139
173

 

2009 LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Desired Privacy and Interaction in Intergenerational Family

presented by
Amanda Gale

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Interior Design & Facility Mngt_

Wag

UMajor Professor’s Signature

LAD/3‘45". [61 g ZOO 9
Date

 

 

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 a/CIRC/DateDueindd-p. 15

 

 

DESIRED PRIVACY AND INTERACTION IN INTERGENERATIONAL HOMES
By

- Amanda J. Gale

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Human Environment and Design

2005

ABSTRACT
PRIVACY AND INTERACTION IN INTERGENERATIONAL HOMES
By

Amanda J. Gale

Family interaction is important for the psycho-social health of individuals;
however, it is also equally necessary for family members to have their own personal
space. This balance between interaction and privacy is even more critical in an
intergenerational family. This study explored how homes can be designed to support
both interaction and privacy for multiple adult generations. The multi-method approach
included semi-structured interviews of the aging parent and adult child, activity logs, and
observations of the physical setting. The data was analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics
and content analysis. The findings demonstrated that both desired privacy and interaction
levels were achieved by the aging parent and adult child. Aging parents never felt
crowded or had a lack of privacy. The research revealed the larger the home and the
greater number of people residing in the home increased the likelihood of aging parents
feeling isolated. This study provided encouraging results for intergenerational homes of

the future.

DEDICATION

To my parents:
You continually support
and help me to obtain my goals.

To Phil:
You encourage me daily,
believe in everything I do, and
always provide much needed comic relief.

...Thank you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Master’s Thesis would not have been possible without the combined effort of
several people. I would like to thank and acknowledge those people who have guided me
through this process and provided the expertise, encouragement, and inspirations that I
needed to reach my goal.

First, I want to thank my adviser, Dr. Nam-Kyu Park, for your guidance and
support. Thank you as well to my committee members Dr. John Schweitzer and Roberta
Kilty for your encouragement. I would also like to thank Dr. Diane Dobemeck for your
thorough editing, reading and re-reading my thesis, and providing the much needed
qualitative expertise.

Second, I would like to thank my friends and family who have stuck with me
through some stressful times. I was not always able to give you the time and attention
you deserve, but you were there for me none-the-less.

Lastly, thank you to all participants of the study; I appreciate you taking the time
out of your schedule to open up your home and share with me a part of you life. Those of

you who helped me find the participants I am grateful beyond words.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................................... viii
Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................. 3
Limitations ................................................................................... 5
Assumptions .................................................................................. 6
Operational Definitions ..................................................................... 6
Chapter II: Review of Literature .................................................................. 8
Introduction ................................................................................... 8
Privacy and Interaction in the family ...................................................... 9
Intergenerational Homes .................................................................. l 3
Conclusion ................................................................................... 18
Chapter III: Methods .............................................................................. 20
Pilot Study ................................................................................... 20
Participants .................................................................................. 21
Procedure .................................................................................... 24
Instrumentation ............................................................................. 25
Questionnaire ......................................................................... 25
Interviews ............................................................................. 26

Activity Logs ......................................................................... 27
Observations .......................................................................... 28

Data Analysis ................................................................................ 28
Chapter IV: Results ................................................................................ 31

Findings ...................................................................................... 3 1
Privacy ................................................................................ 32
Interaction ............................................................................. 39

Influence of Privacy and Interaction .............................................. 45
Respondent Themes ........................................................................ 46

A joint Household .................................................................... 47
Possessions and Preparation ........................................................ 47
Interference with Space ............................................................. 48

Shared Household Chores .......................................................... 49

Overall Contented .................................................................... 49

Routines to Attain Privacy .......................................................... 50

Communication ...................................................................... 5 1

Routines for Interacting ............................................................. 51

Chapter V: Discussion & Conclusion ........................................................... 53

Discussion .................................................................................... 53

Conclusion ................................................................................... 58

Future Research ............................................................................. 59
Appendix A: UCRIHS Approval Letter ........................................................ 60
Appendix B: Consent Form ...................................................................... 62
Appendix C: Socio-demographic Questionnaire .............................................. 64
Appendix D: Guided Interview Questions ..................................................... 68
Appendix E: Sample Activity Log .............................................................. 73
Appendix F: Observation & Identification Form ............................................. 75
References .......................................................................................... 77

vi

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table l 1.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

LIST OF TABLES

Description of Subjects’ Characteristics ............................................ 23
Household Characteristics ............................................................ 24
Percentage of Respondents With the Ability to be Alone ........................ 32
Space by Percentage in Which Respondents Would go to be Alone ............ 33
Percentage of Activity Respondents Participated in When Alone .............. 33
Percentage of Space owned by Respondents ....................................... 34

Percentage of Respondents with the Ability to be Alone without Being

Disturbed ................................................................................ 35
Percentage of Respondents’ Actual Privacy ....................................... 36
Percentage of Respondents’ Achieving Desired Amount of Privacy ............ 36
Results of Paired T -Test for Actual & Desired Amount of Interaction ......... 40

Percentage of Respondents’ Desired & Actual Amount of Interaction
Findings from the Questionnaire .................................................... 40

Percentage of Respondents’ Desired & Actual Amount of Interaction

Findings from the Interview .......................................................... 41
Percentage of Room Used for Interaction among Respondents ................ 44
Percentage of Respondents’ Activity Type for Interactions ............. i ........ 45

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Results Model of Privacy & Interaction ....................................... 45

Figure 2. Respondent Themes .................................................................. 47

viii

Chapter I: Introduction

Statement of Problem

Interaction is important in sustaining family relations; it is also equally necessary
for family members to have their own personal space. Individuals need to be able to find
private space within their residence for the continuous developmental process of self-
identity to take place (Harrison 1994; Hoglund, 1985). This is even more critical when
an aging parent moves in with their grown children. The role of the family as primary
caregiver is projected to continue and expand with an aging society (Gitlin, 2003;
Stewart-Pollack & Menconi, 2005; Walker, Shin, & Bird, 1990). Normally the children
of an aging parent fill this role (Choi, 2004). Although aging in place, which is
remaining in the home, is the consistently expressed desire of both older adults and
family caregivers, it is not always feasible (Mutchler & Burr, 2003; Wahl & Gitlin, 2003;
Wister & Burch, 1987). Most often this occurs for health or monetary reasons, or the
recent death of a spouse (Choi, 2003; Choi 2004). It can also occur when the
maintenance of the home becomes too overwhelming or the home is no longer functional.
The current living situation of separation between age groups is no longer a viable option
due to increasing economic constraints and the following demographic trends. People
age 65 years and older currently represent 12.4% of the population or 35.9 million in the
United States (Federal Interagency Forum, 2000). Of that population the Federal
Interagency Forum (2000) found that 7% of men and 17% of women age 65 years and

older live with a non-spousal relative, when looking Specifically at race this percentage

increases to 33% for Black, Asian, and Hispanic women. On average women have a
longer life expectancy, while men tend to remarry instead of remaining single after
divorce or the death of a spouse (Administration on Aging [AoA], 2003). This clarifies
the significant difference of men versus women living with a non-spousal relative.

The growing population of persons ages 65 years and older is projected to
continually grow with the possibility of reaching 71.5 million by the year 2030 or 20% of
the population (AoA, 2003). It can then be expected with the projected increase of 7.6 %
of the population that the number of elderly residing with their children will also
increase. “There is now a growing recognition. . .that family caregiving will become a
more salient. . .issue in the future because of a number of recent demographic, economic,
and social changes,” (Beigel & Schulz, 1999, p. 345). This is represented socially and
economically with the following figures, 53% of women and 13.9% of men age 75 years
and older live alone, 11.6% of that population live in poverty (Federal Interagency
Forum, 2000). In 2002 almost half (46%) of all women age 65 years and older were
widows (AoA, 2003). Encouragement of unity within intergenerational environments
must be developed to accommodate this future movement. Intergenerational unity leads
to greater appreciation, a common sharing of knowledge, insights, and worldviews
(V incenti, 2004), and is mutually beneficial and should be encouraged.

It is imperative that home design functionally supports the way families interact in
response to the social changes of an aging parent moving in with their grown child while
similarly accommodating the privacy of the individual users. Both the aging parent and
the adult child need to feel as though they are not intruding or being intruded upon by the

living arrangement. The aging parent should keep as much independence as possible

through having options to make decisions and assuming responsibility in the family.
When older persons are actively integrated into home life in a positive manner, the
activity itself is a constructive way of encouraging physical health and well-being.
Mutual assistance and increased understanding are shared intergenerational benefits that
can occur (Delaski-Smith, 1984; Mancini & Blieszner, 1989). Stewart-Pollack &
Menconi (2005) reinforces this theory by stating “By providing for desired levels of
intimacy, privacy facilitates positive social interaction with those from who we need
social support, (p. 37). Conversely when there is a lack of privacy or crowding occurs,
stress levels can increase (Altman, 1981). The tendency towards aging parents and adult
children living separately is due mostly to a desire for privacy in combination with
having the freedom to do what one chooses without interference (Wister & Burch, 1987).
There is a need to explore how intergenerational families use their home for both private
and social aspects. There is a close integration between environmental dimensions of the
home with both family and personal well-being (Gitlin, 2003; Gunter, 2000). This
research provides an understanding of the desired amount of privacy and interaction for
individual members of intergenerational families and recommends design features within

intergenerational homes that improve privacy and interaction among family members.

Purpose of the Study

This study explored how well existing homes function with dual adult generations

in regard to privacy and interaction. Privacy and the interaction that occur with family

members in the home impacts the use and fimctionality of the residence. Therefore

specific questions of this study include:

Q1:

Q2:

Q3:

Q4:

Q5:

Q6:

Q7:

What is the desired amount of privacy for an adult child and aging parent
in an intergenerational home?

IS there a difference in the amount of privacy needed for the aging parent
versus the adult child in an intergenerational home?

What environmental factors, including spatial layout, type of rooms, size of
the residence, etc., impact the desired amount of privacy in an
intergenerational home?

What is the desired amount of interaction for an adult child and aging
parent in an intergenerational home?

Is there a difference in the amount of interaction needed for the aging
parent versus the adult child in an intergenerational home?

What environmental factors, including spatial layout, type of rooms, size of
the residence, etc., have an impact on the desired amount of interaction in
an intergenerational home?

How do interaction and privacy influence each other in intergenerational

families?

This research study was important for several reasons. It assisted in a better

understanding of the role privacy and interaction play in the home environment with

multiple adult generations residing together. The outcome informed recommendations

for design features in intergenerational housing, especially the use and functionality of

the home. If interior designers understand privacy and interaction within the
intergenerational home, they can incorporate that knowledge in the approach taken to

planning and designing homes in the future.

Limitations

While the researcher cannot eradicate the limitations that exist within this study,
thorough use of a pilot study to refine the instrument and procedural design reduced
many possible threats to validity. The limitations that remain are those of the design,
population, and data analysis

A limitation to the design of the study was the relatively short period of data
collection which was not as ideal as a longitudinal study. A longitudinal study would
have Shown how the families adjusted over time and would have allowed the families to
feel more comfortable with the researcher’s presence. An additional limitation was the
use of a single interviewer which allowed for the potential of interviewer bias influencing
the interview process. The interview format of the study was semi-structured, which
included a series of topics to be covered as well as suggested questions. This helped to
control the bias, in that all participants addressed the same topics and general questions.

A restriction of the study involving the population is the limited geographic area
the sample was collected from. The sample was limited to the greater mid-Michigan area.
There were not any purely metropolitan or rural regions included in the sample. In
addition, a consistent physical setting would have been ideal, however; different types of

housing with individualized and unregulated qualities was used in order to achieve the

desired number of participants.
Lastly a limitation to the data analysis was the moderately small sample size
which restricted the ability to conduct inferential statistical analysis and to make broad

generalizations and recommendations to the greater population.

