on Present Mood (F:4.127.sig=.040). with new widowed scoring significantly pelow old widowed. There were no differences between old and new widowed 40 on Anticipatory Satisfaction (F=1.326.sig:.248). although new widowed exhibited higher mean scores on Anticipatory Satisfaction. Summarily. it does seem as if the behavior of the most recently widowed is unique to that of the rest of the widowed sample. One wonders whether times other than the past seem happier to the recently widowed. a roman- ticization of the past in contrast to the realities of the present. In order to see whether the results were the same for men and women. a two-factor analysis of variance was undertaken comparing the time of widowhood and sex on measures of life satisfaction. Again. there were no significant differences between old and new widowed on Total Life Satisfaction (F=.187. sig=.999). though men did score lower than women (F=4.56. sig=.031). There was. however. no significant interaction between sex and time of widowhood (Fs.100.sig=.999). sug- gesting that the relationships between the time of this event and satisfaction is the same for both men and women. On Retrospective Satisfaction and on Present Mood. there was a significant main effect of time of widowhood (F:4.693.sig=.029. and F=3.869.sig=.047. respectively). although neither the other main effect (sex). nor the in- teraction was significant. 41 On Anticipatory Satisfaction. men scored lower than women (F:S.388.sig=.019) and there was a trend for younger widowed to score higher than older widowed (F22.806. Sig-.090). but again. the interaction effect was not sig- nificant (F=.638.sig=.999). Thus. it seems that the results are the same. whether one is examining a sample of men or women. Hypothepig 3 WIDOWHOOD BECOMES MORE 'STRESSFUL' WHEN IT IS DEVELOPMENTALLY OFF-SCHEDULE. THUS. THOSE WHO ARE WIDOWED AT AN EARLIER AGE WILL EXHIBIT A GREATER IMPACT OF THIS LOSS AS MEASURED BY LOWER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION. In a simple two-way ANOVA between length of widow- hood. age and the dependent variables of life satisfac- tion. there were no interactions between length of widow- hood. age and life satisfaction on the Total Life Satisfaction scale (Fs1.25.sigs.234). on Retrospective Satisfaction (F=.749.sig=.999). and on Anticipatory Satis- faction (Fs1.244.sig=.232). There was a significant interaction between length of widowhood and age (Fa1.B39.sig:.026) on Present Mood which would suggest that this notion of age-appropriateness be explored further. In general. life satisfaction tends to decrease with 42 age (Riley and Foner. 1968). It is interesting to note that within the general pOpulation (N-ZSOO). although the differences are slight. the trend is for Total Life Satisfaction scores to decrease slightly with age. while within the widowed group (Ns930). there is a general trend towards an increase in Total Life Satisfaction with age. Table 3. Differences Between Widowed and Nonwidowed on Total Life Satisfaction Scores Across Age Categories Age Total Life Satisfaction Widowed Nonwidowed 60 to 64 22.29 22.93 65 to 69 22.57 22.92 70 to 74 22.78 22.96 75 to 79 22.78 22.78 80 to 84 22.94 22.77 85 and over _ 22.57 _ 22.42 X=22.39 X:22.B1 Because of the relatively small magnitude of differences between age groups. this can only be a suggestive finding for further research. but what it does suggest is that the event of widowhood may alter the course of life satis- faction in the aged. In an attempt to investigate this hypothesis more closely. those who were widowed within the past two years (N295) were isolated and examined further. They were bro- ken down into three age groups (age 60 to 64. age 65 to 74. and age 75 and over). Age groups were collapsed in order to increase the number of individuals per group. 43 An analysis of variance comparing these groups on measures of life satisfaction was undertaken in order to see whether age. or the 'developmental schedule.’ was a significant factor in contributing to the life satisfac- tion of those recently widowed. Indeed. it was found that on Total Life Satisfaction. there was a trend towards significance in the predicted direction (F=2.929.sig=.069). That is. the younger the group. the lower the Total Life Satisfaction and thus. the greater the felt impact of this loss. Table 4. Analysis of Variance Between Age Groups on Total Life Satisfaction for Those Widowed Within Past Two Years (N=95): Mean Scores on Total L.S. SUM OF MEAN SIGNIFICAN SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES DF SQUARE F OF F Main Effects 47.354 2 23.677 2.729 .069 Age 47.354 2 23.677 2.729 .069 Residual 763.635 88 8.678 Total 810.989 90 9.011 Age _ Scores on Total Life Satisfaction 60 to 64 21.89 65 to 74 22.29 75 and over . _ 23.61 X:22.7O 0n RetrOSpective Satisfaction and on Anticipatory Satisfaction. there were no measurable differences across age groups.. On Present Mood. there were significant dif- ferences (Fs4.20.sig:.018) with younger widowed scoring 44 significantly lower than older age grOUps. and satisfac- tion increasing with age. In order to determine whether these effects were dif- ferent for men and women. a two-way ANOVA with main fac- tors of age and sex was conducted. In general. there was a change in score when each factor was adjusted for the other. which would be expected as the factors are not or- thogonal. This would suggest that widowed men tend to be younger while widowed females tend to be older. On Total Life Satisfaction. the main factors were both significant with men scoring lower than women (F:4.B96.sig=.027) and the younger groups scoring lower than the older groups (F:4.287.sigs.017). Most impor- tantly. there was no interaction between sex and age (F=.455.sig=.999). which would suggest that the notion of age-appropriateness Operates in much the same way for men and for women.' Thus. for both men and women. the younger the individual. the greater the impact of widowhood on Total Life Satisfaction. 0n Retrospective Satisfaction. neither the main effects nor the interaction between age and sex was signi- ficant. On Present Mood. there was a significant dif- ference between age groups (Fs4.124.sig=.019): the younger 45 Table 5a. Differences Between Age Groups and Men and Women on Total Life Satisfaction for Those Widowed Within the Past Two Years (N=95) SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES DF SQUARE F OF F Main Effects 89.096 3 29.699 3.534 .018 Age 72.054 2 36.027 4.287 .017 Sex 41.742 1 41.742 4.968 .027 2-Way Interactions 7.644 2 3.822 .455 .999 Age X Sex 7.644 2 3.822 .455 .999 Residual 714.249 85 8.403 Tatal 8100989 90 90011 Table 5b. Deviations of Category Means from Grand Mean for Factors of Age and Sex Unadjusted Adjusted Deviations Deviations From Grand From Grand App Mean Mpan 60 to 64 -.81 -1.02 65 to 74 -.41 -.55 75 and over .91 1.18 Spy Men ”067 -1009 Women 028 e46 7.22.70 R..11O_ R2..331 46 the group. the lower the satisfaction scores. And on Anticipatory Satisfaction. there was a trend (F:3.40. sig=.067) for men to score lower than women. though there were no other significant main or interaction effects. Summarily. it does seem that the age at which widowhood occurs accounts in part for the subsequent ex- periencing of this event. However. the age range in this sample is rather restricted (60 and over) and it would be interesting to test the original hypothesis in a sample with a greater diversity of ages. Hypothesis 4 SOCIAL SUPPORT SERVES AS A BUFFER TO LOSS. IN PAR- TICULAR. WIDOWHOOD. THOSE WITH HIGHER LEVELS OF SUPPORT SHOULD SHOW HIGHER LEVELS OF LIFE SATISFACTION. OR. CON- VERSELY. THE GREATER THE ISOLATION. THE LOWER THE FEELINGS OF LIFE SATISFACTION. Each individual variable in the support index was examined separately for its relationship with the various lmeasures of life satisfaction. Confident Those who report they have no one to turn to when they have a problem exhibit lower scores on Total Life Satisfaction than those who report having a confidant 47 (F.12.o74.sig=.oo1). Those who report having no confidant also report lower levels of Retrospective Satisfaction (Fa?.644. 