This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Comparison of Elderly Residents from Age Dispersed
and Concentrated Neighborhood Housing Environments
as they Affect Social Interaction and Attitudes
Toward Self, Family, Neighborhood and Society

presented by
Veena Mandrekar

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degreein Human Environment & Design

Major professor

 

Date 5/2//fé

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

. Illllllllllillllllllllllllllllllll'llll

, j 3 1293 10751 8726
. 1;" i .’_; 74
5:13:27? ’ 7

l

l

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
JEEEKEEEIL, your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
‘ returned after the date
, stamped below.
“I“. T cud-“i" )

 

 

A COMPARISON OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS FROM AGE DISPERSED
AND CONCENTRATED NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS
AS THEY AFFECT SOCIAL INTERACTION AND ATTITUDES

TOWARD SELF. FAMILY. NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIETY

BY

Veena Mandrekar

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Human Environment and Design

1986

Copyright by
Veena V. Mandrekar

1986

P8

8X

the
gro
Sur

(C01

 

 

ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS FROM AGE DISPERSED
AND CONCENTRATED NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS

AS THEY AFFECT SOCIAL INTERACTION AND ATTITUDES
TOWARD SELF. FAMILY. NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOCIETY

By

Veena Mandrekar

The research problem was based on speculations about
social networks as well as interaction and the nature of
beliefs and attitudes among elderly individuals. In his
"Ecological Framework". Powel Lawton defined the
'Supra-personal Environment’ as the modal characterists of
persons surrounding an individual. This definition was
axiomatically adopted as the basis of this investigation and
a comparison was made of elderly individuals who perceived
themselves to be physically surrounded by different age
groups (dispersed) with those who perceived themselves to be
surrounded by a high concentration of elderly
(concentrated).

The ’Ecological Framework'. the 'Activity' as well as
the 'Sub Culture' Theories of Aging provided the moorings
for this investigation. One of the conclusions drawn from
this investigation is related to Activity Theory of Aging.
The widely accepted view that with the passage of time.
elderly participate in a 'Contracting Social Sphere of

Activity’. was not substantiated by this investigation.

 

amt

gre

the

It was also concluded that the older-elderly who lived
among neighbors of varied age groups, interacted to a
greater degree with a sub-group of age peers from within

their family and within their friendship circle.

res
Vim
IO

To
my Parents

My father Padmakar K. Dixit whose dediction to his own
research has been an inspiration to me. and my mother

Vimal P. Dixit whose gentle strength and patience I strive
to achieve.

di:
re:
Kn

BIN

as:
tal
thl
me.
fri
am

suc

all
the
the
And

Vid
Wit
Wou

Par
and
edu:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank my major Professor. Bonnie Maas Morrison
for her encouragement and patience during the prepantation of
this thesis. I value the guidance I received from her in its
development.

Professor Paul F. Noll contributed immensely through
discussions and by directing me to some of the crucial
references in the field. I also thank Sister Mary Honora
Kroger and Professor Jane Stolper for serving on my committee
and carefully reading my thesis.

Rudimentary ideas of this research occured during my
association with Professor Duncan Case and I would like to
take this opportunity to thank him for an initial start on
this investigation. Carol Barrett shared the program with
me. as well as a spirit of comradery. Her support and
friendship have meant a great deal to me these past years. I
am very grateful to Cathy Sparks and Sharon Carson for doing
such a superb job of typing and word processing.

I owe more than thanks to my family for putting up with
all the domestic inconvenience necessiated by my work on this
thesis. My sons. Paraj and Tushar have helped make this
thesis a family project as they helped me with This. That.
And. The. Other.

Words are inadequate to express my thanks to my husband.
Vidyadhar S. Mandrekar. for helping me realize this thesis.
Without his love. friendship and inspiration none of this
would have been possible.

Finally. a special thank you to all the people who
participated in this study by giving generously of themselves
and their time. They have contributed immensely to my
education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF TABLES IS APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Background Information and Justification 4
B. Major Concepts of this Investigation . . . . 8
A Conceptualization of the Individual Aging
Process . . . . . . 8
Webster' 3 Definition of Environment. . . . .10
Definitions of Neighborhood Housing
Environments found in Literature . . . .11
Conceptual Definition of Neighborhood
Housing Environment as used in this
Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
C. Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . .14
D. Questions Arising out of the Ecological
Framework Relevant to this Investigation.17
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
A. Housing Literature Relevant to
Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
B. Theories Relevant to the Investigation . . .21
Activity Theory of Aging . . . . . . . . . .22
Subculture Theory of Againg . . . . . . . . 24

C. Literature Related to the Age Concentration
of the Neighborhood Housing Environment

as it Affects Social Life. . . . . . . . .27
D. Literature Relevant to the Socialization
Process of the Elderly . . . . . . . . . .29
Social Interaction . . . . .29
Life Style Differences and Proximity to
Friends and Relatives. . . .32
Effect of Neighborhood Age Composition on
Patterns of Interage Contact . . . . . .34

Formal Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . .35

E. Integration of the ’Subsuclture’ Theory of
Aging and Selected Components of the Human

Eco-System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

F. The Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . .38

G. Study Objectivess. . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
General Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Specific Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . .41

H. Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

III. DESIGN OF STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
A. Criteria for Research Design . . . . . . . .43

B. Development of Instrument. . . . . . . . . .45

C. Sampling and Data Collecting . . . . . . . .46
Description of Sample. . . . . . . . . . . .50

D. Data Analysis Procedure. . . . . . . . . . .56

IV. DATA ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
A. Personal Environment . . . . . . . . . . . .59

Number of Relatives and Friends Respondents
Reported Being Close to and Having a
Regular Contact with
Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Summary of Data Related to the Number of
Persons Respondents were in Regular
Contact with. . . . . . . . . . . . .64

Description of Relatives and Friends who are

Most Significant to Respondents. . . . . .65
Relatives Mentioned First . . . . . . .65
Relatives Mentioned Second. . . . . . .65
Relatives Mentioned Third . . . . . . .66
Friends . . . .68

Summary of Data Describing Friends and
Relatives with Whom They Visited on
a Regular Basis. . . . . . . . . . .69

Activity Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Relatives. . . . .70
Frequency of Visiting Relatives in
Person at Each Others Homes. . . .70

Number of Times During the Past Month
that Relatives Visited Respondents

in their Home. . . . . . . . . . . .72
Friends. . .72
Frequency of Personally Visiting with

Friends. . . . . . .72

Number of Times Respondents were
Visited by Friends in their Own Homes

During the Past Month. . . . . . . .73
Summary of Data Related to Frequency of
Visiting Relatives and Friends. . . .74
Organizational Participation . . . . .74
Number of Organizations to Which
Respondents Reported Belonging. . . .74
Frequency of Organizational
Participation . . . . . . .75
Types of Organizations to which
Respondents Reported Belonging. . . .76
Belonging to Informal Types of
Organizations . . . . . . . . . . .77
Summary of Section on Participation . .77
Shared Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
"I consider myself to be healthy" . . .79
"My body ..." . . . . . . . . .80
"I consider myself to be important to
others" . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
"As I grow older ..." . . . . . . . .81
"People think of me as ..." . . .83
"Summary of Attitudes Toward Self . . .84
Family . . . . . . . . .85
"Compared with most families. mine...." .85