Assumptions

The researcher assumed that participants of this study answered all questions
honestly and correctly. It is also assumed that the method of data collection accurately
measured the desired levels of privacy and interaction of the participants. It is also
assumed that there was not any communication as requested between the aging parent
and adult child regarding the questions asked in the study in those situations where the

interviews took place on different days.

Operational Definitions

Acoustical Properties: Finishes, amount of enclosure, and size of a space can have an
impact on whether the space has acoustical privacy, which inhibits the travel of sound, or

contrarily enhances sound (Stewart-Pollack & Menconi, 2005).

Environmental Factors: Factors in the physical environment consist of the following:
spatial layout, number and size of rooms of the home, number of occupants, acoustical
properties of the home (Marshall, 1972), and type of home (Pruchno, Dempsey, Carder,

& Koropecky-Cox, 1993).

Interaction: When two or more members of the family participate in an activity together;
such as watching television, conversation, or eat together (Miller & Maxwell, 2003). For
this study, interaction between family members consisted only of the adult child and

aging parent.

Intergenerational Family: Two or more generations sharing resources is considered an
intergenerational family (DeLaski-Smith, 1984). For this study, families resided in the

same household, and consisted of parent-child relations.

Intergenerational Homes: The residence in which the intergenerational family live
together. For this study, intergenerational homes consisted of the aging parent living
with his or her daughter or the adult child moving in with his or her aging parent while

taking over ownership and maintaining the home.

Privacy: Privacy is the process of control over and regulation of social contact between
oneself and others (Altman, 1975; Margulis, 2003). It can be in the form of acoustical,

visual, or informational (Betchel, 1997) privacy.

Chapter II: Review of Literature

Introduction

Previous research investigating the relationship of privacy, interaction, and
environmental design features from both perspectives of the adult child and aging parent
in intergenerational families is minimal. Over the past thirty years, many studies have
been conducted on supporting issues such as identifying factors relating to the
relationship between the caregiver and the recipient (Lee, Netzer, & Coward, 1995;
Mercier, Shelley, & Wall, 1997; Pyke, 1999; Walker, Pratt, Shin, & Jones, 1995),
behavioral environments involved in aging (Golant, 2003; Koncelik, 2003; Pynoos,
Tabbarah, Angelelli, & Demiere, 1998), the impact of crowding (Booth & Edwards,
1976; Evans, Maxwell, & Hart, 1999; Evans, Lepore, & Schroeder, 1996; Gove, Hughes,
& Galle, 1979), and home design (Boschetti, 1990; Evans, Wells, Chan, & Saltzrnan,
2000; Fernandez, Perez, & Abuin, 2004; Miller & Maxwell, 2003). This research will
build on the already existing knowledge base of intergenerational families (Choi, 2003;
DeLaski-Smith, 1984; Mindel & Wright, 1982; Pruchno et al.; 1993) and privacy
(Altman, 1985; Berado, 1998; Chan, 2000; Hoglund, 1985; Margulis, 2003; Pederson &
Frances 1990; Sebba & Churchman, 1983). These factors are categorized in the
following paragraphs as privacy and interaction in the family and intergenerational

homes.

Privacy and Interaction in the Family

The two leading theories in privacy originate with Westin ( 1970) and Altman
(1975). Westin (1970) focuses on privacy as a social issue as well as a psychological and
behavioral concept by introducing states and functions of privacy. He defines four states
of privacy, which include: solitude, the state of being alone and free from observation;
intimacy, the connection of intimate relations with others; anonymity, remaining
unobserved and unrecognized in public; and reserve, the capacity to protect personal
information. Westin also classifies four functions of privacy, which enable the individual
to achieve: personal autonomy, emotional release, self-evaluation, and protected
communication.

Altman’s (1975) theory of privacy focuses on privacy as a process of regulating
social contact as well as the importance of the dynamic relationship between people and
their environment. He views it is as a limited access approach relying not only on the
physical separation from others, but the ability to control the interactions, which can be
visual or verbal. A constant balancing act takes place to get the desired level of privacy
with too little resulting in crowding and overly excessive amounts resulting in isolation.
Desired and achieved privacy are essential to Altman’s privacy model, desired privacy is
an individuals ideal level of contact with others at any Specific point in time, where as
achieved privacy refers to the actual level of contact experienced by an individual at a
particular point in time (Altman, 1975; Harris, 1994; Kaya & Weber, 2003). A minimum
degree of desired privacy is fundamental to a healthy residential environment (Altman,

1975; Gunter, 2000; Harrison, 1994); however, each individual within the residence may

have a different view of the desired amount of privacy required (Chan, 2000; Stewart-
Pollack & Menconi, 2005).

Altman (1975) defines three kinds of territories; primary, secondary, and public.
Primary is most essential and crucial to the occupying person, this is where one has the
most control. Within the home the primary territory would be classified as the bedroom
or sleeping area. Bedrooms frequently represent the individual territory of the occupant,
which is used as a retreat for self-evaluations and relaxation (V eitch & Arkklein, 1995;
Gunter 2000). Secondary territories are those that are more public but occupied
exclusively for a time. Secondary territories would be considered bathrooms since in
most cases they are exclusively occupied. They could also be considered a favorite chair
or spot in the living room.

Interaction and privacy are closing related; by obtaining privacy the amount of
interaction within a space is being controlled (Altman, 1975; Stewart-Pollack &
Menconi, 2005). A strong sense of individuality develops for a user when they have
control over the access of their territories (Bechtel, 1997). Conversely when privacy is
infringed upon it destroys individual autonomy. This is crucial in the design of living
environments since autonomy is an on-going process throughout the lifespan (Altholz,
1986). Holding responsibility over for a particular area is an important aspect of whether
the individual has control over it (Sebba & Churchman, 1983). Sebba and Churchman
(1983) found that if clearly defined areas are not established, an area may become a
source of conflict and tension. They define territoriality as a connection between
individual and physical areas with each area having a set of environmental behaviors.

They examined how individual family members to classified each area and piece of

10

furniture in terms of ownership. On average, each family member answered consistently
with other family members as to which area belonged to whom. The areas, which could
not be defined, were areas without set boundaries. Chan (2000) found within the home, a
spouse is consistently given the most freedom to be invited into privacy boundaries while
the boundaries are somewhat less open to parents and children

Privacy influences many different aspects within human nature. Altman (1981)
uses privacy mechanisms, such as territoriality, to define the limits and boundaries of the
individual. Most territorial behaviors are aimed at protecting privacy; while feelings of
crowding culminate from lack of privacy. The effects on families living in a crowded
setting have been linked to poor mental health and social relationships within the home
(Evans et al., 1999; Gove et al., 1979). Gove et a1. (1979) studied crowding subjectively
though excessive social demands and lack of privacy; and objectively through people per
room analysis. The study utilized a questionnaire with a lack of privacy scale in
coordination with a felt demand scale. It classified physical and psychological levels of
withdraw. The findings connected the occurrence of excessive demands and lack of
privacy within the crowded home environment.

More recently Evans et a1. (1999) confirmed the correlation with poor social
relations, showing that parents in more crowded homes were less responsive to their
children and conversed in less complex ways, which could lead to poor verbal
communication skills. They, like previous, researchers classified crowding within the
home as people per room. The longitudinal analysis observed family interaction,

Specifically language diversity, in one-hour periods for two and a half years.

11

One of many different aspects of housing quality that Evans et a1. (2000)
examined was privacy, which was classified by having to walk through a bedroom to get
to another room. Other aspects of housing quality were building structure, hazards,
cleanliness, and building height or floor level. The findings showed that improved
housing quality was associated with reduced psychological distress.

The home environment should provide appropriate degrees of both privacy and
interaction with others (Veitch & Arkkelin, 1995). It is healthy for family unity to have
spaces within the home where interaction can occur as well as private space where
individuals can be alone (Gunter, 2000). Many consider home in general a private place,
but it is also a space within which smaller zones of privacy are constructed and used for
retreat (F ahey, 1995). Individual family members can use privacy as a visual or
acoustical barrier from both internal and external social penetration (Berado, 1998). The
use of privacy can also serve as a major function of sustaining family relations (Berado,
1998), by providing experiences that sustain normal individual functions, stable
interpersonal relationships, and on-going personal development (Margulis, 2003). Fahey
(1995) reinforces this theory by stating “one of the main functions of the modern family
is to serve as a refuge from harshness, anonymity, and competitiveness of industrial
society,” (p.688). Margulis (2003) feels that social relationships are crucial to
determining independence by either hindering or helping through both choice and
control.

Miller and Maxwell (2003) examined family interaction patterns in the home by
exploring parents’ design preferences for areas associated with promoting interaction.

Self-reported activity logs, open and closed ended interview questions, and a card sort

l2

depicting various design features were utilized. Their study concluded that spaces, which
support concurrent activities, best facilitate family interactions. The kitchen, and family
or living rooms were spaces cited as being used most often. Interestingly though, a
finished basement, which would support concurrent activities, was rarely found to be
used due to the limited visual access.

According to Berado (1998), recent literature regarding privacy is lacking in an
area that that focuses on “the ways in which spatial limitations imposed by the home
configure patterns of family privacy need” along with arrangements of space and

differential privacy orientation of individual family members, (p.16).
Intergenerational Homes

The living environment can impact people residing in it in several different ways.
Crowding, health, well-being (Gitlin, 2003), and interaction (Miller & Maxwell, 2003)
can all be influenced through the design of the residence. More time is spent in the home
than in any other environment (Evans et al., 2000; Fernandez et al., 2004). The home is a
link between satisfaction with home life and perceived control over one’s social
circumstances within the home (Gunter, 2000). It is often the place where individuals
feel safe, secure, and most comfortable (Fahey, 1995). In addition the home is the
location where maintenance of interpersonal relationship occurs (Gunter, 2000), so it has
a large impact on family life. The residence of an intergenerational family, an aging
parent residing with their adult child, therefore can play an important role in the lives of

both the aging parent and adult child.

13

In order to gain a complete understanding of how a residential setting can
influence its occupant’s emotional responses, behaviors, and overall quality of life, it is
critical to take a holistic approach of elderly individuals’ lives and environments. It is
important to be aware of the physical changes occurring during the aging process since
they will have an impact on the individuals’ behavior toward the environment. For older
individuals, vision is slower to respond and they experience a decrease in hearing
capability with increased difficulty in tuning out back ground noise (Hess & Markson,
1980; Koncelik, 2003). In addition to sensory changes, muscle mass decreases by
roughly 40% in older individuals by the age of 70, specifically in the quadriceps and arm
muscles. Frequently this is connected with the trembling of hands and reduced strength
to perform tasks (Koncelik, 2003). Visual impairment, reduced muscle strength, and
reaction times result in increased risk of falling, which coincides with increases in age
(Pinto et al., 1999; Rogers, Rogers, Takeshima, & Islam, 2004).

Elderly individuals are also frequently attached to their home (Boschetti, 1990;
Eshelrnan & Evans, 2002), which may no longer meet their needs due to their declining
health (Rubinstein & Parmelee, 1992). They often feel isolated and frustrated by no
longer being able to accomplish the household tasks they used to. This can include
hobbies or more fundamental activities such as driving a car, opening a door, or
negotiating the stairs.