319:.006). There is a trend towards significance on Present Mood with the no confidant group scoring lower (F22.97.sig=.081). There is no significant difference between groups on Anticipatory Satisfaction (F=.260. sig=.99). Household Help Having someone to help around the house made no sig- nificant difference on scores of Total Life Satisfaction (F:2.162.sig:.14). though mean differences were in the predicted direction. There were also no differences on Retrospective Satisfaction (F=.485.sig=.99) or on Antici- patory Satisfaction (F=.299.sig=.99). However. those without household help did have significantly lower scores on present Mood (r=24.321,sig=.036)., Relatives Living in Neighborhood Having one or more relatives in the neighborhood re- sulted in higher Total Life Satisfaction scores (F=4.114. sig=.040) and higher present Mood scores (F=4.52.sig=.031). There were no significant differences between those who have no relatives in the neighborhood and those who have one or more relatives on Anticipatory Satisfaction (Fs.004.sig=.99). However. there was a trend towards 48 significance on Retrospective Satisfaction in the pre- dicted direction (F=3.29.sig=.061). Friends Living in Neighborhood Having friends in the neighborhood did not seem to be as important as having relatives. although there is a trend towards significance on Total Life Satisfaction (F=3.136.sigs.073). Having friends in the neighborhood shows little asso- ciation with any of the time factors (Retrospective Satis- faction: F:1.29.sig=.245: Present Moods F=.D7S.sig=.99: Anticipatory Satisfaction: F=.721.siga.99). although all means are in the predicted direction with those without neighborhood friends having lower absolute mean scores. Visits from Neighbors ‘ Out of the three neighborhood variables. having visits from neighbors is the most strongly associated with measures of life' satisfaction. The more visits from neighbors. the higher the level of Total Life Satisfaction (Fa?.563.sig=.006). the higher the level of Retrospective Satisfaction (F=3.635.sig=.054) and the higher the Anticir patory Satisfaction (F:1D.98.sig=.001). Interestingly. there were no differences on Present Mood (F=.721.sig:.99). 49 Children Contrary to what one would intuitively expect. though in accordance with much of the literature. it was found that relationships with children were not as impor- tant as the neighborhood variables already explored above. Having no children had no direct relationship with Total Life Satisfaction (F=.883.sig=.99). However. from the data. it is not possible to differentiate those who never had children and those who lost children through death. There were no differences on Retrospective Satisfac- tion (F=.004.sig=.99). Present Mood (F=.182.sig=.99) or, Anticipatory Satisfaction (F=.838.sig=.99). Communication with Children For those who have children. having no communication with them somewhat depresses Life Satisfaction scores al- though not significantly so (F=1.778,sig=.179). There is no relationship between lack of communica- tion and Retrospective Satisfaction (F=.132.sig=.99) and Present Mood (F=.108.sig=.99). _Neither is there any sig- nificance between lack of communication and Anticipatory Satisfaction (F:1.762.sig=.181). though the mean dif- ferences suggest that those who report no communication with their children anticipate less future satisfaction than those with some levels of communication. SO Visits with Children There were no differences between those who had visits from their children and those who did not on Total Life Satisfaction (F=.SBS.sig-.99). or on any of the other time factors (3192.99). On all these measures. however. those with no visits from their children had lower mean Scores e Living Arrangement Contrary to what was hypothesized. there was a trend towards those living alone showing slightly higher levels of Total Life Satisfaction (F22.539.sig=.107). And al- though there were no significant differences on any of the time factors. those who lived alone showed higher mean scores on all these measures. Summary of Individual Variables The foregoing results are summarized in Table 6. As hypothesized. particular contacts with others do con- tribute to the levels of life satisfaction. though there are some variables which appear to have little association with measured satisfaction. As described above. the greater differences were between those who had confidants and those who did not. It might be interesting. then. to .cowuuwmmwuwm on“; new moanwwuw> uuooasmtcowuwaoma Hwooa>upca you me>w4 mucwowmacmam .m manwp POP. Nmb.r mnm. 0mm.or «Nb. coo. mow. ohm. mom. For. mom. 900.: mom. mom. mom. now. >m0hHhuunmomhwm N mmm. mb>.w nmm. nmm.> mnr.n erw.< New.~ www.mp mam. our. mam. 000.: who. oeo.* Dev. «001* 4um .m page» we. ouc.mcer nbeu Hwoofimwm orw. .>eo Poo. N<.~. e>~.m ee~.o r coeonmaomm moo. a .uucmam w onwoom ewes wouwsom to saw no w>oc< ova. Nm. onhumohoa Foo. mn.mr n+.mn nr.~n r cowomnuoog boo. m_ .wwcowm w museum cows wmuwzom we saw no w>oc< moo. mm 0002 hzumuxn ms. oen.~eor spew Hespwmmm pom. .>oo woo. o~.m~ sor.n~ Pov.n~ P casmmmuomm use. mm .uacaam u ouwoom cow: wwuwoom to Sam no w>oc< woe. m onhunhuuamomhmux oom.m oom.mmmm mom Hoapwnmm one.n .>oo. Poo. mm.oe mou.noP mos.nor F cosmnobomm uro. mm .wucmwm u euwoom can: wwuwoom mo saw no w>oc< bar. a onhu Laws cowuuwmmuuwm me“; Have» no oomrr. omwmo. beeoe. Deemr. rnmbr. me E mwmoo. NNDDO. memnr. Noneo. meeno. nauwmmum: «Dear. Newer. owner. wreeo. marno. Nm meoee. barne. memme. NDDeN. anbr. uqmm :3 6.00 g Widowed I) O . O N ‘2 5 5 oandOya 0= 5.25 1 2 rd 4 0 Support Isolation Figure 6b 5.30 No 1: nwidwad g 5.10 z: 1 .3 4.90 Widowed III 3 4.70 L: a 4.50 ‘ O 1 2 3 4 Support Isolation 2.60 2‘ 2.50 o *5 a 2.40 ‘8' .... 2.30 1; 0 Support Isolation Figures 6a.6b.6c: Interaction Effects: Marital Status. Life Satisfaction Measures. Isolation-Support 68 direction. Importantly. there was no significant inter- action effsct between marital status and support-isolation (F=.499.sig=.999: see Table 6b). The same results hold true for Anticipatory Satis- faction (Figure 6c). Whereas widowed scored lower (F-16.51.sig:.001). there were non-significant differences on levels of support-isolation (F:1.800.sig=.143). though means were in the expected direction. and no significant interaction effects (Fa1.114.sig-.342) arose. Thus. the results are contrary to what was initially hypothesized. There was a decrease on all measures of life satisfaction with an increase in isolation for both widowed and nonwidowed. And though on Retrospective Satisfaction there was a significant interaction effect. widowed showed themselves to be less responsive to levels of support-isolation than the nonwidowed. contrary to what was initially hypothesized. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Hypothesis 1 Results show that although initially. there appeared to be significant differences between widowed and non- widowed on Total Life Satisfaction. Present and Anticipa- tory Satisfaction. a large proportion of this difference can be attributed to the demographic characteristics which generally accompany being a widowed individual. One can say that. while there are large differences between the widowed and nonwidowed on measures of life satisfac- tion. these differences can't necessarily be attributed to the event of widowhood itself (as suggested by the hypo- thesis). While theoretically. it is possible to separate out just what does contribute to lowered satisfaction. in a real sense. widowed individuals are nonetheless widowed. poorer. older and less educated and. also. reporting lower levels of life satisfaction. Thus. the stresses seem to be multiple. This brings Up an important notion about doing cross- sectional research on developmental problems. Even within this age-limited sample. one encompasses different cohort groups. It then becomes difficult to separate changes in 69 70 development. or develOpmental processes. from differences between cohort groUps. It is also interesting to note that widowhood altered both present and future satisfaction. while having no effect on past satisfaction. Though there are statisti- cal differences between widowed and nonwidowed in terms of actual test scores. there is never more than a few points difference. It would be difficult to label the widowed within this sample as a 'risk population.‘ Hypothesis 2 In testing whether time serves to reduce the effects of widowhood on life satisfaction. results showed no significant differences between recent and old widowed on Total Life Satisfaction. Recent widowed did score signi- ficantly higher on past satisfaction. suggesting that there is a comparison of earlier years with the present. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 tested a notion that an event becomes stressful when it is developmentally off-schedule. The youngest age group did exhibit lower scores on present mood. though the results on other satisfaction measures were inconclusive. , However. a test of this hypothesis had built-in restrictions. The age range within the sample was limited at the outset (60 and over). as this was a study of an 71 aged population. This hypothesis could have been more effectively tested if one compared groups over a broader range of_ages (something not possible using the present data). i.e. age 60 compared to age 70. I The general literature would suggest that life satis- faction decreases very slightly with age. Interestingly. within the widowed sample. there is an apposite trend which suggests a slight and gradual recovery from the event of widowhood which. when it occurs. serves to de- press life satisfaction. . The literature also suggests that men are more sensi- tive to developmental disruption -(Lowenthal. Thurnber. Chiriboga. 1975). but the results of this study showed no significant sex differences. Hvoothesis 4 Having a confidant was significantly related to higher Total Life Satisfaction. Neighborhood variables - relatives and friends in the neighborhood. and visits with neighbors - also contributed to higher levels of Total Life Satisfaction. Interestingly. visiting with neigh- bors was the only variable significantly associated with Anticipatory Satisfaction. Having relatives in the neigh- borhood was the only variable significantly associated with Present Mood. Perhaps the high associations between having a 72 confidant with measures of life satisfaction. as Opposed to child measures. living arrangement and neighborhood variables. results from the fact that in responding that one has nobody to turn to. one is implicitly giving an attitudinal response. a response which more clearly approximates a life satisfaction measure. Perhaps it is not an objective condition. but an attitude towards that condition which becomes important in determining adjust- ment. The low levels of association between child variables and measures of satisfaction perhaps give further support to the importance of intergenerational independence as hypothesized in the literature. It also brings up a point about the isolation-support index in general. In examining the frequency distributions of variables and totals on the isolation-support index. it revealed them to be heavily skewed towards the direction of support rather than isolation. Apparently. endorsing an item on. this indice so clearly represented an extreme and of a continuum that the index was often insensitive to more moderate levels of non-support within each content area. particularly with children variables. It would be helpful in future studies to develop an index which is more sensi- tive to moderate levels of support. and which more evenly distributes individuals over a broad range of support and isolation. 73 In spite of these limitations. there were significant differences on measures of life satisfaction for varying levels of isolation-SUpport. Those who reported higher levels of isolation also reported lower levels of Total Life Satisfaction. though no significant differences on present and future mood. However. when examining isolation-support within a regression model. in terms of overall prediction of life satisfaction. isolation-support accounted for only 1% of the explained variance. Self-assessed health proved to be the strongest variable in accounting for the most variance in Total Life Satisfaction. But given the similar nature of these variables themselves (self-assessed health and life satisfaction variables). both of them representing a subjective assessment of some aspect of the self. one would anticipate a rather strong association. It points. once again. to the importance of a subjective evaluation of a condition independent of external. objective assess- ments (such as whether the doctor thinks one is healthy, or in good spirits). Hypothesis 5 This hypothesis predicted that life satisfaction re- sponses for nonwidowed individuals would be more indepen- dent of levels of isolation-support. while widowed would be dependent on sUpport as reflected in life satisfaction 74 levels. The results did not tend to support this hypothesis. On Present Mood and Anticipatory Satisfaction. there were no significant interaction effects between marital status and sUpport-isolation: widowed and nonwidowed behaved similarly. On Retrospective Satisfaction. there was a significant interaction effect. but in the opposite direc- tion of the initial prediction. with nonwidowed more re— eponsive to levels of support-isolation than the widowed. Perhaps the widowed are more responsive to concerns of the present and future in comparison to the past. But maybe the measure of Retrospective Satisfaction. because it is composed of only one item. is not as dependable a measure as the other two factors. This might be a good time to examine the life satisfaction measures themselves. Life Satisfaction Responses on Total Life Satisfaction were slightly skewed towards the direction of higher satisfaction. This finding is consistent with other examples of positive biasing reported in the literature. Curin (1960) found that on survey instruments. the elderly seemed to minimize in their answers and their self-image many of those as- pects that were negative such as their failing health or personal appearance or a relative lack of education. In terms of the actual properties of the 75 satisfaction scale. higher inter-item correlations through the elimination of weak items. and a longer test would have led to a more stable instrument. (More items within each factor would have raised the factor relia- bilities. However. the data in this study dealt with only nine satisfaction items. Present Mood seemed to be the most powerful of the time factors. and one would expect present morals to be a good indicator of satisfaction. The behavior of the time factors was most interest- ing on Hypothesis 3 where a comparison was made between old widowed and new (within the past two years) widowed New widowed appeared to evaluate their past as much 'happier than the nonwidowed. Implications for