"It is important to be near family even
if one is somewhat far from friends".85

Summary of attitudes toward family. . .86

Neighborhood . . . . . . . .87
"I feel very much a part of my

neighborhood . . .87

"People should live in neighborhoods
where there is a mixture of age
groups". . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

 

"People should live in neighborhoods
where there is a mixture of age
groups. even though one is far from

friends" . . . . . . . . .90
Summary of attitudes toward
neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Society. . . . . . .92
"Society is good to older people". . .92
"To me the world looks ..." . . . . . .93
"I hope I never ...". . .94
Summary of Attitudes toward Society . .95
V. CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
A. Limitations of Study . . . . . . . . . . . .97
B. Main Conclusions of Study. . . . .98
Conclusions About Subgroup Interaction Based
on Analysis of Data . . . . . . 103
Shared Attitudes and Group Conciousness. . 104
C. Specific Hypotheses Arising From This
Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
D. Implications for Further Investigations. . 108
Other Directions for Further Investigations.
GLOSSARY. 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. QUESTIONNAIRE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
B TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
C. COVER LETTER SENT TO SAMPLE SURVEYED . . . . . 149
D APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS . . . . . 151

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Comparison of educational backgrounds of the

major wage earner by neighborhood group . . .53
2 Relationship of the three relatives with whom

respondents visited most often in

percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
3 Relationship of relative mentioned third by

neighborhood group and age group. . . . . . .67
4 Age of friend mentioned first with whom the

respondents visited most often by

neighborhood groups and age groups. . . . . .68
5 Frequency of personally visiting relatives in

and out of town by neighborhood grouping

and by age in percentages . . . . . . . .71
6 Responses to the question "people should live

in neighborhoods where there is a mixture of

all ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
7 Responses to the statement "people should live

in neighborhoods where there is a mixture
of all ages even though one is far from
friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX B

Tables Page
1 Comparative age differences between residents
from the dispersed and concentrated
neighborhood groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
2 Comparative sex differences between residents
from the dispersed and concentrated
neighborhoods groups. . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3 Comparative of residential differences

between respondents from dispersed and
concentrated neighborhood groups
(classification of dwelling) units) . . . . 132

4 Comparative differences between dispersed and
concentrated groups in terms of persons
respondents shared dwelling quarters with . 133

5 Occupational comparisons of respondents from
dispersed and concentrated neighborhood
groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

6 Perceived age groups in the dispersed and
concentrated neighborhoods. . . . . . . . . 134

7 The number of relatives respondents had within
fifteen miles. by neighborhood group and
age group . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

8 The number of relatives (within city) with
whom respondents talked on the phone or
face to face on a regular basis by

neighborhood group and age group. . . . . . 135
9 Number of persons respondents knew well enough

to visit with in each others homes by

neighborhood groups and age groups. . . . . 135
10 The number of persons respondents had a

regular contact with on the phone or face
to face by neighborhood group and age

group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
11 Relationship of relative mentioned first with

whom respondents visited most often by

neighborhood group and age group. . . . . . 136
12 Ages of friends mentioned first. second. and

third with whom respondents socialized most
often in percentages. . . . . . . . . . . . 137

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

The number of times respondents had relatives
visit in their homes over the past month by
neighborhood group and age group. . . . . . 137

Frequency of personally visiting with friends .138
The number of times respondents had friends
over to visit in their own homes during

the past month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Number of organizations to which respondents
belong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Frequency of attending meetings for organized
activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Types of organizations mentioned second. to

which respondents belong. . . . . . . . . . 140
Type of organizations mentioned first by

respondents as the ones they belong to. . . 140
The number of informal organizations named . . 140

Response to the statement "I consider
myself to be healthy" . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Responses to the statement "My body ..." . . . 142

Response to the statement "I consider myself

to be important to others". . . . . . . . . 143
Responses to the statement "As I grow older . 143
Responses to the statement "As I grow older..."144

Responses to the statement "People think of
me as ..." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Responses to the open ended question "Compared
to most families. mine ." . . . . . . . . 146

Response to the statement "It is important to be
near family even if one is somewhat far
from friends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Responses to the statement "I feel very much
a part of my neighborhood". . . . . . . . . 147

Responses to the statement "Society is good to
older people". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

 

 

 

 

 

31 Responses to the statement "To me the
world looks ..." . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

32 Responses to the statement "I hope I never...".148

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1 The Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . .39
2 The age characteristics of respondents in this
study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
3 The perceived age composition of respondents
neighborhoods as related to the two
comparative groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
4 A comparison of the age characteristics of

respondents from Dispersed and Concentrated
Housing Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . .56

of

ag

pr

e1

th-

th

.I..
3

e11

am

[0

pr

di

ge

kn

SU

80

re

(11

 

i

l

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

At the turn of the century. approximately four percent
of the United States population was over sixty five years of
age. This proportion has grown to eleven percent at the
present time (census 1980). Since the nineteen sixties. the
elderly as a group have increased in actual numbers faster
than the rest of the population (McCarthy. 1983). Within
this elderly population. the over 85 segment or the oldest-
elderly has increased three times faster than has the
elderly group in general (NIA.1984). With better technology
and techniques for prolonging of life. elderly are projected
to increase in numbers as well as in proportions.

Following on the heels of much scientific progress in
prolonging life there has been an ever increasing multi-
disciplinary focus on this stage of the life cycle (Woodruff
& Birren. 1983). A review of literature in the area of
gerontology makes it clear that there exists a wide array of
knowledge spanning the various disciplines. The focus of
such disciplines may be skewed to the biomedical or the
socio-psychological aspects of aging. but there is a growing
recognition that they are not mutually exclusive.
Approaching the investigation of aging from a multi-

disciplinary perspective (that is from a socio-psychological

‘VL‘.

 

 

 

t]
i1
1’)!
1S
tl

a!

11

St

Re

Sc

as well as physiological and environmental perspective). the

present study hopes to contribute to the state of knowledge

within social gerontology. with particular emphasis on the

I housing environment.
The importance of investigating housing environments of

older persons cannot be minimized for various reasons not

the least of which is the health and wellbeing of the
Issacs summarizes the relationship between

individual.
housing environments and the elderly (Issacs in Goldenberg:

Issacs said that ”As a doctor in daily contact with

1981).
the elderly I am convinced that the key to physical. mental
health in old age lies in good housing. by which

and social
creation of a rich environment for the aged".

I mean the
from the benefits in good health that an

the larger pay off would be reaped by

Aside
individual may enjoy.
society in ensuring the health and wellbeing of its members.
The economics of the health benefits

young and old alike.
are of course obvious. During the

at a societal level
election year and since. the economics

recent presidential
still being debated at the national

of aging was and is

Health care

costs are of particular concern for the
There has been a momentum toward national health

level.

elderly.
care cost containment through various means such as through

eligibility for medicaid and the creation of Diagnostic
These are

it is

Related Groupings (see glossary for definition).
However.

some of the solutions being considered.

v? i
g

l

widely recognized that in and of themselves they do not go
far enough toward cost containment. The equitability of
administering such programs is quite another issue.