Adaptations made to living environments to increase the ease of use, safety,
security, and independence are necessary, but often do not occur due to monetary
circumstances (Pynoos et al., 1998). These modifications can be minor, such as

rearrangement of furniture, increased lighting, lever door handles instead of knobs, and

14

installing raised toilets; or major modifications such as, widening doorways, adding
ramps, and installing hand rails and grab bars. These changes result in necessary
successful adaptations that can increase the elderly persons contentment within the home.
In addition to design features for the physical transition of aging, there are also
suggested elements for the psychological aspect of aging. Altholz (1986) believes that in
order for the aging parent to keep their independence, their living arrangements “should
provide opportunities for interaction and intimacy, as well as for personal development
and privacy,” (p. 79). Elderly individuals need to feel challenged by their environment as
much as they need to feel supported and at ease by it (Regnier, 2003). The sense of being
at home is enhanced by familiar things, which can ease the transition to a new location
for the aging parent (Boschetti, 1990; Eshelman & Evans, 2002). These personal items
provide the individual with a sense of control over their surroundings and their own
existence (Koncelik, 2003) thus connecting the aging adult with the ongoing process of
self-identity (Boschetti, 1995). This comfort is important because the amount of time
people spend inside their home increases with age. This can be accomplished through
incorporating the aging parent’s belongings, such as furniture and accessories, into the
household, as well as having input into the decisions of furniture selection and
arrangement (Altholz, 1986; Boschetti, 1990; Koncelik, 2003). This may not be feasible
throughout the home if there are opposing preferences; however, it should be encouraged
in their bedroom. Eshelman & Evans (2002) suggest providing an easily accessible
location to display and integrate personal possessions into the parent’s bedroom if not the
rest of the home. They found that true satisfaction occurs when their home is a reflection

of their individual unique personality.

15

Boschetti (1990) suggests a space for family gathering and for the aging parent’s
bedroom to have windows and seating near by so viewing of the outside environment is
possible. In addition seating should be arranged around windows in the rest of the home,
as well as porches with accommodations to sit since they provide opportunity to observe
their surroundings and feel connected to the outside world. The aging individual has a
great attachment to their personal space and objects; it signifies their personal history,
reflects their identity, and instills their environment with personality. Elderly individuals
residing alone have greater levels of privacy, but less social interactions, where as elderly
individuals in intergenerational homes have more self satisfaction and social interactions,
but at the expense of privacy (Bechtel, 1997). The frequency with which an aging parent
has contact with their adult child as well as sense of filial obligation enhances the quality
of their relationship as shown in Mercier et a1. (1997) study. They measured trust and
security felt by the adult child for the aging parent, in relation to filial obligation.

In addition to suggested design features for elderly housing, there are several
different housing options available for intergenerational families. The most common is a
single detached dwelling in which the aging parent uses a spare bedroom and preferably
separate bathroom. A variation of this option is “Granny flats” or an “Elder cottage” in
which pre-manufactured units with separate accommodations are constructed on the adult
child’s property. Other options include; a duplex, with the adult child in one unit and the
aging parent in another unit or a “tandom” home that provides joint living space with
private bedroom suites for each generation (DeLaski-Smith, 1984).

Previous studies, although few, have been conducted on intergenerational families

(Mindel & Wright, 1982; Pruchno et al., 1993). Mindel and Wright (1982) studied

16

characteristics of the primary caregiver and the dependent elderly relative, as well as
ecological characteristics. The levels of social activity and dependency were the main
characteristics regarding the elderly relative. The findings revealed that family life
satisfaction in intergenerational homes increased if there were no feelings of
inconvenience concerning the living arrangements. Additionally, the more active the
elderly was correlated with lower perceptions of inconvenience by the primary caregiver.

Pruchno’s et a1. (1993) study looked at household characteristics in relation to
perceptions of household Space, and caregiving stress in multigenerational families,
consisting of three-generations. They found a correlation with loss of privacy and
interference with household space to burden of caregiving. The greater the inference, the
more burden and less satisfied the daughters were with the caregiving role. They also
found the increased amount of time an elderly parent spent in shared living spaces, the
more negative the daughter’s husband’s perception of the residence became. In looking
at conversions or additions made to the home 55% (30) families made some sort of
conversion to their homes such as; making rooms into a bedroom from a den, study or
living room. The daughter and her husband viewed these conversions negatively when
they restricted areas previously open to the family. Only 16% (9) families had made
additions such as building bathroom, bedroom, or family room. Similarly Hess &
Markson (1980) believe that intergenerational housing could lead to loss of personal
privacy, increase family chores as caring for elderly, limit leisure and social activities and
may dictate physical rearrangement of space within home.

Fernandez et a1. (2004) studied housing satisfaction, with respect to the elements

of the residential environment, of residents aged 65 years and older. Satisfaction with

17

access to the building, functionality in the home in regard to ease of movement, and the
quality of construction were specific areas among others that were analyzed. The
relationships existing between the specific components that bring satisfaction and the
characteristics of the residents sampled through survey found differences in the elderly
population's residential satisfaction, associated to gender, age, perceived health status,

social class, income and structure of the home in which they live.

Conclusion

The literature review has shown that it is important for aging parents to feel
integrated into the household by having control over their new setting. This control will
assist them in the adaptation process, as will having both privacy and interaction with
others. Earlier studies are lacking the perspective of both the aging parent and adult
child. They also fail to consider potential differences in the desired amount of privacy
and interaction between the two generations residing together. In addition, previous
research on privacy and interaction has been conducted for the most part in mass
quantities on a convenience sample of college students. There is a need to develop a
more thorough, in-depth understanding taking age and point in an individual’s life into
consideration. It has been noted that age is integral to privacy preference as stated by
Stewart-Pollack & Menconi (2005) “We experience privacy differently depending upon
our age and upon the stage of life we are living,” (pg.l99) The proposed research will
begin to fill this gap in literature by investigating the perspective of both the aging parent

and adult child in regard to the desired amount of privacy and interaction. These

18

participants are at various stages in their lives which will broaden the field. Privacy and
interaction work together to create a harmonious balance. Veitch & Arkkelin (1995)
state, “The environment and its inhabitants never stay the same, each is constantly

changing as a result of its interactions with the other” (p. 31).

19

Chapter III: Method

This study aimed to develop exploratory information regarding home
environments, specifically looking at the privacy and interaction of aging parents and
their adult child living in intergenerational homes. Each intergenerational family was
considered uniquely by the use of case studies in this exploratory research. A case study
is a research method that attempts to describe, understand, and/or explain a particular or
multiple cases in detail (Gillham, 2000;Yin, 2003). A mainly qualitative method was
used, permitting us to hear the participants through their own words.

This chapter will outline the methods used to collect and interpret the data. It will
included sections on pilot study, participants, instrumentation, procedure, and data

analysis.

Pilot Study

The pilot study was designed to serve two distinct purposes: 1) to test the
interview format and questions, such as the standardized content, and to discover
problems or ambiguities with the wording of the questions, 2) to gain experience with the
approach for the interview. Due to the difficulties of obtaining the limited sample, two
adult children who had their aging parent living with them at one time were used in the
pilot study. The participants were identified through a mass e-mail sent out from
Michigan State University’s Eldercare list. Both interviews were held in the week of

May 15, 2005 and took place in the participants’ respective offices. During the

20

interview, the researcher took some notes but relied mainly on the use of a tape recorder
to document the interview. Immediately following the interviews, the researcher
transcribed the information. None of the data gathered through the pilot test went into the
study because the pilot participants did not fit the set criteria.

Following the pilot test, the researcher made three adjustments to methods for
data collection. First, the less note taking the researcher participated in the more detailed
information gained from the participant. Second, the sequence of the guided interview
questions was modified for a smoother transition. Third, the activity log was slightly

modified by adding shading to every other row for ease of vision.

Participants

The target population for this study was aging parents, 65 years and older, and
adult children, 30 years and older, residing in the same home. The sample population
was limited to families residing in Michigan, whose aging parent was not suffering from
dementia or Alzheimer. This was in an effort to limit the introduction of additional
variables. Subject families were recruited through community centers, support groups,
and religious institutions found throughout Mid-Michigan. However, this method failed
to produce any volunteer families. Instead the ten subject families were found through
criterion purposive sampling with a snowball effect.

The total sample size consisted of ten families found in the greater Mid-Michigan
area. Varying family compositions were incorporated in the study. The sample included

9 adult female children, 1 adult male child, 8 female aging parents, and 2 male aging

21

parents. The most frequent age range of the adult child was 55 to 59 years old; where as
the most frequent age range of the aging parent was 80 to 84 years old. Racially 90%
were white, 5% were Asian, and 5% were multiracial. All (100%) of the aging parents
were retired, while 90% of the adult children were currently working. All (100%) of the
aging parents were widowed, while 50% of the adult children were married, 20% were
single, 20% were divorced, and the remaining 10% were widowed. The most frequent
annual family income range was below $100,000 (see Table 1). In the overwhelming
majority of the cases (80%), the aging parent moved in with his or her adult child. In
10% of the cases the adult child and aging parent jointly moved into a new home; in 10%
of the cases the adult child and aging parent always lived together. The households range
in size from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3 people (see Table 2). All (100%) of the families
owned their home.

Prior to contacting subjects to gain their participation in the study, the researcher
applied and was granted permission to use human subjects by the University Committee

on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), IRB # 05-206, (see Appendix A).

22

Table 1.

Description of Subjects’ Characteristics

 

 

Characteristics No. %
Aging Parent 10 50
Adult Child 10 50

Age

30-39 2 10
40-49 0 0
50-59 7 35
60-69 2 10
70-79 3 15
80-89 5 25
90 + 1 5
Gender
Male 3 15
Female 17 85
Marital Status
Single 2 10
Married 5 25
Divorced 2 10
Widowed l l 55
Ethnicity
White 18 90
Asian 1 5
Multiracial l 5
Family Income a
Below $40 1 10
$40 - 50 3 30
$50 - 60 1 10
$60 - 70 l 10
$70 - 80 1 10
$80 - 9O 0 0
$90 - 100 0 0
Above $100 3 30
Length of Time in Home
0 - 4 yrs. 4 20
5 - 9 yrs. 7 35
10 -14 yrs. 1 5
15 - 19 yrs. 4 20
20 yrs. and above 4 20

 

a Number given in the $10,000

23

Table 2.

Household Characteristics

 

 

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Square Footage 10 1200 2400 1705 457.3
No. of Bedrooms 10 2 6 3.6 1.1
No. of People 10 2 4 2.9 0.7
No. of Generations 10 2 3 2.3 0.5
Procedure

The data collection began during the week of June 1, 2005 and was completed
within 7 weeks. All of the 10 families contacted by the researcher participated in the
study. Once the families contact information was given to the researcher, a call was
made to explain the purpose of the study and to verify that the family met the set criteria.
The researcher then emailed the participants the consent form and activity log. A follow-
up call was made to determine if the participants had any questions concerning the study,
and at that time, the date was set for the interview to occur. Participation was voluntary
and subjects were asked to read and sign the consent form (See Appendix B) prior to the
start of the interview. During the interview, the researcher verified that the participants
understood how to fill out the log properly. Standardization of the survey process
occurred from the initial phone call to the arrival at the participants’ home; the researcher
used the same wording as used in the consent form to explain the purpose of the study
and confidentiality. Participant agreement and confidentiality forms were be given to the
individuals to confirm their understanding of the proposed study and to obtain consent to

use an oral recording device. In 80% of the cases the first interview was with the aging

24

parent and the second interview at a separate visit to the home was with the adult child.
Observations were made regarding room and home layout, traffic patterns, and furniture
arrangements during the first interview and were verified during the second interview.
The last steps of data collection were to transcribe the entire recorded discussion into a
verbatim transcript of the interview. The activity logs were mailed back to the researcher
with self-addressed stamped envelopes provided by the researcher (80%) or were

completed prior to the interview (20%).