Future Research and Program Development One of the areas opened Up for further research is the refinement of a measure of social support or isola- tion. Trying to circumvent some of the difficulties men- tioned in earlier sections seems to be a worthy. though difficult pursuit. One could include subjective assess- ments of objective conditions: one could separate out con- ditions over which the individual has no control. and those which are a consequence of his actions. either directly or indirectly. It might also be interesting to test whether there is 76 a direct relationship between kind of stressor. and kind of mediator. For instance. would activities serve as an effective mediating variable or buffer for those who are retired. while visits with friends are more important for those who have been widowed? This is. again. the idea of a substitutive relationship. where the substitute closely approximates that which has been lost. In this study. those who had been widowed for two years or less were all treated as similar. that is. these individuals comprised one group to be compared against all the other widowed. Perhaps one could have moreclosely tested the notion of widowhood as stressor if more dis- criminating measurements had been available. That is. if one could have used weeks and months instead of years from the initial time of widowhood. but the data in this study did not allow for this. Evidence in the literature. as mentioned earlier. shows that suicide rates for men are higher (Bock. 1972). The months directly following widow- hood may be important. Gross time measurements in the present study perhaps led to an underestimation of the stressful effects of widowhood. And finally. previous researchers (Rahe ahd Holmes. 1967) observed that certain quantities of life events seem to cluster at the time of disease onset. In general. these events pertain to major areas of develOpmental growth and change (family. marriage. occupation. residence. 77 etc). Though_some events seem to represent negative (i.e. socially undesirable events) and others positive events. they all evoke some kind of adaptive or cOping behavior on the part of the involved individual. Thus. each event requires a significant change in the ongoing pattern of the individual. much like the definition of stressor in the Dohrewend and Dohrewend paradigm. The emphasis is on change from the existing steady state (Wohlwill). . It would be interesting to take those who. within the last stages of life. have experienced a cluster of these events in order to see if this could be used to predict risk. If the test of this hypothesis resulted in the identification of a group of high risk individuals in need of supportive services. one would have done a very meaningful piece é; research. REFERENCES REFERENCES Anderson. Barbara C. The adaptive task of aging: a psychosocial analysis. Final Report. NIMH Crant. MA- 12492. 1968 6 P. Bell. a. ‘0. Family life cycle. primary relationships and social participation patterns. gerontologiet. 1973. 13(1), 70. Bennett. R. Social isolation and isolationdreducing programs. Bulletin of N,Y. Agggemy gf Medigine. 1973. 49(12). . Bock. E. W.. Wilbur. I. L. Suicide among the elderly: isolating widowhood and mitigating alternatives. 4, of Mgrzigge and the Fgmily. 1972. 34(1). Bock. 1E. W. Aging and suicide: the significance of marital. kinship. and alternative relations. Cgordinatgg. 1972. 21(1). Bortner. R. W.. Hutsch. D. F. ,Multivariate analysis of correlates of life satisfaction in adulthood. Cerontologiet. 1970. 25(1). Brand. F. N.. Smith. R. T. Effects of environmental change in the life adjustment of the elderly. Ce ontolo ist. Part II. 1973. 13(3). Caplan. 0. Su o t S t m ' nd Commun t M ntal He t . Behavioral Publications. New York. 1975. Census Population Data. Volume 1. Part 1. 1960. Pc(2)- 58o Dohrewend. B. P.. Dohrewend. P. S. ‘figgiel_§t§t_§_a_d Psyghological Digordeg. Wiley Interscience. New York. 1969. Edwards. J.. K1emmack.D. L. Correlates of life satis- faction: a re-examination. J. of Begggtology. 1973. 20(4). . Eisdorfer. C.. Lawton. M. P. The Psychology of Adult Qevelogmegt and Aging. APA. Was ington. 9 . 78 79 Epstein. M. The aged pOpulation of the U.S. in 1963 social security survey of the aged. Washington Government Printing Office. 1967. Erikson. E. Childhood and Society. W.W. Norton. 1963. Fowler. F. J.. McCalla. M. E. Correlates of morals among aged in greater Boston. ELQEEEQLDQ§_9£_LD§“77tD Annual Cogyentieg Qf the APA. 1969. Ceist. H. The Psyghological Aegecte of Retirement. Charles C. Thomas. Illinois. 1968. Goldstein. S. Socioeconomic and migration differentials. Presented at Agneal Meeting of Cerontologieel Society. N.Y.. 1966. ' Cottesman. L. E. l. Psychosocial treatment of the aged. In Peyc o ogy of Adult Deyelogment ene Aging. C. Eisdorfer 'ed. . Griffiths. K. A.. Williams. F. D. et e . Socioeconomic class and the disadvantaged senior citizen. Aging and Human Qeyelogmegt. 1971. 2(4). Curin. C.. Veroff. J.. Feld. S. Americans View Their Mental Health: A Nationwide Interyiew Study. New York. Basic Books. Inc.. 1960. Hamburg. D. A.. Adams. J.E. A perspective on coping behavior. Agchives of General Ps chiat . 1967 (17). Havighurst. R. J. et. a1. Adjuetment to Retirement. Van Corcum. N.Y.. 1969. Helson. H. Adaptation Level Theory. In P cholo : A Stud of a Science. Vol I. S. Koch (ed.). N.Y. McCraw Hill. 1959. Hessel. M. A.. Moore. M. F. Social interaction and iso- lation of elderly blacks. Gerontologiet. 1973. 13(3. Part II) 100. ‘ Holmes. T. H.. Rahe. R. H. Social readjustment rating scale. Jougnal of Psychoeomatic Reseagch. 1967. Vol II. Kerchoff. A. Family patterns and morale in retirement. In Social Asgegts of Aging. Simpson. 1.. McKinney. J. edge . Durban‘, DUkQ Us Press. 1966. BO Kutner. B. et a . Fiye Hundred Ova; Siyiy: e Community .%2§!2l_20_£9109: New York. Russell Sage Foundation. 9 6. Lawton. P.. Nahemaw. Ecology and the aging process. The Psychology of Adult Develogmeni and Aging. EiSdorfer' Ce. LaWton. No ads. . 19730 Lowenthal. M. F.. Boler. 0. Voluntary vs. involuntary soiigl withdrawal. Jouggal of Ceeoniology. 1965. 20 3 . Lowenthal. M. F.. Chiriboga. D. et a . Four Stages of Life. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco. 1975. Lowenthal. M. F.. Chiriboga. D. Social stress and adap- tation. In The Psychology of Aguit Develogment ang A in . EISdorfer. Ce. LaWtOF‘. me BdSe . 1973e Lowenthal. M. F. Antecedents of isolation and mental illness in old age. Agchives of Cenegel Psychology. 1965. 12(4). Martel. M.. Morris. W. Life after sixty in Iowa: a report on the 1960 survey. Iowe Commiseion for Segio; Citizens. 1960. Neugarten. 8. Personality in Middle and Lete Life. N.Y.. Atherton. 1964. Neugarten. 8. Adult personality: toward a psychology of the life cycle. In Miedie Age and Aging. Neugarten. 8. (ed.). U. of Chicago Press. 1968. Neugarten. 8.. Havighurst. R.. Tobin. S. The measurement of life satisfaction. J of Ce ontolo . 1965. 20(3). Palmore. E.. Luikart. C. Health and social factors related to life satisfaction. J of Cerontolo . 1972. 4(2). Proppe. H.. Schwartz. R. Toward person/environment transactional research in aging. Gerontologist. 1972. Part 1, 10(3). Riley. M.. Foner. A. Aging ene Socieiyg An Inventory of Reseagch Figdiggs. Vol. 1.. Russell Sage Foundation. New York. 1968. 81 Rosenmayr. L.. Kockeis. E. Family relations and social contacts of the aged in Vienna. In 0 ial and Pa cholo ical As set of A in . Tibbitts. C. (ed.) New York, Columbia 0. Press. 1962. Rosow. 1. Social context of the aging self. Ce ontolo ist. 1973. 3(1). Rosow. 1. Social Igtegraiion of ihe Age . New York. The Free Press. 1967. Schaie. K.. Warner. C. A cross-sequential study of age changes in cognitive behavior. Presented at Midwestern APA. St. Louis. 