~\ Two of the major concerns that are uppermost in the
minds of the elderly are income maintenance and health

concerns. Both of these concerns can be adressed through

:better housing. For example: an individual elderly's

housing choice ie. dwelling unit and neighborhood. has a far
reaching effect on all aspects of his/her life. Often.
there is a high correlation between the age of the residents
and the age of dwelling units within a geographic area.

Given this fact.it is easy to imagine the kinds of

; constraints both physical and economic that an aging

dwelling unit and aging neighborhood places on aging
individuals. These constraints inevitably affect the social
dynamics of the individuals which are important not only for
the psychological well being but also for his/her
physiological well being.

How a person feels about him/herself depends on how
he/she is integrated into the larger society. Integration

implies subjective and objective processes of inter-

.connectedness. So it follows that individuals within the

‘ network surrounding an individual are important resources

and the maintenance of such a social web is in the interest
of society. The social support derived by the individual

from the network is considerable. It includes an exchange

 

 

 

er
in
10
Te
hi:
the
Ch
CO

(L:

 

"105

the‘

 

of both tangibles. such as goods and services and
Q intangibles such as social and emotional supports. In fact.
ifithese social supports are what people EQERWF9_P°IOF9 relying
ion governmental agencies. It is therefore in the interest-M
pf society to find solutions to housing the elderly that
*ill maximize the individual's potential for self reliance
Fnd an independent lifestyle. thus delaying the eventual
reliance on public support. In this context the spatial
Idistribution of the social support system (friends. family.
torganizations) is important to an individuals imbeddedness
in society.

The age composition of the neighborhood housing
environment is an important consideration of this
investigation. Presently an elderly person living in
localities with higher elderly proportions is more likely to
receive services and resources specifically catered to
his/her needs. In a sense then. public policy and therefore
the allocation of funding tends to favor localities where
the elderly proportions are high or greater in numbers
compared to localities where elderly proportions are low.

(Lawton: 1980).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION
Outlined below are some of the reasons why it seems
most appropriate to investigate the age concentration of

the housing environments in which the elderly live:

 

int

10c

Was

Sub

hum

to

nei

eld

 

 

1) Because there is a trend toward greater
residential segregation or age homogeneity in
residence among the elderly.

2) Because greater spatial homogeneity of the
elderly means more dependency on fiscal and
political cycles.

3) Because little research exists comparing
elderly in housing environments of varying
degrees of age concentrations.

4) Because very little research exists that
addresses what effect the degree of age
concentration of the housing environment has
on interaction with family and friends and on
individual elderly attitudes and beliefs.

Recent titles such as "Residential Segregation by Age"
(Cowgill.1978). ngazg §pgtigl flgmgggngity 95 Elggrly
ngulatign (Kimmich & Gutowsky. 1983) and Ihe Gzayigg gt

Suburbia (Gutowski & Field.1979) give evidence of a growing
interest in the age concentration of elderly residential
locations. In the past. the phenomenon of age segregation
was noted mainly in center cities. Increasingly now.
suburban areas have been experiencing a growth in terms of
numbers of elderly. as well as percentages. The elderly are
to be found in a variety of housing types in widely varying
neighborhood settings. The degree of concentration of

elderly in any particular neighborhood depends on its

 

 

 

 

 

re
ag
ne
Po
Fe
Fe.

dil

gov
ole
10c
inc

 

location (Lawton, 1980). The majority of elderly live in
housing (single family detached units) in neighborhoods that
accomodate different age groups. Approximately 90 percent
are community based while five percent inhabit planned
housing and another five percent live in institutional
settings (Lawton. 1980).

The elderly are not migratory as a group and age
concentrations of neighborhoods is largely due to the 'aging
in place' factor. The majority of senior citizens enjoy an
independent life style with a minimum of public service
supports. However. with increasing age there tends to be a
greater need for outside services and supports. This "need"
is not always made known nor translated into public
responses. Therefore. the informal support of friends in
age concentrated neighborhoods is crucial to meeting the
needs of the individuals. Lawton (1980) notes that "public‘
policy regarding the equitable distribution of services and
resources frequently ignores some of the more subtle issues
relating to the varying concentrations of older people in
different localities".

The relevance of aging in place at the local
governmental level to fiscal and social responsibility is
clear. Obviously. when there is a group of residents from a
locality coming of age when its service needs are
increasing. then there are greater dependencies on local

economic and political cycles. This is true of all age

groups. The politics of age is important in the long run
for the whole of society. Presently the elderly are a
favored group. but as they increase in absolute numbers
"there is going to be a less responsive political
environment in which the aged are in jeopardy of losing
their most favored social welfare status" (Golant. 1979).
The question is: what long range effects does the age
concentration of a neighborhood housing environment have on
elderly individuals and conversely. what effects will the
increasing numbers of aging citizens have on the tax paying
citizens?

The issue about 'age-segregation vs. age-integration’
or 'age homogeneity vs. age heterogeneity' of neighborhood
housing environments as it applies to the elderly has been
developed since the nineteen fifties (Gans. 1950). Studies
that deal with the degree of age concentration of the
neighborhood housing environments tend to utilize different
techniques. different types of settings as well as subjects
of varying capabilities. The existing body of literature
provides many insights as it discusses the relative
benefits of one or the other.

However. there are many methodological problems
inherent in comparative studies. not the least of which is
sampling. Thus. although it is generally accepted that age
concentration of neighborhood housing environment affects
the social process (Rosow. 1967) there is no conclusive

agreement in favor of one age concentration over another.

/
I

f
1

Finally. even less is known about the effect of the
degree of age concentration of neighborhood housing
environments on individuals perception of self. family.
neighborhoods and society. The question is. are there
differences in attitudes among the elderly depending on the

reality of their physical and social experiences?

MA OR CON EPTS OF THI INV ST GATION

The following major concepts are provided below so as
to facilitate an understanding of the concepts and
eventually the logic of the conceptual framework of this
study.

A C C A Z T ON OF HE ND VI A AC PRO ESS

Although there has always been speculation on the
nature of the course of life. the study of aging.
(Gerontology) is a relatively new development of this
century. The broad underlying assumption that can be agreed

upon by all is that 'Aging' is a function of the passage of

\time. This fact implies that it is a progressive state.

lwhich is not reversable. It assumes that the phenomenon of

we

’aging occurs in all members within a species at an
equivalent rate and finally it ends in the death of the
organism.

Although this sounds like a physiological process.

gerontological literature makes it clear that aging is more

.‘ :3

 

 

 

 

cc
of
19
th
The
Her
and

311

int

 

aff
Ds~

0f

than merely a biological phenomenon. Along with
biologically aging (which is easier to percieve with time).
individuals are also aging socially and psychologically.
Various studies have pointed to the fact that with the
passage of time there is an overall decline in physical
activity (Havighurst & Albrecht. 1953. Cumming & Henry.
1961). This decline is not solely attributed to the
physiological process. Many other factors affect
involvement in activity such as previous involvement.
attitudes based on the appropriateness of sex. age. social
roles and. of course. the individuals psychological/
personality makeup. Research suggests that there is a
correlation between activity and mental and physical health
of all people. especially with the elderly (Young & Ismail.
1976; Ostrow. 1980). The underlying assumption of many of
the social theories on aging such as the Disengagement
Theory (Cumming. 1963) and the Activity theory (Lemon.
Bengtson & Peterson. 1972) is that physical activity. health
and wellbeing. social and psychological participation are
all inextricably related.