Instrumentation

The instruments utilized in this exploratory multiple-case study were a semi-
structured interview using both closed and open-ended questions, an activity log,
observations, and a questionnaire. The family perspective utilized in this study required
responses from multiple family members. In this research, the dependent variables were

privacy and interaction. The independent variable was intergenerational families.

Questionnaire

A questionnaire containing a series of socio-demographic questions were included
to identify any extraneous variables such as, annual family income, age, gender,
ethnicity, marital status, and length of time residing in the home. Categorical variables,
such as gender, ethnicity, age, and martial status were coded while quantitative variables

such as square footage of the home, and length of time resided in the home were left open

25

so the subject could manually fill them in. Included in the survey were two items based
on Harris’s (1994) study measuring the ideal amount of interaction an individual wants
and the amount of interaction an individual actually has with his/her family in their
apartments. These two items were adapted by substituting “your home” for “apartment.”
In order to determine their desired interaction level participants were asked to indicate
how much interaction they would like to have with their family members when they were
in their home and then how much interaction they actually have with their family
members when they were home. Answers were recorded using a 7 point rating scale
from 1 (little interaction) to 7 (a lot of interaction). These questions were in the given
format to determine if participants would answer the same way orally as opposed to

written, while using a validity check of responses. The survey can be found in Appendix

C.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews have a series of topics to be covered as well as
suggested questions; yet allow the option to change the sequence or the form of questions
depending on the given situation (Kvale, 1996). Personal interviews were conducted
with both the aging parent and the adult child who was biologically related to the parent.
The guided interview questions (see Appendix D) were semi-structured to invite an open
response and lasted approximately 20 minutes.

Privacy, questions 8 through 12, addressed the process of control over and

regulation of social contact between oneself and others (Altman, 1975; Margulis, 2003).

26

It was considered spatially as well as with control/availability factors. Questions 8 and
10 were previously used in Marshall’s (1972) study to classify environmental variables
regarding privacy by determining the capacity in which regulation of social contact
occurs. There should be an establishment of control and availability of a private area
within the home for each member of the household that is uninfringeable to other
individuals (Veitch & Arkklein, 1995). Question 9 measured tenitoriality in the home
(Sebba and Churchman 1983), while question 11 measured household space perceptions
(Pruchno et al., 1993).

Interaction, questions 13 through 19, were considered when two or more family
members participate in an activity together (Miller & Maxwell, 2003). These interactions
can be planned or spontaneous, formal or informal; such as watching television or
preparing a meal together. Interaction and privacy are closely related; by obtaining
privacy the amount of interaction within a space is being controlled. Question 15 was
taken from the lack of privacy scale (Gove et al., 1979). The original question read “In
general do you have as much privacy as you want?” For this study, the word privacy was
replaced with the word interaction. Questions 16 through 19 are from the Interaction

Index (Bengtson, 1973).

Activity Logs

An activity log was used to help verify and confirm information gathered through

the interview process, as well as to document family interaction and privacy patterns in

the home. The activity log used in this study (see Appendix E) was initially used in a

27

previous study by Miller and Maxwell (2003) concerning the fostering of family
interaction. Some of the categories were modified and a new section, “Participating
with:” was added with appropriate options. The logs were to be completed by either the
aging parent or adult child when both parent and child were home together. In most cases
(90%), the adult child was designated. Directions were given to each participant to select

a continuous two hour period on two week days and one weekend for filling in the log.

Observations

In addition, direct observations were conducted of the living environment as part
of the multi-method approach to gather further information for the purpose of study.
Direct or detached observations gain insight into the use of environmental conditions, and
are conducted in a formal and highly structured manner (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2003). The
physical relationship of the home was examined in regard to the spatial factor of privacy
and interaction. Room sizes and square footages were noted, as was adjacency and
location of rooms, furniture arrangements, room finishes, and entertainment options
available. These observations were depicted through sketches of the furniture

arrangement, room location and adjacency; the form can be found in Appendix F.

Data Analysis

The management, analysis, and interpretation of qualitative materials is a complex

process (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Despite the fact that methods in qualitative data

28

analysis have seen tremendous progress and change in the last few decades, there is still
variability in rules for analysis of the data (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2003). Content analysis
is often used in conjunction with other methods and is extremely valuable in analyzing
interview data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). In this
study, content analysis was combined with both descriptive and inferential statsistics.
The researcher used constant comparative analysis, generative coding, and
memoing in the iterative process of analyzing the qualitative data. The researcher used a
generative, iterative process throughout the data analysis. Generative or open coding as
used in the grounded theory consisting of developing categories of concepts and themes
from the emerging data (Kerlin, 2002; Kvale, 1996). The researcher read and reread the
interview transcripts several times to get a general sense of the content. Preliminary
notes were made in the expanded margins of the transcripts to begin breaking the data
(Kvale, 1996) into the main themes of privacy, interaction, and general information. The
interview transcripts were then categorized further into emerging ideas within the main
themes of privacy, interaction, and general information. From there, the categories were
entered into an analysis grid with aging parent’s responses in one column and the
corresponding adult child’s responses in another column. The aging parent was given a
capitalized alphabetical code, with the corresponding lower case alphabetical code given
to the adult child (i.e. first aging parent = B; first adult child = b). The grid was
reorganized several times using the constant comparative method to fiIrther identify
emerging categories, to understand their relationships to one another and to interpret and
connect categories and themes. When categories, themes or patterns began to appear in

the text of one interview, the researcher would re-read the other interviews to look for

29

those categories, themes, or patterns. AS the process was repeated a list of themes and
categories emerged from the data.

The researcher used a questionnaire, activity log, and observations of the physical
environment to validate and collaborate categories, themes, and patterns by providing
supporting and supplemental information.

In addition to the qualitative analysis used, descriptive statistics were used to
analyze the demographic data by providing mean, frequency and standard deviations.
Descriptive statistics were also used in analyzing data gathered specifically on the
research questions with frequencies and percentages. After the qualitative analysis was
completed, inferential statistics were used to see if any of the findings were statically
significant. Numerical variables were analyzed using a t test. Categorical variables were

analyzed using a Pearson Chi-Square test.

30

Chapter IV: Results

This chapter reports the findings of this study and answers the research questions.
It is organized into two main sections findings and respondent themes. This chapter
makes use of descriptive quotes from interviews in order to substantiate the conclusions
drawn. The findings report the study’s results in relation to the research questions. The
final section, respondent themes do not directly answer the study’s research questions;
however, the section gives context for interpreting the study’s data and findings by
providing background about the participants. The respondent themes also explain the
themes and categories found through the interviews using content analysis.

Aging parents often answered questions indirectly and thus their responses
required interpretation of inflection of voice and phrasing of words by the researcher.
Any references to individual names were removed to secure anonymity by replacing with
a noun indicating the relationship to the speaker in brackets. The aging parents and adult
children were given an alphabetical code (i.e. aging parent B, adult child b) to be referred

to by as another means of securing anonymity.

Findings

This section presents the results and findings for each of the study’s seven

research questions. They are separated under the themes of privacy (Q1 -3), interaction

(Q4-6), and the influence of privacy and interaction (Q7).

31

Privacy

Several questions were asked concerning privacy in an effort to lead up to the
main questions that were used to measure desired levels of privacy. These leading
questions are discussed below and give context and insight into individual circumstances.
In each of the questions a quantitative analysis was conducted using Chi-square. There
was no significance found using the significance level of p < .05.

All (100%) of the aging parents had a place in the home where they could be
alone if they desired. The overwhelming majority (80%) of the adult children felt they
had a space within the home where they could be alone if they desired, however the
remaining 20% of the adult children felt they had no place where they could be alone.

These findings are represented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Percent of Respondents With the Ability to be Alone

 

 

No Yes
Aging Parent 0% 100%
Adult Child 20% 80%

 

Adult child In explains, “Bless her heart she always wants to help me but I just
can’t ever be alone. . .if I am in the back yard, she’s in the back yard, if I am in the front
yard She’s in the front yard. . .she wants to be with me you know. It’s just ahhhh!” The
majority of both aging parents (70%) and adult children (75%) specified the bedroom as
the place to go to be alone. Twenty percent of the aging parents listed their bedroom in

combination with a living area, and 25% of the adult children cited the bedroom in

32

combination with an office. The percentages for the rooms cited can be found in Table 4.

Table 4.

Space by Percentage in Which Respondents Would go to be Alone

 

Bedroom Anywhere a Living Area Office
Aging Parent 90% 30% 30% 0%

Adult Child 80% 10% 0% 20%

 

 

a Conditional depending on the time of day.
Note: Due to multiple responses percentages will add up to more than 100%.

Typical activities of the aging parent when alone were watching television, doing
cross-word puzzles, reading, and eating. The adult children’s main activity when alone

was to read, then use the computer, or watch television. The activities cited can be seen

in Table 5.

Table 5.

Percentage of Activity Respondents Participated in When Alone

 

 

TV Hobby Read Eat Computer Relax
Aging Parent 70% 40% 50% 20% 10% 0%
Adult Child 40% 10% 70% 0% 40% 20%

 

Note: Due to multiple responses percentages will add up to more than 100%.

Three aging parents displayed feelings of loneliness but, when verbalizing it, they
did so indirectly. Aging parent B, “I've got plenty of time to myself now, but I'll tell you
the dogs are awful good company. Oh yeah I would be lonely without them.” Aging
parent C, “I am alone now that she's found this friend. I don't mind, I can take care of

myself.” Aging parent E, “at my age I am contented with what I do. I get lonely like any

33

one else would, but if I felt like it I could go visiting, you know what I mean, or I could
go some place. It's my choice.”

In addition to having a space where they could be alone, participants were asked
if they felt there was a space that belonged to them. The majority (80%) of the aging
parents felt a space in the home belonged to them. Of the 80%, 50% reported the
bedroom, 20% reported the bedroom in combination with a living space, and 10%
reported the entire home. Twenty percent of the aging parents felt there was no space in
the home that belonged to them, for instance aging parent K said, “I don’t have any
space, actually I feel like I am homeless.” The majority (60%) of the adult children felt
there was no space in the home that belonged to them, for instance adult child j states,
“No, but it’s not a problem.” The remaining 40% felt as though a space belonged to them.
Thirty percent cited the bedroom, and 10% cited the bedroom in combination with a

living space. The percentages and rooms reported can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6.

Percentage of Space owned by Respondents

 

 

Bedroom Living Rm. Entire None

Home
Aging Parent 70% 10% 10% 20%
Adult Child 40% 10% 0% 60%

 

All (100%) of the aging parents and 70% of the adult children felt they could be
in a space within the home and not be disturbed. The remaining 30% of the adult
children felt as though they could not be anywhere in the home without being disturbed.

Adult child h explained her situation, “[My mother] stays up very late at night. . .she’ll

34

have a last minute thought and come upstairs at 1 1:30 at night and look to see if the lights
are on and talk to me, so sometimes I think I can let down my guard but I can’t.” Adult
child j mentioned she would not physically be disturbed however, “It doesn’t stop anyone

from yelling up at me.” These findings can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7.

Percentage of Respondents with the Ability to be Alone Without Being Disturbed

 

 

No Yes
Aging Parent 0% 100%
Adult Child 30% 70%

 

Research Question #1: What is the desired amount of privacy for an adult child
and aging parent in an intergenerational home?

The interview questions, “Do you have time to yourself,” and “Would you like
more or less time to yourself,” that lead to the findings of research question one were
both quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The quantitative analysis used a chi-
square test, but resulted in no significance using the significance level of p < .05.