1964. Shanas. E. The Heelth of Older People: e Sociel Sugyey. Cambridge: Harvard U. Press. 1962. Shurtleff. D. Mortality and marital status. Public Health Re ort . 70. 1955. Singer. J. Personality measurements of the aged. In Human Aging. (USPHUS Publication. No. 986). ‘ Washington. D.C.. Dept of HEW. 1963. ‘ Taylor. C. Adult age differences in rigidity. American Ps cholo . 1955. 10(1). Thompson. C. Adjustment in retirement: a causal inter- pretation of factors influencing morale in retired men. Disseztation Abstracis. 1973. Townsend. P. The Family Life of Old Peogle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1957.. Wohlwill. J. Methodology and research stragey in the . study ondeveIOpment change. In L fe-S n Develo men! ial Psychology. Goulet. L.. Baltes. P. (eds.). New York: Academic Press. 1970. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A SELECTED ORIGINAL ITEMS FROM STATE OF MICHIGAN SURVEY E32 Job 4812 Appendix AT-e Aprill974 AGE 60 AND OVER SURVEY M,” , r NUMBER or ADULTS AGE so AND oven 1 l 2 3 I or non 0 he Youngest Oldest. Oldeit been been Home ”BEA OF ' he How: he Youngest Kl ll been wwuwlo 2 Youngest Oldest Oldest AGE III: Han Pen 60 1L...————— _-_ _— AND . J Oldest Youngest OVER he Hen 4 or are Youngest H": CO] NEIGHBORHOOD First, we'll ask some questions about this neighborhood in which you live. * Nl. How long have you lived in this Less than 1 year ...... l - 2] neighborhood? 1-2 years ......... 2 3-4 years ......... 3 5-9 years ......... 4 lO-lA years ........ 5 J5-l9 years ........ 6 20 years or more ...... 7 “All My life" . . ..... 8 No response/Don't know . . . 0 Thinking about the people in the neighborhood.... *NZ. How many close relatives would you say you have who live in this neighborhood? Office of Services to the Aging. None ............ l- l/22 1-2 ..... . ...... 2 3-4 ............ 3 5 or more ("many2"10ts") . . 4 No response/Don't know . ... O * Reprinted with permission of Dr. Amanda A. Back, 83 T“Will:EFCII'ic“ll""‘ ""'""_" ""’" 3 1"N3. How many close friends would you say None . . . . ........ l-l/23 you have who live in this neighborhood? l-Z ....... . . . . . 3-4 ............ 3 5 or more ("many","lots") . 4 No response/don‘t know . . . O 4 * N4. How often do you "visit" With Every day/almost every any of your neighbors. By that I mean day . . . ......... 7-l/Z. talking on the phone. or in the Several times per week 6 street, or yard, or visiting in a Once a week . . . . . . . . . 5 home. Would you say you talk Once every 2 weeks ..... 4 or ”visit" with at least one or Once a month ........ 3 more neighbors..... Less often ..... . . . . 2 Never ............ l No response/don't know . . . O 5 N5. I am going to name some things about your neighborhood. Tell me what (Survey answer on the card best tells how satisfied you feel about this: Version (SHON Q.NS SCALE CARD) (INTERVIENER: ROTATE ORDER) ' A only) Neither Satisfied Nor dis- satisfied/ Somewhat Very Very Somewhat Neutral/ Oissat- Dissat- Satisfied Satisfied Don't know isfied isfied This neighborhood as a place to live 5 4 3 2 l General appearance of neiqhborhood 5 4 3 2 l Snow removal on side- walks and streets 5 4 3 2 l Condition of side- walks (if no side- walks, mark X here ) 5 4 3 2 l , Conditions ofiroadli ‘ 1,25_. streets 5 4 3 l -‘ Li hting of streets (if no lighting mark X here 5 4 a 3 2 1 Police protection 5 4 3 2 l firemorotection_ S 4, 3 2 l Amount of noise 5 4 3 2 l Air quality/pollution 5 4 3 2 1 Safety of place where you live from crime/ lawbreakers/burglary S 4 3 2 l . l/36 )2 811 Appendix A Q.N6 Q.N7 6 N6. How safe do you feel being out Very safe 5 5 (Survey alone in your neighborhood in the Somewhat safe 4 4 Version daytime. Do you feel.... Neither safe A only) nor unsafe 3 3 Not very safe 2 2 Very unsafe l l . Don t know 3 3 l/38-39 7 N7. How safe do you feel being out (Survey alone in your neighborhood Version after dark. 00 you feel.... i only) (RECORD UNDER Q.N7 ABOVE) HOUSING/FAMILY STATUS Now. I would like to ask you about where you live. 8 * H]. (ASK ONLY IF NOT OBVIOUS) Do you Single-family house . . . . . l live in a. ... Ouplex/row/townhouse 1 Rooming house ........ 1 Residential hotel ..... . 1 Mobile home . . . 1 1”0‘ High- rise apt. with elevator 1 43 Other apartment. . . . . . 1 Other 1 (SPECIFY) Refused . . . . . . , . l 9 * H2. Are you now.... Single/Never married . . . . l [-' Married . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Divorced o o o o 0 o o e o 'o I l_ Separated ....... . . . 1 1/49- Hidow/Hidower . . . . . . . . 1 54 Refusedo.ooeoooeeoo 1“ 9a * HZa. How long have you been (Response froniQ.H2E) (Record number of years) l/55-56 lo * H3. what is you: present living Live alone ...... . l arrangement. Is it. ... Live with husband/wife - (includes with children). 1 1/57-50 Live with others (not husband/wife) ...... 1 Don't know . . . . . . . . . 1 ll * H4. Aguymndéee.a Nho is the head of this household? 12 * H5. E35 Respondent . . ....... l Spouse ........... l Oaughter/Son-in-law . . . . l what peOple. other than yourself. live in this house? who also lives here. please tell me their approximate age. sex. and their relationship to you. 6.9: Son/Daughter-in-law . . . 1 Sister ........... l 1/61-68 Brother .......... 1 Other (SPECIFY) l Refused/Don't know ..... 1 For each person Relationship £925. to Respondent CODING ONLY Total number in household. Add 1 (for respondent) .to number of names listed l/69 L l/70-74 Blank 1/75-76 Cd# l/77-80 Jobfi 86 Appendix A l8 e'Hll. whom do you call on when you need An immediate family member . l help around the house -- like lifting Some other relative . . . . l heavy objects or washing windows? A neighbor ......... l (00 NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL A friend who isn't a ANSWERS) neighbor ...... .. . . l A paid professional (Home- maker's Care) ...... l I do it myself ....... l - I don't have anyone . l 2/51‘39 Other (SPECIFY)_ l Don't know ......... l l9 HlZ. DO you have the following: (Survey Version A only) Yes MNO Response Stove l t 0 Refrigerator l 0 Telephone 1 0 2/60-63 20 Hl3. How man bathrooms do you have? ‘ (Survey Version A orgy) (“CURB RIUIE WEBER) 2/63 Respondent guesses that building Zl H14. (IF OWNER, Q.H6) Can you tell (Survey me about how old this building is years old. Version is? (INTERVIENER: RECORD ACTUAL A only) NUMBER) Respondent know's that building " is years old. Respondent doesn't know at all 0 2/64-65 2/66-74 Blank 2/75-76 Cd# 2/77-80 Job# coa' l-lZ as Cl ' 13 22 "‘15- If you had the opportunity. would Yes (GO T0 0- H156) ----- ‘ 3’ you like to move? No (GOTO O. H16)/Oon't know 0 Appendix A 877 22a 'lilSa.. (IF YES,O.HlS) What would be your main To move to smaller living reasons for moving? (DON'T READ LIST quarters(such as house to BUT RECORD ANY ANSHERS RESPONDENT apt.) . . . . . . . . . . . l GIVES) To move to better living 3/14- quarters . . . . . . . . . l 22 To move to senior citizen housing .......... I To get out of neighborhood l To change climate ...... I To be nearer family . . . . . l To get on one leve [lower level ..... . ..... - 1 'Other (SPECIFY) 1 Don't know ......... l 22b Hle. (IF YES. Q.HlS) If you wanted Real estate agent ...... 1 (Survey to move, where would you go or Family/relatives ...... l Version who would you go to get help Friends . . . . .'. . . . . . l A only) finding a new place to live? Newspaper ads . . ..... l 3/23-3 " (DO NOT READ LIST. RECORD Social worker/counselor . . . l ALL ANSWERS RESPONDENT GIVES) Housing Comission/City/ Township Government Agency 1 Other (SPECIFY) l Don't know . . . . . . . . . l 23 . m5. (ALL RESPONDENTS) Hhat kind of High rise apartment . . . . . 