‘Biological. sociological and psychological process are
interactive and interdependent. The biological rate of
aging of an individual affects them socially which in turn
affects them psychologically and vice-versa. The social-
psychological factors can also affect the physical wellbeing

of individuals. In other words the term 'wellness' as it

10

applies to people encompasses the totality of physiosocio
and psychological health. In effect then. 'Aging' can be
explained by examining the interrelationship between these 1
three processes over time. which makes aging unique to each i
individual.

WEBSTERS DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENT

The discussion about aging has centered on the process
of aging at the level of the organism or the individual
units of society. However. a discussion about individuals
or an aggregation of individuals would be meaningless
without the environmental context within which they exist.
The environment is the point of reference for all of human
activity. Websters (1965) definition of the word
'environment' suggests that "it is that which environs or
surrounds". It is also described as "the complex of
climatic. edaphic and biotic factors that act upon an
organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine
its form and survival". Finally Environment is "the
aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence
the life of an individual or community". Clearly these
definitions are broad and all encompassing.

Studies in Human Ecology point to the wide range of
approaches taken by geographers and sociologists under the
title of Human Ecology. What they do have in common is that
they are studying a human phenomenon in the context of some

environment. whether it is explicitly or implicitly stated.

 

 

 

 

[D

m

e!

e
n,

be

11

It is perhaps easier to conceive of the effects of the
physical environment on the human condition; however. the
social and psychological environment also impact on health
and ultimately on the aging process itself (Rowles. 1978).
As Lawton suggests in Ecglggy and Aging (in Pastalan &
Carson. 1976) an ecological approach in studying the
problems of the elderly is very relevant because elderly as
a group are more sensitive to environmental variation. This
fact he ascribes to what he calls the "environmental
docility" hypothesis: the greater the degree of competence
of the individual. the less proportion of variance in
behaviour is due to the environment. On the other hand the
less the competence of the individual (such as limitations
in health. ego strength. status. cognitive skills etc.) the
more the environmental press (Lawton & Simon. 1968).
Because of the greater likelihood of older people having
experienced reductions in competence. they are likely to be

more sensitized to environmental factors.

DE I T O S 0 NE GH ORHOOD HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS
FOUND IN LITERATURE.

Several terms have been used in the housing literature
referring to the age concentration of the neighborhood
environments. Terms such as "age segregated or integrated".
"age homogeneous vs. age heterogeneous settings". "community

based vs. planned communities" have been used. These terms

 

 

 

A\

$1
gr
8x
of
Ex
Se
Th.
t}.E

”he

1nd

12

are not all equivalent and therefore a brief discussion of
the differences is in order.

Generally an "ggg_§gg;ggg;gg” neighborhood housing
environment implies that all people residing in the area (as
defined) are of the same age group. It generally refers to
a geographical distance between the aged group and the
populace. in. this case based on age. Underlying this
geographical distance is also implied a subjective social.
psychological distance. Whereas the term "age integrated"
implies elderly residing within a population of mixed ages.
Sun City Arizona is an example of an age segregated housing
environment as there is an age requirement for residing in
the city.

Agg hgmggegegus gnyirgnmentg can refer to any area such
as state. city. city center. city block. or building where a
significantly large group of residents are of a similar age
group. The establishment of naturally occurring residential
examples of homogeneity are more difficult to find. Most
often such age homogeneous environments are planned.
Examples of age homogeneous environments are congregate
settings that are to be found all across this country.

There is also evidence of growing spatial homogeneity other
than those that are planned (Kimmich & Gutowsky. 1983).

Cgmmunity based elderly live on "independent sites"

where the age makeup of the neighborhood varies. These

independent sites could be single family dwelling units or

13

apartments. Not only do the environments in which the
community based elderly live differ in terms of the age
concentration of the neighborhood. but also the diversity of
this group is considerable. The opposite of community based
is generally referred to as residents of planned housing.
Age groups in planned housing could and in some cases do
vary: however often planned housing tends to be age-

homogeneous.

. ' . |_ 0 O ' _1I-0'100| :0 C i EONL 1”
AS S N T S N ST GA ON

The age concentration of the neighborhood housing
environment as an independent variable has been utilized in
many investigations. However there are certain problems
inherent in sampling as was noted earlier. The elderly who
live in planned communities are inherently different from
those who are community based. For one thing. the average
age of residents in planned housing tends to be older as
compared to residents in the community at large. They are
often attracted to congregate settings for the services
provided there.

At this particular time it is necessary to introduce
the terminology used in this thesis. The two comparative
groups "Qigpgggg_7 and "Qggggggggggg" will be referred to
when analyzing the data rather than the terms described

above. An important reason for introducing another set to

 

 

 

Sc
in
Se
8c.

EQC

Ch

14

the already complex jargon is that it more accurately
reflects the age concentrations being investigated here.
"Concentrated" was operationalized in this investigation as
housing neighborhoods peggeiyeg to have a significant
portion of elderly. The "Dispersed" group referred to those
persons who lived in housing neighborhoods where the elderly
were not a dominant segment of the populace. The
respondents of this investigation were mostly community
based residents however a smaller percent of them were
residents of ’planned housing’. How these categories were

chosen will be discussed in chapter three---Design of Study.

TH CONC PTU FRA EWORK

The conceptual framework adopted for this research
encompasses the study of Human Ecology which is the study of
the social relationships within the context of the
environment. This same conceptual framework was noted as an
ecological study by Lawton in the book Spatial Behavigur 9f
Older Pegple (ed. Carson & Pastalan. 1970). Lawton suggests
that" in studies of the effects on the individual of age
segregation. even though the independent variable is a
social characteristic and the dependent variable is an
individual characteristic. the clear relationship of age
segregation to an implicit spatial variable marks it as an
ecological study". This investigation therefore is a human
ecological study. This notion will be expanded further in

Chapter II.

15

Lawton (ob. cit. 1970) has identified five components

within the human ecosystem. He defined them as:

1. The Individual

2 The Physical Environment

3 The Personal Environment

4. The Supra-Personal Environment

5 The Social Environment.
The first two are necessary conditions for all living
organisms while the other three are perhaps more specific to
the human species. The term ’environment’ has been
discussed in some detail. The discussion about the
characteristics of the aging individual has also been
described. From the earlier discussion. the elderly can be
described as having physiological needs as well as social
and psychological needs. Having said this about the first
two categories. it is necessary to clarify the remaining
three, ie. the personal. supra-personal and the social
environments.

The Persgnal Envirgnment consists of persons who are
intimately or tangentially involved in the lives of an
individual. It is made up of family. friends. and
acquaintances that affect the life of the individual
elderly. in other words it is the "world of significant
others". It is generally assumed that with increasing age
and an accompanying decrease in competence there is a
greater reliance on social supports. This fact points to

the importance of the personal environment.