During the interview, all (100%) of the aging parents reported that they had time
to themselves, meaning that they were achieving privacy. For instance, in response to the
interview question in general “Do you have time to yourself,” aging parent H stated, “Oh
yes. I don’t mind being by myself. . .1 get tired kind of easily.” When asked if they
would like more or less time to themselves, 70% of the aging parents answered similarly
to aging parent F, “I think it’s pretty even keel,” verifying that they have optimal levels of

privacy. The remaining 30% of the aging parents implied experiencing feeling isolated,

35

meaning that they have too much privacy and are not achieving the desired level. For
instance, in response to the interview question, “Do you have time to yourself,” aging

parent M said, “More time than I like.” These findings can be seen in Tables 8 and 9.

Table 8.

Percentage of Respondents’ Actual Privacy

 

 

No Yes
Aging Parent 0% 100%
Adult Child 30% 70%

 

Table 9.

Percentage of Respondents’ Achieving Desired Amount of Privacy

 

 

No Yes
Aging Parent 30% 70%
Adult Child 30% 70%

 

In regard to the adult children’s desired amount of privacy, 70% reported that, in
general, they had time to themselves. They were achieving actual and desired levels of
privacy. The remaining 30% stated that they do not have time to themselves. For
instance, in response to the question, “Do you have time by yourself,” adult child k said,
“When I feel like I want privacy I don’t always get it, because [my mother will] come
walking in doing whatever.” Adult child m corroborated this feeling, “With her
constantly truckin’ through my bedroom, I feel like this is my one private area and you’re
just always in it, you know, and I resent it.” Adult child e who said she did not have time

to herself, when asked what she would do with more time to herself she responded, “I

36

would . . . I don’t know, it’s been so long since I’ve had time.”

In summary, 100% of the aging parents actually have privacy; of those parents
70% are also achieving their individual desired level of privacy. The remaining 30%
were not achieving their desired level of privacy; they were experiencing too much
privacy. In regard to the adult children, 70% actually have privacy, whereas 30% do not.
The 70% that do have privacy were also achieving their individual desired level of
privacy. The remaining 30% who were not achieving any privacy were experiencing too

little.

Research Question #2: Is there a difference in the amount of privacy needed for
the aging parent versus the adult child?

Seventy percent of the aging parents and adult children in this study of
intergenerational homes reported achieving the desired amount of privacy. However, the
remaining 30% of the aging parents felt isolated, where as the remaining 30% of the adult
children felt crowded. The similar percentages of achieved desired levels of privacy
showed that intergenerational living does not lead to a major loss of privacy. In general,
aging parents in this sample did not feel as though they had too little privacy. If anything
they had too much. The adult children in this study never experienced too much privacy.

If anything they had too little.

Research Question #3: What environmental factors including spatial layout, type
of rooms, size of the residence, etc., have an impact on the desired amount of privacy in

an intergenerational home?

37

The size of the intergenerational homes as reported from the questionnaire varied
from 1,200 sq. ft. to 2,400 sq. ft., with a mean of 1,705 sq. ft. One of the aging parents
and both adult children (2) living in homes that had 1,200 sq.fi, cited optimal levels of
privacy. However one of the aging parents indirectly verbalized feelings of isolation.
All of the participants living in the home that had 2,400 sq.fi, cited optimal levels of
privacy.

The overwhelming majority of both aging parents (70%) and adult children (75%)
specified the bedroom as the place they would go to be alone. Twenty percent of the
aging parents listed the bedroom in combination with a living area, and 25% of the adult
children cited the bedroom in combination with an office. Aging parent E explains her
feeling about her bedroom and the typical activities she does in her room when she was
alone, “watch TV, work the computer, knit, read. Isn’t that nice, I can do it all. I am
very content within that room.”

Adult child g discussed spatial issues involving territoriality, “As soon as I got the
job we bought the house, so ‘cause I knew I wasn’t going to live at her home, that was
HER house, this is OUR house, and there is a difference. We do things differently, so I
knew that I didn’t want to share a living room, or a bedroom, or a bathroom. We share
the kitchen, but before we lived together we made rules for both of us, as to agreements
of how we would use the kitchen.”

Adult child k explains privacy issues she has that relates to the acoustical
properties of the home, “The sound carries very much through here. Even when I’m
trying to get a little bit of privacy maybe with a phone conversation that I don’t

particularly want mom to hear. I go upstairs and I know she can still hear it [because]

38

she’ll ask me about it later. If I definitely don’t want her to hear the conversation, I’ll
pick up my cell phone and go outside.” Where as aging parent E discussed the acoustical
privacy in her home, “The way this house is built it’s always quiet. Like they can have
the television on in [the living room] and I can have it [on] in my room and they can’t

[hear it]; it doesn’t interfere.”

Interaction

Research Question #4: What is the desired amount of interaction for an adult
child and aging parent in an intergenerational home?

Varying results were obtained from the interaction questionnaire and the
interview questions regarding the desired amount of interaction. These results were
quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. Responses to the interaction questionnaire can
result in scores of 0, a negative score, or a positive score. When both the desired and
actual scores are the same an optimal level of interaction is achieved. When the desired
level is less than the actual level of interaction it results in a negative score, and signifies
feelings of crowding. When the desired level is greater than the actual level of
interaction it results in a positive score, and signifies feelings of isolation. The
quantitative analysis used a chi-square test for the categorical variables from the
questionnaire and interview results and a t test for the numerical variables from the

questionnaire results. Both resulted in no significance using the significance level of p <

.05.

39

Table 10.

Results of Paired T Test for Actual & Desired Amount of Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean SD Corr Sig t-value Sig
- Desired 10 5.1 1 .370
39’“; 0.881 0.001 1.406 0.193
are!“ Actual 10 4.8 1.399
Desired 10 5.1 0.995
333:3 0.441 0.202 0.758 0.468
1 Actual 10 4.8 1.317
Total Desired 20 5.1 1.165
0.697 0.001 1.371 0.186
Total Actual 20 4.8 1.322
Table 11.

Percentage of Respondents’ Desired & Actual Amount of Interaction Findings from the

 

 

Questionnaire
Too Little Too Much Optimal
Aging Parent 20% 0% 80%
Adult Child 20% 40% 40%

 

The questionnaire (see Tables 10 and 11) revealed that 80% of aging parents had
optimal levels of interaction with their adult child. However, during the interview (see
Table 12) only 50% of the aging parents cited that they had optimal levels of interaction
with their adult child. For instance, in response to the interview question would you like
to do these or other activities most with your child, aging parent M stated, “Actually
things work out pretty well the way it is.” Where as aging parent C said, “More than

what we have now, no, it’s good right now, a good balance.”

40

 

Table 12.

Percentage of Respondents’ Desired & Actual Amounts of Interaction Findings from the

 

 

Interview
Too Little Too Much Optimal
Aging Parent 50% 0% 50%
Adult Child 30% 10% 60%

 

The questionnaire revealed that 20% of the aging parents were experiencing
feelings of isolation. In the interview 50% of the aging parents indicated they would like
more interaction with their adult child. The type of interaction could be obtained inside
the home, outside the home, or possibly just a different type of desired interaction. Aging
Parent H typically interacts with her adult child in the kitchen/dining area. The
interaction normally consists of talking. She stated, “I wouldn’t mind going places with
[my daughter] like concerts. . .she has suggested that to me, and she’s given me a
brochure for me to look at.” In response to the interview question, “would you like to do
these or other activities more with your child,” aging parent E said, “Well if [my
daughter] had time I think I would,” and aging parent D mentioned, “Well I think I would
like to do more with the family.”

In regard to the adult child’s desired amount of interaction, there were varying
results between the questionnaire answers and the interview responses. In the
questionnaire, 40% of the adult children reported having an optimal amount of desired
interaction. In the interview 60% of the adult children were content with the amount of
interaction they were receiving. For instance, in response to the question, “Would you

like to do these or other activities more you your mother,” adult child k said, “I feel like

41

we do a sufficient amount. I do enjoy our time that we’re here together.”

In the questionnaire, 40% of the adult child reported having too much interaction
with their aging parent; whereas in the interview only 10% stated they would like less
interaction. For instance adult child m commented, “She’s constantly around. I don’t
know why it is, it drives me crazy!”

The remaining 20% adult children reported in the questionnaire that they felt
isolated from their aging parents. However, in the interview, 30% of the adult children
cited feeling isolated. Two of the three children attributed feeling isolated due to the
demands of their jobs or other obligations. For instance, in response to the question
would you like to do these or other activities more with your parent, adult child f stated,
“A little bit more. . .it’s difiicult between having a major job where I am on call and so
forth, and dealing with various kid things.” Adult child g, said, “I don’t talk to [my
mother] as much as I used to because she can’t hear me. . .it’s too much work, I’ll weigh
what I am saying and I’ll just think [it is] not that important. If she would hear better I
would like to talk with her more.”

In summary, between 50% and 80% of the aging parents in intergenerational
homes achieve the amount of interactions they would like to have. In regard to the adult

children, between 40% and 60% are achieving the optimal amount of interaction.

Research Question #5: Is there a difference in the amount of interaction needed
for the aging parent versus the adult child?
The difference in the desired amount of interaction was measured using a t test,

but resulted in no significance using the significant level of p < .05. In addition to the

42

quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis of questionnaire and interview revealed more
aging parents (50% - 80%) are achieving their desired level of interaction than their adult
children (40% - 60%). Both the aging parents and adult children felt isolated; however,
more aging parents (20% - 50%) feel that isolated than adult children (20% -30%). The
clearest result was that none of the aging parents felt crowded; whereas 10% - 40% of the

adult children felt crowded.

Research Question #6: What environmental factors including spatial layout, type
of rooms, size of the residence, etc., have an impact on the desired amount of interaction
in an intergenerational home?

The size of the intergenerational homes varied from 1,200 sq. ft. to 2,400 sq. ft.,
with a mean of 1,705 sq. ft. The aging parents (2) and adult children (2) living in homes
that had 1,200 sq.ft, all reported optimal levels of interaction. However, both the aging
parents (2) living in the 2,400 sq. ft. home reported feelings of isolation. Adult child (1
discussed why she made an addition to the home, “The downstairs of our house was way
too small. If my family came over, the whole family, there was no way. Even now that
I’ve added on six foot out this way, it’s still too small for the whole family to be here.
We’re still kind of all sitting on top of each other.”

In all but one case both the aging parent and the adult child identified the same
room(s) as to where the most interaction took place. The overwhelming majority cited
the kitchen. Most of the kitchens (70%) had an eat-in location and were open (90%) to at
least one other room. Other rooms listed were living/ family room, dining room, or
parent’s bedroom as the location where most interactions took place. The frequencies

and rooms cited are shown in Table 13.

43

Table 13.

Percentage of Room Used for Interaction among Respondents

 

 

Kitchen Living Rm. Aging Parent’s Dining Rm.
Bedroom
Aging Parent 60% 40% 20% 10%
Adult Child 70% 30% 20% 10%

 

Note: Due to multiple responses percentages will add up to more than 100%.

Adult child h explained interactions she typically has with her mother, “We talk,
she usually sits at the table, and I am usually setting the table, and [my husband’s]
cooking. [The kitchen/dining room] is where most of the family interaction takes place.”
Aging parent M discussed the interactions she normally has with her daughter, “She built
[the family] room on and we just live in it really. It has such a nice view of the garden,
and the yard. It’s just a nice comfortable room so we spend a lot of time here. We may
watch TV, we may take a walk, we may play games, cards or something like that.”

The primary activity of interaction identified by the aging parent and adult child
during the interview was talking. Watching television was the second activity
participated in most often. Most participants identified a couple activities they did
simultaneously, like eat and talk or watch television while eating. The findings from the
activity log coincided with the answers given during the interview and questionnaire from
the participants regarding the kitchen as the area in which most interaction takes place.
However, almost as often, the family room was recorded as the room location where
families were interacting. In addition, the activity log confirmed the answers given in the
interviews as the main activities recorded were talking, watching television, reading, and

eating with one another. The results can be seen in Table 14.