1 housing do you think of when we Other apartment/Condominium say "senior citizen housing"? Townhouse . . . . . . . . . l (00 NOT READ LIST. RECORD ALL House . ..... . . . . . . l ANSHERS RESPONDENT GIVES. IF Apartment. Condominium] 3,3] 40 MENTION ANYTHING HITH NURSING Townhouse which is cheaper l ' OR MEDICAL CARE. CODE AS-—_______€> House which is cheaper . . . l 9 Nursin care/place to ive w th nurs ng . . . . . . . 1 Old folks care home/home for aged ......... l Somebody looks out after you l Other l (SPECIFY) Don't know ......... l E38 ,/ Appendix A (-2 U4. Do you have any problems in Yes (GO TO Q. U4a ,b,c, d). . ll- 6/13 eating, or getting enough No/Oon' t know ....... O ‘f . to eat, or eating regularly? ( .urvey Verrion C only) i 22a-U4a. (IF YES, U4) What problems? (DO NOT READ LIST, CIRCLE ALL ANSWERS RESPONDENT GIVES) (Survey Version 9 only) Times Per Yes Yes Week . U4a. U4b. . U4c. U4d. Physical problems (teeth,gums) l l: l Mobility problems - Bodily ~ . impediments l l T - . Special diet (high blood pressure. V ‘ diabetes) 1 l l Qigestive-tractAQroblems l l l Eat‘iloneino appetite/lack of . . - incentives . l ' l l Lack adequate facilities ' l . l' l ______ Trouble shopping/transportation ' \ l l. l Income_(can' t make ends meet) 1 l - .l. '- Other (SPECIFY) l l (l . Don' t know I l l CODING DEPT. USE ONLY ( U4d) l - l-Z, 2 - 3-4. 3- 5-6 4- 7 or more 22b U4b. (ASK FOR EACH PROBLEM NAMED IN Q. U4a) Does (Survey Version C only) rdblem) ever canse you to change your normal eating routine? (IF “YES” MARK IN APPROPRIATE COLUMN lABOVE) 22c U4c. (ASK FOR EAC)H PROBLEM NAMED IN Q. U43) Does (Survey Version C only —(Pr°blem) ever cause yyou to not get enough to eat? (IF "YES". MARK IN APPROPRIATE COLUllN ABOVE) 6/14-53 22d U.d. (ASK FOR EACH PROBLEM NA”EO In Q. U4a) About how many times a week does this happen to you? (RECORD NUHBER OF TIMES PER WEEK IN APPROPRIATE COLUMN ABOVE) (Survey Version E_only) E39 C06 Appendix A l-lZ as Cl 6/l3-53 Blk HEALTH Now. let's talk about health 34 * Ll. Do you have any problems getting Yes (GO TO . LOIa) . o e o o o I 6 enough medical care? NO/Don't know (GO TO L.ZI . . O /54 34a * u.‘ (IF YES. Ll) What problems do you Not enough money. . . . . . . .I have getting medical care? (00 NOT Not covered by insurance. . . .l READ LIST. CIRCLE ALL ANSWERS Could not get doctor to take. RESPONDENT GIVES) me as patient. . . . . . . ..l Could not find doctor I , , . liked ....... . . . . . l 6/55-65 Could not get appointment.;.,. l Could not get to doctor (transportation). . . . . . .l Too sick to go‘out. . . . . . .l Afraid to go to doctor. . . . .l Doctor can't find out what's wron with me. . . . . . . ..l Other ISPECIFY) 1 *' Don't know. . . . . . . . . . .1 35 ' L2. Compared to other people your Much better than others . . . 5 own age. would you say your Somewhat better . . . . . . 4 health is.... (HAND HEALTH About the same . . . . . 3 6/66 SCALE CARD L.2) Somewhat worse . . . . . . 2 Much worse . . . . . . . . . I Don't know . . . . . . . . . 3 36 * L3. In the past year. that is since last April. about how many times have you been tolsge anyidgctor h a t c n c . (5135:: NBMBER) 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more 6/67 6/68-74 Blk 6/75-76 Cdf 6/77-80 Job é 90 Cniu all; Appendix A l-l2 as Cl 38 . M3. 1 am going to read you some statements about life in general. For each statement. please tell me whether you agree or disagree with it. (READ LIST - ROTATE ORDER) ' Don't Know/ Agree Disagree Mo Response I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the people I know. 3 l 2 This is the dreariest time of my life. 3 l 2 I expect some interesting and pleasant things to happen to me in the future. 3 l 2 I feel my age. but it does not bother me. 3 l 2 ’ifiil3-2l Compared to other people my age I've made a lot of foolish decisions in my life. 3 l 2 Compared to other people. I get down in the dumps too often. 3 _ l 2 As I look back on my life I am fairly well satisfied. 3 l 2 Compared to other people my age. I make a good appearance. ' 3 l 2 I've gotten pretty much what I expected out of life. 3 l 2 '39 .* A14. Have any of these things happened to you in the last 2 years? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM BELOW) 1.9.! L Death of spouse l 0 Divorce ' l 0 Marital separation l 0 Death of close family member 1 0 Personal injury or illness l O Marriage/remarriage l O Fired at work/laid off l 0 Marital reconciliation l 0 Retirement 1 0 10/22-; Question continued next page 991 Appendix A 39 Question continued from previous page contd Change in health of family member I Change in financial state I -3; Death of close friend lO/3l COO Outstanding personal achievement ' l Spouse begins or stops work l Change in residence l 000 Jail term l O 0‘ SOCIAL SUPPORT 4O * 551. When something is bothering you. or you feel that you have a problem. to whom do you usually turn first to talk about your problem (DON'T READ LIST. BUT CIRCLE FIRST ANSWER RESPONDENT GIVES) M M Q. l Spouse Son/Daughter Other relative Neighbor Friend who is not neighbor A professional (doctor/lawyer/social worker/counselor) 10/38 Minister/priest/rabbi[God/prayer Have no one to call Don't know 00 NO m‘UN-fl 41 552. Does anyone call on you in an Yes (GO T0 552!) . . . . . . l lO/39 (Survey emergency? No/Don t know . . , , , , , , 0 Version A only) / ___-‘.. 4la 552! (IF YES 552) Who? (DON'T READ LIST Spouse . . . . . . . . l ' (Survey BUT CIRCLE ALL ANSWERS RESPONDENT Son/daughter . . . . l lO/AO- Version GIVES) Other PEIICIVB . . . . . l Neighbor . . . . . . . l A only) Friend who is not neighbor . . . Don‘t know . . . €92 Ajfluflnfiijt A EMPLOYMENT/RETIREMENT 42 * ERl. Are you currently ..... Working full-time (GO TO Q.ERla) .......... 1 Working part-time (GO TO Q.ERla) .......... l Retired and working full- time (GO TO Q.ERla) . . . . l Retired and working art- 10/45- time (50 TO 0. ERia) l 54 Ttired (GO TO 0. ER2). Unemployed/looking for a job Disabled/unable to work. but not retired ........ l Housewife .......... 1 Other (SPECIFY) 1 Refused/Don't know ..... 1 21 42a *ERla (IF WORKING AT PRESENT) What kind of work are you doing? 'lO/55-56 Year Coding only: Subtract year from '74 lO/57-58 44 * ER3. (IF NOT RETIRED. D. ERl) Yes (60 TO ER3 a). . . 1 ‘0/59 00 you plan to retire? Mo/Don' t know (60 TO ER4). . . 0 44a * ER3a. (IF YES) When? - ' '(Approximate Year) CODING ONLY Subtract 74 from year named ._;_______. lD/GO-Gl 45 * ER4. (IF RETIRED. Q.ERl) Which of the No income .......... 1 10/52 categories on this card describes 0-5999 ........... yourIaverage annual income over §I.OOO-§l.999 ........ 2 the ast five years before you 2.000- 2.999 ........ retired? S3.000-S3.999 ........ 5 54.000- 55. 999 ........ 6 Sé.£CC-S?.§§9 . . . . . . . . 7 -~~ :cr 1 :99 . . - 3 SlS. DOD and over ...... 5 Don' t know/refused ..... O E93 Appendix A lO/63-74 Blk lO/75-76 Cd! lO/77-80 Jobfi ”TENT l-lZ as Cl 46 *ERS. (IF RETIRED AND NOT WORKING DR Y G T . ’ UNEMPLOYED. Q.ERl. ASKz) Are you \["N§s(é0°T0°Q?E§§§B 5’ - - - . 3 11/13 actively looking for a job? 46a *ERSa (IF YES. Q.ERsel) Why would you like Increase income . . . . . . . l to work? Keep busy . . . . . ..... l ll/l4-l Other (SPECIFY) l Don't know . . . . . . . . l 46b *ERSb (IF YES. ERS) Have you had trouble finding work recently? Yes (GO TO ERSbb) ...... l NO/Don't know . . . . . . . . Q ll/IB b'*ERSbb(IF YES. Q.ERSb) What type of Age-related . . . . . . . . l 45b trouble? (PROBE) (DO NOT READ Health-related . . . . . . 1 LIST. CIRCLE ALL ANSWERS RESPONDENT Lack of training . . . l GIVES) Lack of transport . . . . . . 1 11/19- Poor job market . . . . . . I Don't know how to find job I 26 Other (SPECIFY) I Don't know . . . . . . . . . l . L5 ERG. (IF RETIRED ARD HOT DDRKIRD OR Yes ....... . . . . . . 