16

The Supra-Persgnal Envigggment consists of a group of

spatially clustered individuals. The greater proximity
allows the individuals to identify with the modal
characteristics of the group. The greater the homogeneity
along any variable that dominates within the group. the
greater will be its effect on the individual. In other
words. although beliefs and attitudes are arrived at by
individuals. the process of arriving at them is influenced
by many factors both internal and external. They are also
influenced by past and present experiences. The assumption
is that group characteristics. independent of personal
characteristics affect the way an individual views her/
himself and this fact affects the attitudes and beliefs
she/he holds. For example. if the dominant experience
within the group is one of diminishing health. an individual
enjoying good health may downgrade his/her own. or be
physically affected by the experiences of the group.
Clearly. this points to the significance of spatial
distribution of older peOple in the health and wellbeing of
the individual elderly.

Finally. the §ggigl_§gylgggmgg; consists of social
structures such as norms and social institutions. These
norms and institutions exist independently of the
individual. although the attitudes and beliefs an individual
holds are important. they do not in themselves make up the

social environment. Group attitudes and beliefs help make

 

 

fr

 

 

17

up the social environment and an aggregation of social
environments helps make up the cultural environment. The
value system within the social/cultural environment in turn
affects the political. economic and social processes which
regulate both. society and the individual.

Individual attitudes and beliefs are important in
creating the social structures that affect all of society
and ultimately the individuals within. The evidence of this
may be seen in the electoral process whereby beliefs and

attitudes may be directly translated into votes.

STI RI ING OUT OF 0 O I A R M W R
E T TO T S N T G T O

The interesting questions posed by the human ecological
framework described above are:
1. What are the persgnal envirgnments of elderly
individuals?
a. Who are the ’significant others’ in the
lives of the elderly?
b. Does neighborhood housing environment
affect social interaction?
0. Does neighborhood housing environment
affect who one socializes with?

2. What suprapersgnal environment surrounds an

individual elderly?

18

What modal characteristics of those who
make up ones personal environment have an
impact on the individual elderly?

Are these modal characteristics different
for different individuals depending on the
age characteristics of the neighborhood
housing environment and of the persons who

are significant to the individuals?

3. What is the sgcigl envirggment of elderly
individuals?

a.

Are the social institutions and norms
unique to an individual. to groups. to the
whole of the subgroup of the elderly?

Are attitudes and beliefs of individuals
shared?

To what extent are they shared depending
on the

individuals housing environmental

experience?

 

I ‘vl. . .t .
.9. j
. > .

81

Va

Fe

th

8:1

ar

ho

of

th.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The intent of this chapter is to review literature and
theories that are most pertinent to the logic of this
research. In doing so. the first section will discuss the
theoretical framework relevant to this investigation. the
second will elaborate on various investigations that are of
special interest to the current one and the final section
will culminate in the study objectives and the statement of

the problem.

0 SING ITER U R V N T T GA ON

What kind of neighborhood housing environment is most
supportive of older persons? This question has been
addressed by different investigators in different ways at
various times. For example. some have investigated the
relationship between the physical. structural features of
the housing and its neighborhood to the wellbeing of the
sample of elderly (Lawton & Kleeban. 1971). Another related
area that has been investigated is the relationship between
housing location or proximity of services to the wellbeing
of the elderly (Noll. 1973; Regnier. 1975; Lawton. 1977).

The above studies dealt with the physical context of

the neighborhood housing environment. Equally well

19

 

 

 

 

 

20

researched is the social context of the environment as it
relates to the well-being of the elderly. As has already
been noted. sex. age. social class. composition of the
neighborhood are all important factors in the well-being of
individuals. Several studies have investigated the
relationship between concentrations of the elderly as they
relate to social interaction (Rosow. 1967; Rosenberg. 1970;
Sherman. 1976). These studies point to the advantages of
living in areas where there are higher proportions of
elderly because persons in age concentrated environments
tend to enjoy higher levels of social interaction than those
who live among mixed age groups. Lawton and Nahemow (1979)
have investi- gated the relationship of ’well-being’ in the
context of the age concentration of neighborhoods.

The concept of 'well-being’ has been utilized in
studies relating to both physical as well as the social
context of neighborhoods. Chapman and Beaudet (1983)
operationalized the concept and measured it as "satisfaction
with the neighborhood and with life in general. by social
contact with friends. relatives and neighbors and by
activity levels". Clearly. what is implied is that
wellbeing is a function of many interrelated variables such
as: how active a person is or percieves him/her self to be.
how a person feels about his/her neighborhood. and the
person’s self concept. A physiological relationship of

well-being has not been specified by these studies but in

21

keeping with the earlier discussion in chapter I. well-being
must ultimately imply physical health. An example of such a
conceptual framework is to be found in a study by the Rand
Corporation which investigated social well-being in the
context of health for a major health insurance experiment

(Donald & Ware. 1982).

THEORIES RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGAIIQN

Aside from the concept of ’well-being’. there seem to
be various other concepts that have overlapped in the
different areas of research. The two theories being

considered as the underpinnings of this study are the

Subculture Theggy 9f Aging as proposed by Rose (in Kant &

Manard. 1976) and the Activity Thegry 9f Aging (in Kant &

Manard. 1976). Aside from these two theories. the
components of the ecosystem that were described by Lawton
(ed. Carson & Pastalan 1970) and elaborated on in the
preceding chapter. are also important as the underpinnings
of this investigation. In this research ’ecosystem’ is not
a ’theory’ but an approach or framework under which to
classify information. Clearly. the concepts described by
Lawton ie. Personal Environment. Supra-Personal Environment
and Social Environment overlap with the concepts within
subgroup theory. The precise nature of the overlapping
concepts are described at the end of this chapter.after

describing the Subculture and Activity theories of aging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

The Subculture Theory of Aging and the Activity Theory
of Aging are theories proposed almost three decades ago in
the 1950’s. Havighurst & Albrecht (1953) made the first
explicit statement about the importance of the maintenance
of social roles as a means to positive adjustment in old age

which is known as the Activity Theory.

A T V T H ORY OF AGING

Since the 1950’s the validity of the propositions of
Activity Theory have been affirmed by many investigations;
however. some studies have questioned it as well. This
theory is often noted in gerontological literature.
particularly in literature dealing with the housing
environment. It lends itself well to application and is
often reflected in legislation. housing policy and social
service programs. Another of its strengths is that it is
readily measurable and verifiable. although terms have been
defined and operationalized variously in different studies.

Essentially. the Activity Theory (1953) states that
there is a positive relationship between activity and
satisfaction with life in general. It suggests that the
social. psychological self is sustained and is given a
chance to emerge through the interaction with others. This
theory assumes that activity in general and interpersonal
activity in particular are important vehicles for

maintaining ones self concept. With the elderly who

23

increasingly face role losses such as death of spouse.
retirement. loss of income. an activity orientation can
provide the means to sustain an individuals sense of him/her
self. There are various kinds of activities that are
important to individuals. but not all types are equally
supportive of role maintenance. Informal. interpersonal
activity at a personal level is most conducive to
maintenance of ones positive self-concept. Informal social
activity is perhaps next best. while formal organizational
type of activity has its advantages but is even less
supportive of a positive self-concept. The least effective
activity type is the one where an individual is involved by
him/her self or solitary activity (Rosow. 1974).