44

Table 14.

Percentage of Respondents’ Activity Type for Interactions

 

 

Talking TV Cooking Eating Hobbies
Aging Parent 80% 40% 10% 10% 10%
Adult Child 50% 50% 20% 30% 10%

 

Note: Due to multiple responses percentages will add up to more than 100%.
Influence of Privacy and Interaction

Research Question #7: How do interaction and privacy influence each other in
intergenerational families?

Privacy and interaction influence each. other in fundamental ways in
intergenerational families. Both privacy and interaction can result in feelings of isolation
or crowding (see Figure 1). Not having enough interaction and having too much privacy
resulted in Similar feelings of isolation. While not having enough privacy and too much

interaction resulted in feelings of being crowded.

Figure 1.

The Results Model of Privacy and Interaction

Too Much Too Little

 

Privacy Isolation Crowding

 

Interaction Crowding Isolation

 

 

 

 

45

An important issue is awareness of how privacy and interaction work in
intergenerational families. Aging parent E, “I still do my own thing and they do their
own thing. If it’s something like they’ve got the boat in the water, I might go boat riding
with them or something. I try to leave their free time to themselves, um. That’s the only
time they have so I try to stay away so they have got their own time. They need their
space too.” Aging parent H, “I worry about interfering with their privacy, so I try to, I
don’t eat dinner there every night. I try not to interfere, you know I don’t go up and say
‘what are you doing today’ and stuff like that. I just stay here.” Aging parent E, “at my
age I am contented with what I do. I get lonely like any one else would, but if I felt like it
I could go visiting, you know what I mean, or I could go some place. It's my choice.”

Both aging parents and adult children described feelings of isolation. Through
further analysis it became clear that they were describing different feelings. Aging
parents were actually feeling isolated, as defined in this study. When adult children
described feelings of isolation, they were feeling overwhelmed with not having time they

could spend with their parents and were feeling guilty about it.

Respondent Themes

These respondent themes interpreted the common viewpoints of the participants

while providing insight into the situation that supports the research questions. These

provided background information into the participants living situations. Each theme was

broken down into the categories that emerged from the interviews (see Figure 2).

46

Figure 2.

Respondent Themes

 

 

 

 

A Joint Household Overall Contentment
Possessions and Preparation Routines to Attain Privacy
Interference with space Communication & Privacy
Shared Household Chores Routines for Interacting

A Joint Household

Assistance (40%) was the main reason cited for having an intergenerational
family. Assistance came in the form of mutual, financial or caregiving, by either, the
adult child to the aging parent or the aging parent to a grandchild. In addition to
assistance, loneliness and convenience were also cited. Loneliness, the desire to no
longer live by one’s self was cited individually (10%) as well as in combination with both
assistance (20%) and proximity (10%). Proximity was cited (10%) in combination with
assistance. In all (100%) of the cases the decision for residing together was mutual

between the aging parent and adult child.

Possessions and Preparation

The aging parents in the study had a wide range of belongings, varying from a
dresser to a fully furnished living and bedroom set. All (100%) of the aging parents had
their own bedrooms. Ninety percent had a television and telephone of their own. Eighty

percent had their own filmiture in their bedrooms. Two of the rooms were previously

47

furnished when the aging parents moved in. Fifty percent of the aging parents had their
own full bathroom. When the other 50% were asked if they would prefer a personal
bathroom they responded Similarly to aging parent E, “No, it doesn’t bother me a bit.”
Finally, 20% of the aging parents had their own living room, bathroom, and entrance. In
addition one aging parent also had a kitchenette and eating area. The degree of
integration into the home varied as well, from complete separation to a single bedroom
integrated within the main portion of the home.

Similarly the adult children also varied in relation to how much preparation if any
was needed on their part for the arrival of the aging parents in their household. Changes
to the household were considered to be either renovations, including either a structural
addition to the home or modifying an existing space by removing or adding walls, or
conversions, in which an existing space is converted into a bedroom by rearranging
furniture and other belongings. In 40% of the homes, a renovation took place. In 30% a
conversion occurred. In the remaining 30%, nothing was done to prepare for the aging

parent’s arrival.

Interference with Space

Twenty percent of the adult children felt that living with their parent had

interfered with their use of space in the home. Adult child k stated it was a general

feeling she had all the time, “I am more self conscious about things because I have to be,

I am living with someone different [and] I am not used to her habits.” Adult child In felt

48

the interference only in certain situations, “I feel it mostly on the weekends, not so much

during the week.”

Shared Household Chores

In response to contributing to household chores, every aging parent (100%) took
care of something around the home. In some situations, it depended on what they were
physically capable of doing. It varied from mainly handling the dishes to doing almost
everything in the home, as adult child e describes, “[My mother] does a lot now. She
does the dishwasher, she does the washing and drying of clothes and the ironing, and she
vacuums. I do very little now.” Adult child b describes, “My dad does a lot around the
house . . . I don’t expect him to do anything I am just happy he’s here with me. But I
think he feels that he should be doing something, you know, to help out. So, you know,
he’ll take care of the dishes and put them in the dishwasher, and um, sometimes he’ll use

the Swiffer if he sees the floor got a little sticky out in the kitchen.”

Overall Contentment

All participants voiced that overall they were content with their living situation.
The aging parents preferred living with their adult children over their previous living
situation. Aging parent M said, “I am just thankful I have such great kids. I feel like a
very lucky person.” In response to the question do you have too much time to yourself,

aging parent H said, “Not since I’ve been [with my daughter], I used to.” The adult

49

children also would prefer to have their parents residing with them than an alternative
solution of a nursing home or assisted living. For instance, as stated by adult child h,
“Personally I feel like this is the best. . .situation we could have had,” or as adult child m
said, “I wouldn’t want [my mother] to be in a dumpy apartment somewhere or in a

nursing home or a senior home.”

Routines to Attain Privacy

Three adult children cited using examples of a routine as a means of obtaining
privacy. This was usually an implicit arrangement, as was the case for adult child b who
said, “My dad goes to bed every night at 7:30. I think he does that so I can have the
space to myself for a while, because he doesn’t go to sleep until later and then usually
about an hour and a half to two hours later he comes trooping down and makes his last go
around and. . .says goodnight.” Even though adult child k felt as though there was no
place she could go to be alone, she explained, “[My mother] does give me a little bit of
time during the day, and so it’s kind of like an unspoken sort of arrangement that we have
when I get home from work. She’ll take [the dog] for his walk and I’ll have about an
hour alone with [my daughter].” In other cases, as with adult child m, she explained how
she achieves some alone time, “At night [my mother will] watch TV in her, and I’ll

usually watch TV [in the family room] because we don’t usually watch the same thing.”

50

Communication & Privacy

The adult children, who talked about a lack of privacy, were afiaid to
communicate this feeling to their aging parents. This was the case of adult child k, “I
never say anything because I do want her to feel welcomed.” Adult child In corroborated
this feeling, “I just feel like I can’t really tell her because, because of the way 1 know
she’ll take it. It would crush her . . . she would get real moody, she’ll get real, like you

know, ‘I’m not wanted.’ So it’s just easier not to say or do anything.”

Routine for Interacting

Two adult children and one aging parent cited having a routine for interacting
with one another as described by adult child e, “I will normally watch TV in my mom’s
room. That’s how I visit her at night. You know, I go in there and crash on her bed, and
we watch movies or talk while she’s in her chair knitting and we watch movies.” Adult
child b, discusses having a routine with her father, “On the weekends I make sure to ask
him if there is anything he thinks he wants to do or needs to buy anything, or whatever. I
try to make sure that we do that first, so that he’s not getting antsy, you know, waiting for
me . . . I’ve learned that if I don’t want to get nervous and anxious because he’s waiting
to do what he wants to do, I just find out what he wants to do and we take care of that.
And then the rest of the weekend . . . [there is] nothing that we have to do.” Aging parent
H describes a routine she has with her daughter, “[My daughter] comes down when she

comes home from work to see me and, um, she’ll wake me up if I have to go someplace

51

because I can’t hear an alarm clock. But, um, it’s working out quite well and I’m really

happy.”

52

Chapter V: Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter covers discussion regarding the findings and concludes with
implications of this study and recommendations for future research. Given the
exploratory nature of this study, particular attention was paid to improving the current

study and exploring new areas based on this study’s findings.

Discussion

The objectives of this exploratory study were to gain a better understanding of the
role privacy and interaction play in the intergenerational home environment as well as to
suggest recommendations for home design. Due to the relatively small sample size, a
generalization to the greater population of intergenerational families was not feasible
since the results were not found to be statistically significant. However, several strong
correlations were found among the different variables. In addition, through the
qualitative analysis, some trends emerged from the sample. Some results corroborate
with previous studies, whereas others reported contradictory findings.

In this study, aging parent’s privacy was never infringed upon, whereas the adult
child’s privacy was cited as being infringed upon by 30% of the participants. Altman
(1975) looked at privacy in two parts, attaining physical separation from others and the
ability to control interactions. The findings from this study are in line with Altman’s
findings. In this study, the aging parents have the ability to control the interactions that

they have. Where they are lacking is in the physical separation from others. The adult

53

children were not able to control when interactions took place or the amount of
interaction they received.

Results concerning the desired interaction levels varied between the interview and
the questionnaire. This may be explained by the fact that the survey was given out first,
so the participants may have had time to think about the situation for the interview
question. Another possible answer to the discrepancy is that the participants may have
felt more comfortable talking to someone about the situation than writing it down. Even
though varying results were detected, the multi-method approach worked well since the
interview rationalized and explained some of the results. The difference in the adult
children’s results of desired amount of interaction between the questionnaire, 40%
reported having too much interaction, and the interview, 10% reported wanting less
interactions, can also be attributed to the three adult children misunderstanding what the
term interaction meant in the questionnaire. They answered the survey question in regard
to privacy instead of interaction. They were content with the amount of interaction with
their parent, but they lost the ability to control when the interaction took place. One of
the key aspects of privacy is the ability to control interactions (Altman, 1975).

Several correlations were found among the different variables involving the aging
parents. There was a strong relationship correlation of -.7 51 for actual interaction and
-.607 for desired interaction among aging parents with age. The older the aging parents’
age the less interaction they wanted to and actually had. There was also a strong
correlation of -.751 for interaction amount among aging parents with the size of the
home. The greater the square footage of the home the more likely the aging parent was to

feel isolated due to lack of interaction. In addition there was a strong correlation of -.714

54

for interaction amount among aging parents with the number of people per household.
The more people residing in the home the more isolated the aging parent was likely to
feel due to lack of interaction. When the number of people per household was greater
than two, it consisted of either a spouse of the adult child, or a third generation which was
the child of the adult child. In either case the likelihood of the adult child spending time
they may have spent with the aging parent now was spent with the third or even fourth
member of the household. The final relationship found among variables was a
correlation of -.816 for interaction amount among aging parents with ownership of space.
When an aging parent had a space within the home that belonged specifically to them
they were more likely to feel isolated due to lack of interaction. This can be attributed to
the fact that 90% of the aging parent had a television and telephone in the Space they felt
belonged to them.

Several of this study’s findings supported previous research into privacy,
interaction, or intergenerational homes. The overwhelming majority of both aging
parents (90%) and adult children (80%) specified the bedroom as the place they would go
to be alone (see Table 4). This supports Sebba and Churchman’s (1983) finding that the
bedroom is most often where an individual feels as though they have the most control and
will not be disturbed. Sebba and Churchman used a sample with a different family
structure consisting of parents with young children.