4 ,~ ‘Survev UHEHPLOYED Q.ERl) would you accept No (without qualifications) . 3 11/: - version a Job if one was offered? No. not just any job . . . , 2 E on 1v) ‘ Other (SPECIFY) I . Don't know 0 45 E37. What kind of work did vou do rost of our work-]ife? ° (Survey (GET 93E OCCUPATION FOR fl9§l_0F LIFE 6R BEST 0 CUPATION HAD) Version B only) 11/28-29 €14 IAppmuuiix ‘ _________' — ———-"TT727:E§_ INCOME AND EXPENDITURES - (INTERVIEWER: LOOK AT Q.lO(H3)IF RESPONDENT LIVES ALONE. YOU HILL BE ASKING FOR INDIVIDUAL INCOME. IF RESPONDENT LIVES WITH HUSBAND/WIFE. YOU WILL BE ASKING FOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME. IF RESPONDENT LIVES WITH SOMEONE OTHER THAN HUSBAND/WIFE -- SUCH AS SON 0R DAUGHTER -- YOU WILL BE ASKING FOR RESPONDENT'S INDIVIDUAL INCOME) 47 * IEl. Did you get paid Social Security Yes (GO TO IEla) ...... 1 last month? l—No/Don t know (so TO IE2) . D "/30 47a * IEla (IF YES. IEl) Which category on this 0-599 ........ . . . l card describes the approximate amount SlOO-Sl99 ......... 2 11/31 of your last check? (HAND SOCIAL $200-$299 ......... 3 SECURITY CARD) $300-$399 ......... 4 ' $400-$499 ........ . 5 $500-$599 ..... . . . . 6 Don't know/refused ..... 0 48 * IE2 Did you get Old Age Assistance. what Yes (60 T0 IEZa). . . l ll/32 is now called 551. or welfare. or No/Don' t know (GO TO IE4) . 0 ADC last month? ' 48a * IEZa (IF YES. IE2) Which category on this 0-349 . . . . . . . . . . . l card describes the approximate amount $50-$99 . . . . . . . . . . 2 of your last check? (HAND $51 CARD) $100-$149 ....... . . 3 "/33 SlSO-Sl99 . . . . . . . . . 4 $200-$249 . . . . . . . . . 5 $250-$299 ......... 6 Don't know/refused . . . . . 0 49 ‘* IE3. (IF BOTH IEl AND IE2=YES) Do you get one check or two checks for your . Social Security and Old Age/SSI/Helfare? l 2 ll/34 5° * IE4. (IF EMPLOYED FULL-TIME DR PART- 0-549 ........... 1 TIME. 0. 42 (ERl) Which category $50-$99 . . . . . . . . . . 2 ll/35 on this card describes how much $100-$149 . . . . . . . . . 3 you made from your job/work/employment SlSO-Sl99 ....... . . 4 last month (March)? (HAND LAST $200-$249 . . . . . . . . . 5 MONTH EMPLOYMENT CARD) $250— 8499 . . . . . . . . . 6 $500-$999 . . . . . 7 Sl. 000 or more . . . . . . . 8 Don' t know/refused . . . . 0 953 Appendix A Sl * IE5. I don't want to know the amount. but would you tell me whether you get income from any of the following: . Don't Know/ Y_2__s_ E Refused Other retirement pensions (such as from former employment) l 2 0 Savings and investments (savings interest. stocks. bonds. rent 11/35-3 from property owned 1 2 0 Money from sons/daughters/relatives l 2 0 Any other source of income I 2 0 Sla * IE5a (IF RESPONDENT GETS RETIREMENT Yes (GO TO IE5aa) . . . . . . l PENSION IN IE5) Have you had No ...... . . . . . . . 2 "’40 any problems getting your pension? Don't know . . . . . . . . . 0 .—.~ 51aa' IESaa (IF YES. IESa) Describe the problems you have had getting your pension: ll/4l-E 52 * IE6. If you needed money for some Have savings/assets ..... l emergency. who would you go to or Loan from bank or financial . where would you go? institution ........ l ll/Sl-rfi Son/daughter (gift or loan) . Other relative (gift or . loan) . . ... . . . . . . . l Friend (gift or loan) . . . . l Welfare/any public assistance l Other (SPECIFY) 1 DBn‘t know . . . . . . . . . l 53 * IE7. Which category on this card describes Nothing owed. no debts . . . l how much you own in debts. Do not Less than $500 . . . . . . . 2 11/59 include the amount of your home $500 or more . . . . . . . 3 mortgage. if you have one. or any Don't know . . . . . . . . . 0 amount you have owed less than one month. (HAND DEBT CARD) .u-—.-o~ 9E5 Appendix A , 73 ' 05- How many living sons and daughters (include adopted and stepchildren do you have? (RECORD ACTUAL NUMBER) 15/43-44 73a * 056 (FOR EACH SON/DAUGHTER NAMED IN 05) How far away does he/she live? (IF RESPONDENT GIVES CITY/STATE MAKE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT OF DISTANCE) DSb DSc 0-25 26-50 5l-200 ZOl-SOO Over 500 How H0w Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles i Often Often Away Away Away Away Awayg I 558 ( 751k r. Son/Daughter #l l 2 3 4 5 i /g;. i /mo. Son/Daughter #2 l 2 3 4 i INF'i /m0.Jr /mo. Son/Daughter #3 l ’2 3 ’7T 5 /§r. / 5. Inc. SOD/Daughter #4 l 2 3 4 5 /§g. / . /mo. Son/Daughter #5 l 2 3 4 5 /NE l / . /mo. (00 NOT RECORD MORE THAN 5) 73b * D5b ( FOR EACH SON/DAUGHTER. ASKz) About how often do you see him/her? (RECORD ABOVE THE NUMBER OF TIMES PER MONTH OR TIMES PER YEAR RESPONDENT SEES CHILD 73c * 05¢. (FOR EACH SON/DAUGHTER, ASKz) About how often do you talk to him/her on the phone? (RECORD ABOVE THE NUMBER OF TIMES PER MONTH RESPONDENT TALKS TO CHILD - FOR CODING ONLY 55a 05b Convert to times per year (if given in months Number of children 0-25 multiply by 12) 0 l 2 3 4 S or more Then total whole column Number of children zs-so VISITS/YEAR ‘ ...... O l 2 3 4 5 or more Number 51-200 DSc Total whole column 0 l 2 3 4 S or more TALKS/MONTH: Number ZOl-SOO O l 2 3 4 5 or more Number over 500 0 l 2 3 4 5 or more l5/45-53 Appendix A El? INTERVIEWER TO FILL OUT AFTER LEAVING THE RESPONDENT Pl. Circle if the respondent had any of the Blindness ......... ] l5/54'50 following conditions: Deafness ....... . . 1 Missing limbs ....... l Obesity (greatly overweight)1 Palsy/shakes/tremors . . . Speech impediments or trouble speaking . . . . 1 Great difficulty in under- standing questions P2. Were the respondent's answers influenced Yes ............ li l5/5l by any other person or persons present No ....... . . 0 during the interview P2a (IF YES) Was that person Spouse .......... } Son/daughter ...... . , Other relative ..... . 1 15,62 65 Non-family ........ l P2b (IF YES) How did that person influence the respondent's answers? l5/66-67 P3. Please make any other comments on anything unusual about the respondent which we should know. 98 68 * VB. Mow“l"‘a71l"33:i‘ngA to read you a list of areas which peOple say are problems for Older Americans. For each area. please tell me if it is no problem to you. a somewhat important problem. or a very important proETem. (READ LIST - ROTATE ORDER) Somewhat Very No Important Important Don't Problem Problem Problem Know Income (money) l 3 4 2 Health care I 3 4 2 Housing 1 3 4 2 Transportation 1 3 4 2 Getting more education l 3 4 2 Age discrimination l 3 4 Employment opportunities 1 3 4 2 Spare time activities I 3 4 2 Crime 1 3 4 2 Nutrition and food l 3 4 2 Services and business ' misleading their users l 3 4 2 l5/22-32 Appendix A DEMOGRAPHICS 69 * 01. What is your approximate age? L‘ 70 * 02. What was the last grade of school you completed? 939 60-64 years ......... 65-69 years . . . . . . . . 70-74 years ....... . 75°79 years 0 e e e e e e 0 80-84 years . . . . . . . . 85 and over ...... . . Refused/Don't know ..... . No schooling at all . . .'. . Some elementary (l-B) . . . . Completed 8 grades . . . . . Some_high school . . . . . - Completed high school . . . . Some college . . . . . . . . College graduate . . . . . . Advanced degree ...... . Not applicable categories. Specify Don't know ......... 000410.00'9-4 OD GNOmOUN-P fl 70a * 02a. (IF 0.02 ' l-S) Have you had any igg_training or vocational education n addition to your years in school? Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO/Don.t know. e e e 0 0 0 0 d 70a0* 02aa (IF YES. 0.02a) What kind of job training was that? _— 71'e 03. Race (BY OBSERVATION) 0n the job/While working] Experience . . . . . . . . Apprenticeship . . . . . . . Vocational or business school ......m. Adult education . . . . . . . Other (SPECIFY) White ....... . . . . . Black ...... . . . . . . Other ..... . . . . . . . fld did o-u‘o 72 a 04. Sex (BY OBSERVATION) Male ............. 