The earlier mentioned relationship between activity and
positive self-concept seem to be borne out by many cross
sectional studies done cross-culturally under widely
differing circumstances (Lemon. Bengtson & Peterson. 1972).
Various demographic variables and social conditions seem to
affect the strength of the relationship between activity and
life satisfaction or self-concept. Health. retirement.
marital status or role losses do affect this relationship as
does economics.

In summary. what the Activity Theory seems to advocate
is that for "optimal aging" the individual needs to be able
to replace lost roles with activity thereby retaining a

positive self concept. By the generally accepted definition

24

of what a theory is (Babbie. 1982) there are very few
interrelated concepts of Activity Theory except for the
specified relationship noted earlier.

The theory is based on an observation made of a cross
section of the general population. It is based on a
comparison of the elderly as a group with the younger
population. Data suggests that with increase in age there
is a decrease in activity levels. This phenomenon is
assumed as a ’given’ with few explanations. As a theory it
may be limited but it proves its utility in investigating
the role of the environments in social interaction and

activity levels of older people.

THE SUBC LTURE THEORY OF AGING

The "Aged Subculture Theory" has had less attention
than the "Activity Theory". however it seems to be
generating some interest in recent literature. Briefly. the
theory proposes that a "subculture develops within a
category of the population of a society when its members
interact significantly more with each other than with
persons from other categories". This occurs under two sets
of circumstances: 1) when members have a positive affinity
for each other or 2) they feel they are excluded from
interaction with other groups to some significant extent
(Rose. in Kart & Maynard. 1976). The research suggests that

for the aged. both of these factors are at work (to greater

25

or lesser extent). that in fact. the aged are a subculture
having a set of meanings and values distinct from other
groups. It recognizes that not all individuals affect the
process and are affected by the subculture equally. Not all
elderly are socialized within the subculture nor do all
individuals affect the group process in the same way.

An article by McClelland (1982) integrating the two
theories of Activity and (age) "Sub Culture" suggests that
activity. self concept and life satisfaction are a function
of membership in the subculture of the aged and therefore
should be investigated from that point of view. The article
goes on to propose a path model of adjustment to aging and
includes four major variables. These are: 1) social
activity. 2) social adequacy. 3) self-conception. and 4)
life satisfaction. Its findings suggest that self-concept
is strongly dependent on social activity in keeping with the
Activity Theory framework. Also. the study points to these
variables as significantly affecting life satisfaction.
These results are "more applicable to frail and vulnerable
elderly than to those with greater resources" (McClelland.
1982). Another major finding of the study was that the
attitudes held by individuals toward other people
significantly affected the dynamics of the adjustment model
developed by the study. The same investigation found
significant differences between those who preferred

interaction with age peers as compared to those who did not.

26

The former were on the average. "less active. more lonely.
less confident. less satisfied with life as well as more
disadvantaged in terms of social status and health". This
is by no means a cause-effect relationship. but it does
point to the need for adopting a SubCulture Theory approach
to the study of aging.

Future directions in aging proposed by McClelland
(1982) deal with "better defining and mapping the extent of
aging group consciousness among the elderly". The line of
questioning proposed by McClelland (1982) for future
investigations parallels the one being asked here:

1. How many other older people are present in the
community (ie.age concentration of the
neighborhood housing environment)?

2. Does age concentration of the neighborhood
affect social interaction and to what extent
is it confined within the ’subgroup’? Another
way of stating it is to ask whether the
’personal environments’ of individual elderly
differ depending on the age composition of the
housing environment?

3. What formal and informal practices have
developed to facilitate interaction? What
types of organizations are individuals more

likely to be involved in?

27

4. Is there a development of a group
consciousness which impacts on the individuals
or (as Lawton proposed) is there a ’supra-

personal environment (in Pastalan and Carson.

1970)?
I AT R R r o r 0 or THE
NE c B RHOOD 00 NC N I o 8 PF oc AL LIFE

The development of social relationships has been of
particular interest to social planners for some time. The
earlier studies dealing with friendship patterns and social
life at the community level did not specifically focus on
the elderly (Gans. 1961). However. these being very
relevant to social issues of the elderly. housing
environments of the elderly have not escaped the scrutiny of
investigators. It is clear that the site plan and the
architectural design have some influence on the
socialization processes of individuals. Such features as
orientation of doors between neighbors. distances to
neighbors (propinquity). traffic patterns between
neighboring dwellings. and placement of community facilities
are all important to social interaction. However.
strategies to satisfy the necessary requirements for
"fibringing people together do not necessarily ensure that
i social interaction will take place in all instances nor that
social relationships will develop. In that sense there are

‘Nlimits to social engineering.

28

isl“”' For friendship to develop it takes more than
’propinquity’. The characteristics of individuals is of
equal or greater importance in friendship formation. People
tend to socialize with others on the basis of similarities.
This is no less true of the elderly. For social
relationships to develop there has to be a certain amount of
homogeneity in terms of backgrounds. There are many
characteristics that influence and affect social
relationships; such as similarities in socio-economic
backgrounds of individuals. mutually shared values and
interests. shared life-cycle experiences and. of course.
age: (Cans. 1961). A combination of these characteristics
is more important to socialization than homogeneity along
any one variable. In other words age homogeneity is not a “I
sufficient condition for developing intensive relationships;

People do not socialize with others solely because they are“
all of the same age. The elderly as a group are an i

extremely diverse lot coming from varied socio-economic
backgrounds. However. persons within a cohort are more
likely to have experiences in common that are unique to
them. increasing the likelihood of friendship between them.‘
Such experiences as the depression. war. prohibition. or the
dawning of the nuclear or computer age do not become the
basis for friendships. but life events do have a lasting

impact on age cohorts. which in turn affects socialization.

29

LIT R UR R EV TO HE SOCIALIZATION PROCESSE OF THE

ELDERLY

SOCIAL INTERACTION Rosow (1967) has done a comprehensive
study of the socialization processes of the elderly. His
study investigated the effect of different residential age
concentrations on social interaction and the related issue
of integration within society. The research findings of his
investigation presented in the book. SOCIAL INTEGRATION OF
Ifl§_£Ln§RL1 are relevant to the present study and as such
are summarized here. From Rosow’s investigation it would
seem that there is a ’tipping point’ at which socialization
between the elderly is possible. When there are forty
percent or more households with elderly residents in a given
neighborhood. then it would seem to significantly increase
the opportunity for interaction. He remarks that "at this
point (40 percent) they become a visible minority and large
enough to sustain a self sufficient social life"
(Rosow.1967).