Boschetti (1990) found that a sense of being home is enhanced by surrounding
oneself with familiar things. Similarly Eshelman & Evans (2002) found that true
satisfaction with the home occurred when it was a reflection of the individual’s

personality. In this study, all of the aging parents had something of their own with them.

55

In two cases, it was a single dresser. In all other cases, they had a complete bedroom set
from their previous home. These findings could reinforce why all the aging parents were
so pleased with their current living arrangement because they had something that was
theirs within their new home.

Pruchno’s et al. (1993) study found that 16% of their sample of 54
intergenerational families had made additions to their home. This study found 30% of
the 10 families made additions, including building a new room, to their home — nearly
double the percentage Pruchno et al. reported. This signifies an increase in spending on
the home to accommodate changes in the household. Since annual income was not stated
in Pruchno’s et al. study, it cannot be determined if that had an impact on the varying
figures.

This study also corroborates Miller’s and Maxwell’s (2003) findings. Their
study found that areas which support concurrent activities best facilitate family
interaction in regard to homes with young children. This study found that the kitchen and
family/living room were cited as the locations in which most family interactions take
place. These rooms were all open to each other allong visual access between the
spaces, as well as accommodating multiple activities. The interactions reported as
multiple activities occurred simultaneously in the given space. For instance, a kitchen
with an eating area would allow someone who is cooking to talk with someone sitting at
the eating area, working on a cross-word puzzle.

Many (100%) participants cited that the aging parents contributed to the
household chores. Adult child k discussed how chores were handled in their home, “I do

my own laundry. 1 change my bed sheets, and mom pretty much does the rest. She has

56

taken on all of it, and I feel this big for it. I mean I appreciate it, I love it, I love it, I
absolutely love it, but at the same time I feel like I took her in to be my maid. I don’t
want that, I keep asking her to let me do something but you know every time I’m going to
pick up stuff I turn around and she’s done it.” Some families had an unspoken
understanding of handling house work, where as others had a pre-discussed arrangement
that was agreed upon. None the less, all of the aging parents had some responsibility for
the household chores. This finding conflicts with Hess’s & Markson’s (1980) finding that
having an intergenerational family can lead to an increase in family chores for the adult
child. One rationale for this is that the demographics for women as stay-at-home
caregivers have changed in the last 25 years. It is possible that the aging parents in this
study have different physical capabilities than of the aging parents in Hess’s and
Markson’s study.

Changes to the home’s acoustical properties to solve sound transmission issues
can be expensive. Consider adult child f’ s situation, “Now with my father's hearing
problem, even with his hearing aides in, we can often hear his TV two to three rooms
out.” Aging parent G is aware of the situation, “My hearing isn’t as good, that’s one
thing we kind of say something about is, uh, [my daughter] wants me to use the hearing
aide more and it’s hard for me to get used to, and I have my TV loud and then they can
hear it.” Adult parent H explains a simpler solution, “When I listen to the TV I always
use [head] phones, because it helps me hear better and I can’t hear anything that’s going
on up [stairs]. Their bedroom is right up here [referring to the ceiling directly above her
living room] so if I’m watching TV you know it might disturb them if I have it on, I

[would] have to have it on pretty loud to hear it.”

57

Conclusion

This study provided designers and others interested in intergenerational family’s
home environment information about how the home is used to achieve privacy and
interaction. The kitchen and family room were cited as spaces where most interaction
took place. These interactions took the form of multiple activities occurring
simultaneously. The bedroom was reported as the space where most individuals were
able to be alone. Even when an individual wanted to be alone in their bedroom, they still
wanted to be able to accomplish varying tasks, such as watch TV, read, and work on the
computer. Whether the home is supporting privacy or interaction, the aging parent and
adult children expected to be able to performgmultiple activities in the room they were in.
The accommodation of multiple activities within the same space has a great impact on
how one would go about designing a space. This means the designer needs to be aware
of these circumstances in order to design successful functional spaces while still
achieving the desired aesthetic effect.

With the need for the bedroom to serve multiple activities, the design can no
longer be limited to simply a bed, night table, and dresser. This will have an impact on
the size of the bedroom thus creating a need for larger rooms to accommodate the new

desire for televisions, sitting and office areas.

58

Future Research

Future research could be conducted on a larger sample of intergenerational
families from other geographic regions in the United States as well as other countries. In
addition, the sample in this study was homogenous in reference to race. According to
recent demographics, the races of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have a higher percentage
of intergenerational homes and are a growing proportion of the US population. Future
research should include a variety of ethnic and cultural groups. In addition future
research could be conducted on the adult children’s working or marital status to see if it
has an impact on desired privacy or interaction levels.

Although there was a limited amountof families with three generations residing
together in this study, a pattern emerged in which the adult child was unhappy either with
1) not having enough alone time with their child or 2) they did not appreciate it when the
aging parent critiqued or reprimanded their child. This pattern could lead to future
studies about how three generations interact in one household.

Various support groups for intergenerational families whose parent had dementia
or Alzheimer’s were found sampling area. Therefore future research could be conducted
to see how well intergenerational homes function in regard to privacy and interaction
when the aging parent is suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s.

This study provides designers and others interested in intergenerational family’s
home environment with information about how the home is used to achieve privacy and
interaction. Furthermore this study acts as a stepping stone to more in-depth studies on

the growing area of intergenerational families and their homes.

59

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS Approval Letter

60

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

ersity Committee on
Research Involving
Human Subjects

ichigan State University
202 0105 Hall

East Lansing. MI

48824

517/3554180
FAX: 517/432-4503
Web:

umanresearclimsuedu
Mail: ucrihs®msuedu

rU I: an afllnmtive-actian.
rat-opportunity Institution.

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

Initial IRB
Application
Approval

April 29. 2005

To: Nam-Kyu PARK
315 Human Ecology

Category: EXPEDITED 2-6 27
April 28, 2005
April 27, 2006

Re: IRB # 05-206
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:

Title: DESIRED PRIVACY AND INTERACTION IN INTERGENERATIONAL HOMES

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has completed their review of
your project. I am pleased to advise you that your project has been approved.

The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights and welfare of
human SUDIECIS- 30d meets the requrrements Of MSU's Federal \Mde Assurance and the Federal Guidelines
(45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a partnership between the
IRS and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities.

Renewals: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project,
you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. It the project is
completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation or the change. Please submit an
Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. It changes are made at the time of renewal. please
include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: lf issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems, adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects. notify UCRIHS promptly. Forms are

available to report these issues.

Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with UCRIHS.

. Good luck In your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email

at UCRIH§©msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely.

.fla/ME/

Peter Vasilenko. Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

c: Amanda Gale
12959 W Melody Ln Grand Ledge. Mi 48837

61

APPENDIX B

Consent Form

62

Consent Form: Desired Privacy and Interaction in Intergenerational Homes

The purpose of this research is an exploratory study to investigate desired privacy and
interaction among family members in intergenerational homes. Your input is very important to
this study. It will help the investigators to gain more insight into the design of homes to create an
environment supportive of interaction and privacy. The interview will take place in your home at
your convenience and if permission is granted will be tape recorded for accuracy. The length of
the interview will vary depending on your preference, but should be approximately an hour. We
would appreciate it if you would take the time to answer each question as honestly as you can.

In addition to the interview an activity log is attached. Directions explaining its use are
included; the activity log should be completed prior to the investigators final visit to your home to
conduct observations. The total length of time for your participation, including the
interview and activity log will be approximately nine hours.

There is no potential risk involved in the study. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Your answers will be kept confidential. Individual names will
not be revealed in the report. We only need your honest opinion. You may choose not to
participate at all, may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions, or
may discontinue the interview at any time without penalty.

If you have any questions regarding the study, or wish to make comments and
suggestions to us, please contact researchers:

Nam-Kyu Park, Assistant Professor, by mail 204 Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824,
phone: 517) 353-4454, or e-mail: parkn@msu.edu

Amanda Gale, Graduate Assistant, by mail: 204 Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824,
phone: (517) 353-5026, or e-mail: ggleamg@msu.edu

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you
wish:

Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan Sate University’s Chair of University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Your Signature Date

 

 

Your signature indicates your agreement to allow the use of a tape recorder.

Your Signature Date

 

 

Thank you!

63

APPENDIX C

Socio-demographic questionnaire

64

Part 1: Aging Parent Coding:

Please fill out the following questionnaire; you can leave certain questions blank if so
desired. Your time and participation is greatly appreciated.

Please check the following category that you fit in.

1. What is your age?
[I 64 years & below [:1 65-69 years [1 70-74 years El 75-79 years

I] 80-84 years [I] 85-89 years 13 90 years & above

2. What is your annual income?

[I Below $5,000 D $5,000-$10,000 El $10,000-15,000
D $15,000-20,000 El $20,000-25,000 El $25,000-30,000
D $30,000-35,000 13 Above $35,000

3. Gender?
El Male [:1 Female

4. Marital Status?

El Single E1 Married [:1 Divorced El Widowed

5. Ethnicity?
El White/Non-Hispanic El Black/Non-Hispanic Cl Hispanic [:1 Asian
[:1 American Indian E] Pacific Islander [:1 Other

 

Please answer the following questions about your interactions with family when you are
in your home.

Generally, how much interaction do you... Little A lot of
Interaction Interaction
6. Want with family members when you are l 2 3 4 5 6 7
in your home?
7. Actualu have with family members when 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

you are in your home?

65

Part 2: Adult Child Coding:

Please fill out the following questionnaire; you can leave certain questions blank if so
desired. Your time and participation is greatly appreciated.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Square footage of the home?

 

2. Length of time residing in this home?

 

Please check the following category that you fit in.

2. What is your age?
[:1 30-34 years 1:] 35-39 years [I 40—44 years CI 45-49 years

[I] 50-54 years C] 55-59 years C] 60-64 years 13 65-69 years

CI 70-74 years Cl 75 years & above

3. What is your annual family income?

El Below $40,000 [I $40,000-$50,000 El $50,000-60,000
El $60,000-70,000 El $70,000-80,000 El $80,000-90,000
El $90,000-100,000 El Above $100,000

4. Gender?
l'_'l Male El Female

5. Marital Status?

[:1 Single [:1 Married [:1 Divorced E] Widowed

6. Ethnicity?
El White/Non-Hispanic El Black/Non-Hispanic [:1 Hispanic Cl Asian
[:1 American Indian 1:] Pacific Islander El Other

 

66

Please answer the following questions about your interactions with family when you are
in your home.

Generally, how much interaction do you... Little A lot of
Interaction Interaction
7. Want with family members when you are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

in your home?

8. Actually have with family members when l 2 3 4 5 6 7
you are in your home?

67

APPENDIX D

Guided Interview Questions

68

Part 1: Aging Parent Coding:

1. Reason for joining household?

2. Who made the decision about co-residence?

3. The length of time that you have resided in the same home as your child?

4. Do you have your own bedroom, bathroom, separate entrance, kitchen, sitting room,

television, microwave, refrigerator, and telephone line?

5. Do you have any physical impairments or functional difficulties?
a. What are they?

8. Is there a space within this home that you can be alone?
a. What space is this?
b. Do you feel you can do what you please without being disturbed?
c. What do you normally do in this space?
9. Is there a place (or places) within this home that you feel belongs to you?
a. What space is this?
b. Does this place express yourself?
10. Do you think your home allows noisy & quiet activities to occur simultaneously?

1 1. Do you feel that your living with your child has interfered with your use of space in

the home?
a. How often do you feel this way?

b. Is there a certain time (or situation) when you normally feel this way?