1 Female} ......... . . . 2 15/33 lS/34 l5/35 15/36- 40 l5/4l 15/42 APPENDIX B SAMPLING METHODS 100 Representative Sample1 Based on a final estimate of 5-10 completed inter- views per sampling point, 350 sampling points were chosen across the state. On the basis of 1970 census informa- tion on the number of persons 60 and over. counties in Michigan were accumulated with counties rank ordered in descending order. Counties in the SMSAs were listed first and then those in non-metropolitan areas. The total aging pOpulation was divided by 350 to determine a skip interval (n) for selection of counties in which sampling points would fall. A random number less than or equal to the skip interval was chosen as the starting point. and the county location of that person plus every nth person 60 and over in the state became the county locations for sampling points. Household data for the general population by census tract and block was then used to determine the precise geographic location of sampling points within each county. Based on the lowest percentage of aging anticipated in any interview area.and the desired comple- tion rate per sampling point. a block or clusters of blocks to total 150 houses were chosen (using standard methods of accumulating households) within each county by cities in order of size and then other civil division in order of size. Within each chosen county. the designated number of sampling points were geographically distributed within civil divisions by using a skip interval (m) based on the number of dwelling units divided by the number of sampling points and using a random number to select the first location. so that every mth household became the focus for a sampling point location.. Within each sampling point. the quota of interviews to be obtained was set from the following formula: numb of "Z" sam 1 o'nt to v number of "Y" county interviews "2" sampling point populgtion 60 and eve; "Y" county pOpulation 60 and over 1Taken directly from Niohi an A in Citizens. p.'369-7D. Michigan Office of Services Eothe Agi g. 1975. (With permission of Dr. Amanda A. Back? APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION WITHIN ORIGINAL SAMPLE (N=2500) Appendix C 101 *Table 11. Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (NeZSOO): Age. Sex. Sex Within Age Ase 2232205393 60 to 64 23 65 to 69 26 7D to 74 21 75 to 79 16 80 to B4 10 85 and over 4 Total 100% Sax Percentagp Men 41 Women 59 Total 100% 5px Within Age Men Women 60 to 64 23 24 65 to 69 28 24 70 to 74 22 20 75 to 79 14 17 80 and over 13 15 Total 100% 100% *Tables 11 through 13 are taken directly from Michigpn Agipg Citizens. Michigan Office of Services to the Aged. 1975 With the permission of Dr. Amanda A. Beck) pp. 35.37.39.43,45.47.53. 102 Appendix C Table 12. Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (N: 2500): Race. Income. Education m e W White 90 Black 10 Other Total 100 Ippome Pppgentgge No Income . 3 31-999 2 $1,000-2p999 31 83.000—5.999 35 86.000-9.999 17 810,000-14.999 7 315.000 and over 5 Total 100% Edupation Po 9 ta No schooling 2 Some elementary 22 8th Grade graduate 23 Some high school 21 H.S. graduate 18 Some college 7 College graduate 5 Advanced degree 2 Total 100% 103 Appendix C Table 13. Demographic Distributions Within Original Sample (N=2500)8 Living Arrangement. Marital Status. Length of Widowhood .Liuies_erraegeeeet Eereeniane Live with husband/wife 56 Live alone 31 Live with other (not spouse) 13 Total 100% Deriisl_§iaiua Pa 0 9 Married ‘ 52 Widower idow 38 Single Never married 5 Divorced 4 Separated 1 Total 100% W 9 Fe Ho Peggentpge Less than 2 years 11 2 to 5 years 23 6 to 10 years 21 Over 10 years 45 Total 100% APPENDIX 0 LIFE SATISFACTION SCALE AND STATISTICS 104 APPENDIX D Table 14 FACTORINC OF LIFE SATISFACTION Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix After Rotationi - Factor Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Item 1 .23813 .0685? .26038 Item 2 ‘e00064 e51651 e29061 Item 3 .03277 .08718 .53350 Item 4 e10243 002906 .19163 Item 5 .18224 .32039 -.12720 Item 6 .09630 .51155 .13078 Item 7 .59508 .13130 .15847 Item 8 .19708 .04284 .27384 Item 9 e61138 .10921 e16910 Factor Eigenvalue Pct Variance Cumul Pct 1 2.057 22.9 22.9 2 1.166 13.0 35.8 3 1.117 12.4 48.2 Communalities Uppigples Communalitips Item 1 .12921 Item 2 .35113 Item 3 .29330 Item 4 .04806 Item 5 .15204 Item 6 .28806 Item 7 .39648 Item 8 .11566 Item 9 .41431 Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 105 APPENDIX D LIFE SATISFACTION INDEX Don't Know AOL—.99 4933:..0 96 W I have gotten more of the breaks in life than most of the peOple I know. This is the dreariest time of my life. I expect some interesting and pleasant things to happen to me in the future. I feel my age. but it does not bother me. Compared to other people my age I've made a lot of foolish decisions in my life. Compared to other peOple. I get down in the dumps too often. As I look back on my life I am fairly well satisfied. Compared to other peOple my age. I make a good appearance. I've gotten pretty much what I eXpacted out of lifee 106 APPENDIX 0 Life Satisfaction Factors RETROSPECTIVE SATISFACTION: Item 71 As I look back on my life I am fairly well satisfied. Item 91 I've gotten pretty much what I expected out of life. . PRESENT MOODI Item 21 This is the dreariest time of my life. Item 61 Compared to other people. I get down in the dumps too often. ANTICIPATORY SATISFACTION Item 31 I expect some interesting and pleasant things to happen to me in the future.. APPENDIX E ISOLATION-SUPPORT INDEX 107 APPENDIX E ISOLATION-SUPPORT INDEX Confidant and Helper (Helper): When something is bothering you. or you feel that you have a problem. to whom do you usually turn first to talk about your problem? Score Spouse Son/Daughter’ Other relative D Neighbor Friend who is not neighbor Professional Minister/priest.. Police/Fire 1 Hage go one to call Whom do you call on when you need help around the house - like lifting heavy objects or washing windows? An immediate family member Some other relative 0 A neighbor A friend who isn't a neighbor I do it myself Other 1 I don't have anyone Neighborhood Contacts (Neighbor)1 How many close relatives would you say you have who live i in this neighborhood? 1-2 3-4 0 5 or more (”many") No response/Don't know 1 None Appendix E 108 How many close friends would you say you have who live in this neighborhood? 1-2 0 3-4 5 or more (” many ”) No response/Don't know 1 None How often do you visit with any of your neighbors. By that I mean talking on the phone. or in the street. or yard, or visiting in a home. Would you say you talk or ”visit” with at least one or more neighbors? Everyday/almost everyday Several times per week O Once a week Once every 2 weeks Once a month Less often No response/Don't know 1 Never Living Arrangements: What is your present living arrangement Live with husband/wife (includes children) O Live with others (not spouse) Don't know 1 Liying alone Contacts with Children: How many living sons and daughters do you have (including adapted and stepchildren)? 0 Actual number 1 None Appendix E 109 About how often do you see him/her (children)? About how often do you talk to him/her on the telephone? _ Actual number of visits per year 0 Actual number of conversations per month (If response to both questions is O. then score “No Communication”) 1 No Communication If there are no visits with children, but there are telephone conversations. then No visits with children but telephone 0 conversations 1 No visits and no telephone conversations MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES “II I "III Dllllllllllll Ii llllllllll I ll 1 2 312931023 2 57