Essentially. what is known about the elderly persons
social process is that with the passage of time. the social
sphere of the elderly is a contracting one. "They move and
participate in a shrinking arena" (Rosow.1967). There seem
to be many interage differences between the young and old.
For example: activity levels. belonging to and

participating in social organizations. and also the number

 

Innm‘uu'llmm ii..—
I

 

 

30

of friends they had when they were young is different than
when they are old. Not only "do the old have fewer friends
than the young" but there seems to be a reduction in affect
or intensity of relationships with friendship groups (Dean.
1962).f Such evidence of cross sectional studies is quite
startling; however. it must be borne in mind that they are
not intrinsically aging related per se. There are
externalities that affect social processes as well. First
of all. as individuals and as a group. the elderly are more
likely to experience major role losses in terms of
employment status. marital status and economic status. to
name a few. This is also the time that individuals
experience losses through the death of friends. [It is.
therefore. easy to imagine the compounding effects of such
multiple role losses on social interaction. For example.
the loss of employment through retirement is important. not
only from an economic point of view (loss of income). but
also because it creates a disruption in an individuals
feelings of imbeddedness in society. A reduction in income
may mean more constraints on the portion of the budget going
towards entertainment and transportation expenses. This
fact in turn may cause a retrenchment in social intercourse
furthering the feelings of estrangement from societyt>
Rosow’s research also suggests that the elderly
person’s social interaction revolves around two groups. One

[is the family and the other is that of friends. Both groups

31

[’are clearly important. although they do not seem to play an
identical role as a reference group in all circumstances.
For instance. housing choice is often dictated by nearness
to family members. particularly to children. Rosow{(1967)\r
reports that a large percent of elderly live near their 3
children. The distances between parents and children was
even closer with evidence of illness in the parent
generation. The role of the family at critical times (such
as illness) is important in that it is the "preferred source
of help at times of need" (Rosow. 1967). The individuals
turned to the family and preferred them over friends and
formal organizations and agencies. However. the day-to-day
interaction was not confined to the family. In that regard.
friends were the primary source of social exchange for the
elderly.

As has already been noted. the elderly interact
significantly more with each other than with other age
groups. As persons age.increasingly many individuals become
more locally dependent. In this regard. propinquity or
nearness to family. friends and neighbors is an important
factor in socially integrating the individual elderly.
Therefore. residential concentration is an important
consideration. Such variables as number of local friends
one has and how ’active’ an individual is are a function of
varied factors. Residential density is one such factor as
are marital status. sex of the individuals and socio-

economic status.

32

In general. the areas of higher elderly concentration
affords individuals a greater chance for socialization.
Residential concentration affects the social interaction of
the sexes differently. Women tend to be more responsive to
residential concentration than are men and show an increase
in social activity with higher residential concentration.
Similarly. marital status is another factor important to
social interaction. Married people as compared to singles
and widows are less locally dependent for their
socialization and. therefore. are less sensitive to the age

concentration of the neighborhood housing environment.

L_ m __ II ,' C N! "O _._ _ TO F; I A ! ;. .TIVES
Rosow (1967) found that the variance in social
interaction could be attributed to socio-economic
differences. In general middle class elderly tended to have
more friends than did the working classes. In other words.
the middle class elderly had friends from farther afield
than did the working classes. who were more locally
dependent for their socializing. Although the working
classes were more locally dependent and drew most of their
friends from close surroundings. the middle classes had more
local friends than did the working classes. The middle
classes are more vulnerable to role losses than are the
working classes. This is so because the middle classes

experience greater disruptions in their lifestyles due to

33

role losses than do the working classes. The actual
lifestyles of different groups are less problematic than are
the disturbances in those lifestyles and activities. Such
changes can be devastating to individuals. thus the middle
classes are more vulnerable.

A change in situation such as retirement. loss of
spouse or decrease in physical capability affects all
elderly to an extent. However. the extent to which it
affects the lifestyles of individuals varies. Those who
have a lifestyle which revolves around the local environment
may experience less disruption in established patterns of
socializing as compared to those who draw from a larger
locale. Clearly. the loss of job or a change in health
status will affect the lifestyle of individuals to a lesser
or greater extent. depending on the distance of the
socialization process to which the individual subscribes.
Persons who have localized kinship. friendship networks. are
less likely to experience great disruptions in lifestyles as
compared to those whose personal environment is made up of
individuals farther afield. Since the middle classes are
less locally dependent for their socialization process. it
follows that. they are more vulnerable to greater
disruptions in lifestyle due to role losses.

The middle class elderly showed greater flexibility in

terms of having friends from among other age groups.

34

"Independent of social class. the confinement of
friendships within age groups is disproportionately
greater among high density rather than low density
residents who are less likely to look for alternatives.

to seek and accept friends from a younger age group".

(Rosow 1967).

F OD G CO POS ON 0 PA T RNS OF

IN R CONTA T
Sherman (1976) investigated the effect of residential

neighborhood compositions on patterns of contacts and
sufficiency of contact. The study reports that there were
indeed differences in the patterns of contact between
residents of age segregated (similar age) and age integrated
(multi-ages) housing. The age segregated group proved to
have higher incidences of childlessness than did the
integrated group. They were also more likely to live
farther away from children than the integrated group.with
the net effect that there was less interage socializing.
However. when distance was held constant. there were no
significant differences between the two groups in terms of
visiting back and forth with children. This observation was
somewhat different from Lawton’s findings (1970). Lawton
found that there was a decrease in the amount of face-to-
face contact following a move from a dispersed community

setting to planned housing.

35

Patterns of contact with friends and neighbors also
differed. Residents of age segregated housing neighborhoods

had more new’ friends and were more socially active with
age peers than were the age integrated residents as a group.
They were also less likely to socialize with younger age

groups. and therefore. had fewer friends younger than forty.

EORMAL QRGANIZAEIONS

Formal organizations are an important means of
maintaining contact with others. With the passage of time.
evidence points to an inevitable loosening of ties to formal
organizations. This is perhaps axiomatic given the
’inevitable’ decline in activity levels. Evidence suggests
that a positive relationship exists between participation in
voluntary associations and life satisfaction among the aged.
However. this fact may be due not so much to cause and
effect factors but to characteristics of participants and
non-participants. Higher socio-economic status and better
perception of one’s own health was more characteristic of
participants than of non-participants (Bull & Aucoin. 1976).
There appear to be no studies addressing participation in
different kinds of organizations ie. formal or informal
organizations. It may well be that. membership in one or
another is not equivalent in importance to the individual

elderly.

36

INTEGRATION OF THE ’SUBCULTURE THEORY OF AGING’
AND
S D COM ON S O T E HUMAN COSYSTEM

An attempt has been made to review literature that is
relevant to the investigation at hand. The various interrelated
and sometimes overlapping concepts have been explored. although
it must be noted that the terminology has not been uniform
through the various investigations. For instance. concepts such
as ’personal’ environment and ’supra-personal’ and ’cultural’
environment overlap with those found in the Subculture Theory of
Aging. The Subculture Theory made note of the aggregate social
phenomenon that elderly tend to socialize with age peers. where
as the Ecological concepts as defined by Lawton (in Pastalan and
Carson. 1970) are more specific to the individuals social
process.