69

12. In general do you have time to yourself?
a. Would you like to have more time to yourself?
b. Do you feel you have too much time by yourself?
13. What location in the home do most interactions take place?
14. What activities are you participating in when interactions occur?
a. Would you like to do these activities more?
15. In general do you feel you have enough interaction?
16. How often do you talk things over with your child that is important to you?
17. How ofien do you dine together?

18. Are there specific chores you do around the house?

70

Part 2: Adult Child Coding:

1. Reason for aging parent joining household?
2. Who made the decision about co-residence?
3. The length of time that your parent has resided in the same home as you?
4. Has there been an increase in spending on the home since the aging parent has move
in?
a. If so what kind of improvements did you make?
b. Who made the decisions?
c. Were these physical changes had been made to the home to accommodate the

addition of your parent to the household?

d. Did it occur prior to or after the move occurred?
5. Do you have any physical impairments or ftmctional difficulties?

6. Number of persons living in home...
a. Different generations?
7. Number of rooms in the home?
8. Is there a space within this home that you can be alone?
a. What is this space?
b. Do you feel you can do what you please without being disturbed?

c. What do you normally do in this space?

71

9. Is there a place (or places) within this home that you feel belongs to you?

a. What space is this?

b. Does this place express yourself?

10. Do you think your home allows noisy & quiet activities to occur simultaneously?

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

18.

Do you feel that your living with your parent has interfered with your use of space in

the home?
a. How oflen do you feel this way?
b. Is there a certain time (or Situation) when you normally (always) feel this way?
In general do you have time to yourself?
a. Would you like to have more time to yourself?
b. Do you feel you have too much time by yourself?
What location in the home do most interactions take place?
What activities are you participating in when interactions occur?
a. Would you like to do these activities more?
In general do you feel you have enough interaction?
How often do you talk things over with your parent that is important to you?
How often do you dine together?

Are there specific chores you do or your parent does around the house?

72

APPENDIX E

Sample Activity Log

73

ACTIVITY LOG Coding:

Please complete the following activity log for a continuous 2 hour period on 2 week days
and 1 weekend when your aging parent or adult child is home. Please record all
information within a week time frame. You may start recording activities at your
convenience. Check the boxes that apply to the room. area. and activity you are
participating in, and person you are participating with.

Data:

 

Living Room

Dining Room

Family Room

Kitchen

Bedroom ours
.B_edroom (Others)

Bathroom

Other:

 

 

 

 

 

Sofa

Easy Chair
Floor
Table
Desk

 

 

Sink / Bath
Counter / Bath
Bed

Other:

Job-related work

CleaninL

 

TVNCR/DVD
~Iallgirrgwith members
the
the
e-mail

other:

 

Other:
“Left the house

Parent
Child _ _
other_____ _

 

Other:

74

APPENDIX F

Observation & Identification form

75

Coding:

1. Number of levels the residence has?
2. Type of home: detached, single dwelling; attached home; townhouse; apartment
3. Number of persons per room:

4. Observation of: Room Finishes

5. Sketches of :
Furniture Arrangement
Room Location & Type

Room Adjacencies (Number of rooms open to each other)

76

REFERENCES

77

REFERENCES

Administration on Aging. (2003). A profile of older Americans: 2003. Retrieved
October13, 2004, from AoA website via US. Department of Health and Human
Services. Access http://www.aoa.gov/prof/statistics/statistics.aps

Altholz, J. A. (1986). Fostering Autonomy in living Environments: A Psychological
Perspective. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 5 (1), 67-81.

Altman, I., (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.

Altman, I. (1981). The Environment and Social Behavior Privacy, Personal Space,
Territory, Crowding. New York, New York: Irving Publishers Inc.

Bechtel, R. B. (1997). Environments for the Elderly. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Beige], D. E., Schulz, R. (1999). Introduction: Caregiving and Caregiver
Interventions in Aging and Mental Illness. Family Relations, 48 (4), 345-3 54.

Bengtson, V.L. (1973). Interaction Index. In D. J. Mangen & W. A. Peterson (Eds).
Research instruments in social gerontology V.2 (pp. 1 32-1 33, 154-155).
Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota Press

Berado, F. M. (1998). Family Privacy, Issues and Concepts. Journal of Family
Issues, 19 (1), 4-20.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1976). Crowding and Family Relations. American
Sociological Review, 41 (2), 308-321.

Boschetti, M. (1995). Attachment to Personal Possessions: An Interpretative
Study of the Older Person’s Experience. Journal of Interior Design, 21 (1) 1-12.

Boschetti, M. (1990). Reflections on Home: Implications for Housing Design for
Elderly Persons. Housing & Society, 17 (3), 57-65.

Chan, Y. (2000). Privacy in the Family: Its Hierarchical and Asymmetrical
Nature. Journal of Comparative Studies, 31 (1), 1-17.

Choi, N. (2004). Stability and Changes in Living Arrangements Among

Unmarried Older Persons: The Influence of Housing Environments. Journal of
Housing for the Elderly, l8 (2), 68-89.

78

Choi, N. (2003). Coresidence Between Unmarried Aging Parents and Their Adult
Children. Research on Aging, 25 (2), 384-404.

DeLaski-Smith, D. (1984). Housing the Elderly: Intergenerational Family
Setting. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 2 (2), 61-70.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative
Materials; Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Eshelman, P., & Evans, G. (2002). Home Again: Environmental Predictors of
Place Attachment & Self-Esteem for New Retirement Community. Journal of
Interior Design, 28 (1), 1-9.

Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., Chan, H. E., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Housing Quality and
Mental Health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 (3) 526-530.

Evans, G. W, Maxwell, L. E., & Hart, B. (1999). Parental Language and Verbal
Responsiveness to Children in Crowded Homes. Developmental Psychology, 35
(4), 1020-1023.

Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J ., & Schroeder, A. (1996). The Role of Interior
Design Elements in Human Responses to Crowding. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 20 (6), 41-46.

Federal Interagency Forum. (2000). Older Americans 2000: Key Indicators of well-
being. Retreived October 13, 2004 from Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-
Related Statistics website via http://www.agingstats.gov/default.htm

Fahey, T. (1995). Privacy and the Family: Conceptual & Empirical Reflections.
Sociology, 29 (4) 687-702.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum publications.

Gitlin, L. N. (2003). Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned
And New Direction. The Gerontologist, 43 (5), 628-637.

Golant, S. M. (2003). Conceptualizing time and behavior in environmental
gerontology: A pair of old issues deserving new thought. The Gerontologist, 43
(5), 638-647.

Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Galle, O. R. (1979). Overcrowding in the
Home: An Empirical Investigation of Its Possible Pathological Consequences.
American Sociological Review, 44 (1), 59-80.

Gunter, B. (2000). Psychology of the Home. London, England: Whurr Publishers.

79

Harris, P. (1994). Privacy regulation and place attachment: predicting attachments to a
students family housing facility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation . The
university of Utah.

Harrison, C. (1994). The Development of a desire for Privacy Scale. (Doctoral
dissertation)

Hess, B. & Markson, E. (1980). Aging & Old Age. New York, New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.

Hoglund, J. D. (1985). Housing for the Elderly: Privacy and Independence in
Environments for the Aging. New York, New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold Co.

Kaya, N., Weber, M. (2003). Cross-Cultural Differences in the Perception of Crowding
and Privacy Regulation; American and Turkish Students. Journal of
Enviommental Psychology, 23 (3), 301-309.

Kerlin, B. (2002). Coding Strategies. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from
http://kerlin.net/bobbi/research /nudist/

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Koncelik, J. A. (2003). The Human Factors of Aging and the Micro-Environment:

Personal Surroundings, Technology and Product Development. Journal of
Housing for the Elderly, 17 (1/2), 117-134.

Lee, G. R., Netzer, J. K., & Coward, R. T. (1995). Depression among
Older Parents: The Role of Intergenerational Exchange. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 57 (3), 823-833.

Mancini, J. A., & Blieszner, R. (1989). Aging Parents and Adult Children:
Research Themes in Intergenerational Relations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 51 (2), 275-290.

Margulis, S T. (2003). Privacy as a Social Issue and Behavioral Concept.
Journal of Social Issues, 59 (2), 243-259.

Mercier, J. M., Shelley, M. C. II, & Wall, B. (1997). Quality of
Adult Child-Aging Parent Relationships: A Structural Equations Apporach Using
Merged Cross-Generational Data. Family and Consumer Science Research
Journal, 26 (2), 160-192.

Mindel, C. H. & Wright, R.. (1982). Satisfaction in Multigenerational
Households. Journal of Gerontology, 37 (4), 483-489.

80

Miller, A. S. & Maxwell, L. E. (2003). Exploring the Role of Home Design
in Fostering Family Interaction: The use of Programming Methods in Research.
Journal of Interior Design, 29 (1&2), 50-65.

Mutchler, J ., & Burr, J. (2003). Living Arrangements Among Older Persons: A
Multilevel Analysis of Housing Market Effects. Research on Aging, 25 (6), 531-
558.

Pederson, D. & Frances, S. (1990). Regional Differences in Privacy
Preferences. Psychological Reports, 66, 731-736.

Pinto, M., De Medici, S., Van Sant, C., Bianchi, A., Zlotnicki, A. & Napoli, C. (1999).
Ergonomics, Gerontechnology, and Design for the Home-Environment. Applied
Ergonomics, 31, 317-322.

Pruchno, R., Dempsey, N., Carder, P., & Koropecky-Cox . (1993). Multigenerational
Housholds of Caregiving Families: Negotiating Shared Space. Environment &
Behavior, 25 (3), 349-366.

Pyke, K. (1999). The Micropolitics of Care in Relationships Between Aging Parents
and Adult Children: Individualism, Collectivism, and Power. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61 (3), 661-672.

Pynoos, J., Tabbarah, M., Angelelli, J ., & Demiere, M. (1998). Improving
the Delivery of Home Modifications. Technology and Disability, 8, 3-14.

Regnier, V. (2003). Powell Lawton’s Contributions to Purpose-Built Housing Design
for the Elderly. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 17 (1/2), 39-53.

Rogers, M., Rogers, N., Takeshima, N., & Islam, M. (2004).
Reducing the Risks for Falls in the Homes of Older Adults. Journal of Housing
for the Elderly, 18 (2), 29-39.

Rubin, H. & Rubin I. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Rubinstein, R. L., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to Place and the
Represenation of the Life Course by the Elderly. In I. Altman and S. Low (Eds),
Place Atttachment (139-164). New York, New York: Plenum Press

Sebba & Churchman. (1983). Territories & Territoriality in the Home. Environment &
Behaviors, 15 (2), 191-210.

Stewart-Pollack, J ., & Menconi, R. (2005). Designing for Privacy and Related Needs.
New York: Fairchild Publications, Inc.

81

Veitch, R. & Arkklein, D. (1995). Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Vincenti, V. (2004). Intergenerational Unity Benefits Everyone. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences, 96 (2) 1.

Wahl, H.& Gitlin, L. (2003). Furture Developments in Living Environments for Older
People in the United States and Germany. In Schaie, W. & Wahl, H. (Eds)
Aging Independently: Living Arrangements and Mobility. Springer Publishing
Co., Inc.

Walker, A. J., Pratt, C. C., Shin, H., & Jones, L. L. (1995). Motives for Parental Care
giving and Relationship Quality. Family Relations, 39 (1), 51-56

Walker, A. J ., Shin, H., & Bird, D. N. (1990). Perceptions of Relationship Change and
Caregiver Satisfaction. Family Relations, 39 (2) 147-152

Westin, A. F. (1970). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum

Wister, A. & Burch, T. (1987). Attitudes of the Elderly Towards Living
Arrangements: Conceptual & Methodological Issues. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 5 (2) 5-18.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods 3'“ edition.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications.

82