Both the ’Subculture Theory’ and the concept of 'personal
environment’ are based on the supposition that persons identify
with the group with which they interact. One of the assumptions
of the ’SubCulture’ Theory is that persons within a subgroup
interact significantly more with members within it than with
members outside of it. Personal Environment on the other hand
implicitly recognizes social. personal and perhaps sensory
interaction with the group surrounding the individual. This
group may be comprised of persons who are significant to the

individual. as well as persons within an unspecified geographic

37

distance. Therefore. since propinquity is more relevant to the
concept of ’Personal Environment’. the implication is that
individuals identify with persons who are important in one’s life
(perhaps age peers).and also the persons who share a specified
area such as a neighborhood. In that regard. age composition of a
neighborhood is an important variable. Personal Environment is
viewed as those persons ’surrounding’ the individual elderly.
Persons surrounding an individual are those who share a physical
space such as a neighborhood. as well as those persons with whom
respondents are involved on a regular basis.

The ’Sub Culture’ theory by its very definition implies
identification with a group within the larger society. in this
case with other elderly. The ’Supra-Personal’ Environment does
not limit identification with any particular age group. Perhaps
it is a combination of the degree to which one subscribes to a
subgroup of elderly peers and the context of ones neighborhood
age composition.

Finally. The ’Social Environment’ defined by Lawton (ob.cit.
1970) also has its parallel in the ’Sub-Culture’ Theory of Aging.
They both imply the ’Cultural’ climate within which the elderly
exist. Whereas the ’Subculture’ theory specifies that all
elderly to greater or lesser extent impact on a ’culture’ (and to
the same extent are affected by it). which is age specific. the
’social environment’ is unique to the individual’s experience and

thus is not based on age.

38

THE THEO T FR M WORK

The concepts of the theoretical framework have been
illustrated by a model which follows. Concepts found in the
’Activity Theory’. ’Subculture Theory’ and the ’Human Ecological
Framework’ were utilized as the underpinnings of this investi-
gation. Some of the more important questions posed by the
multiplicity of these over-lapping but distinctly different
concepts are:

1. Does age concentration of neighborhood (housing
environment) affect the overall make up of an
individuals ’personal environment’ ie. persons
with whom they most interact?

2. In what housing environment (dispersed or
concentrated) do elderly respondents report
involvement with a sub-group of elderly peers.

3. What attitudes are shared within groups? To what

extent is there a group consciousness?

39

F I G U R E 1: T H E T H E 0 R T I C A L F R A M E N 0 R K

 

 

 

LANTON J I HAVIGHURST ROSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

ECOLOGICAL ACTIVITY SUBCULTURE
FRAMEWORK THEORY THEORY

ENVIRONMENTS PATTERNS OF _ ENVIRONMENTS
1. PERSONAL CONTACT "‘t“ . PERSONAL
Persons Family Age Peers
Surrounding Friends
. . . SUPRA PERSONAL
IndIV1dua] Characteristic-

SUPRA PERSONAL Of Age Peers

0f Persons
. PARTICIPATION IN "Culture Of
S“"°“"d‘“9 ORGANIZATIONS Aged"

Individual

Formal
SOCIAL
Dependent On Informal
Personal And
Personal
Environment

 

 

PERSONAL |Frequency of Social ' SHARED
ENVIRONMENT 'Interaction and Organi-I ATTITUDES

Age Specific: Izational Participation ISocial Environment and
Subgroup/ I ACTIVITY ISubCulture
non-Subgroup | ORIENTATION I

 

4O

STUDY OBJECTIVES

GENERAL OBJECTIVES

Given that this was an exploratory study. the general
objective of this research was to be able to provide an insight
into the parameters important in investigating social and
attitudinal dynamics of elderly individuals. 60 years of age and
over. More specifically. the objective was to be able to report
the utility of two particular independent variables. One of
these independent variables was the (perceived) age concentration
of the housing environment (dispersed and concentrated). While
the second independent variable of importance was the age of
respondent. A summary of the dependent variables investigated
follows:

1. Persgnal Envirgnmegts. Addressed group differences
in the make up of the ’world of significant
others’.

Subgroup interaction. The extent of socializing
with others of the same age or with those younger
or older.

2. Activity Orientatign included phoning. visiting.
belonging to organizations and attending meetings

of formal organizations.

41

3. §hared Attitudes. The degree to which there are
similarities and differences between and within
groups in terms of shared attitudes and beliefs
toward various subjects such as self. family.

neighborhood and toward society.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The first specific objective was to be able to ascertain
group differences depending on the perceived age concentration of
neighborhood housing environments between ’dispersed’ and
'concentrated’ groups. The second objective was to make note of
group differences. if any between the young-elderly and old-
elderly from the two neighborhood housing environments (Dispersed
and Concentrated). Of particular interest was the magnitude of
those differences. The third and final objective was to propose
some working hypotheses from the insights gained from this
investigation. Essentially. the objective was to generate new
ideas for future investigations and to clarify or modify the

tools that were utilized in this investigation.

W

The problem of this research is to investigate the

relationship between the perceived age composition of the housing

environment. as it affects the dynamics of resident’s social

42

processes and its overall effect on attitudes and beliefs about
such topics as Self. Family. Neighborhood and Society.

In doing so this research will attempt to ascertain group
differences (depending on the age concentration of housing
environments) between ’dispersed’ and ’concentrated’ groups and

between the young-elderly and old-elderly from those two groups.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF STUDY

This chapter describes the design of the research and
the methodology utilized to collect and analyze the data.
The discussion of this chapter will focus on: 1)
development of the instrument. 2) sampling techniques and
data collection procedures. and 3) data analysis procedures

including the decision rules for data analysis.

CR TER 0 RES A DES GN

The research design was arrived at after some
deliberation. There were various factors involved in the
choice of the design. The most important considerations in
dictating the design of this study were. of course. the age
of the respondent and the housing context of the
investigation. The sample size was important. Although it
was not the dominating factor in the design decision. it was
directly related to the sampling procedure adopted. The
final consideration in the design of the study was the
ability to maximize control over the interview process so as
to ensure the inclusion of individuals with the

characteristics under consideration.

43

44

As this is a preliminary study. it was felt that a
personal interview survey design would maximize an
understanding of the housing environments; dispersed and
concentrated. being studied and the individuals within them.
This particular design afforded a unique opportunity to come
in personal contact with the respondents. Thus the
experience gained provided a deeper insight into the
responses elicited by the questionnaire.

As noted above. the age of the respondent was another
important factor in the overall research design. By
personally administering the questionnaires. some of the age
related problems in responding to and returning of the
questionnaires could be avoided. Thus by administering the
questionnaires in person a higher rate of completion of
questionnaires could be ensured. Of the one hundred and
seven persons contacted by letter. only nineteen did not
respond to the initial contact through the mail and could
not be reached on the telephone. Of those individuals who
were contacted by telephone. only six declined to
participate. There were no instances in which the
respondents did not want to reply to questions put to them.
However. there were a few questions that were difficult to

answer for some and were left incomplete.

45

D VELOPM NT OF THE INSTRUMENT

The interview schedule that was administered was made
up of 54 questions. It was grouped into seven sections and
each of the sections contained several questions (see
appendix A). These sections were not titled. however they
informed the respondents about the context of the upcoming
group of questions. The content of each section differed
and served to help the respondents concentrate on various
aspects. Each section helped to separate the context of the
questioning and was confined within that context such as
discussions about relatives inside the city or outside.
about friends. the environment or about themselves.

The order in which the questions were asked was given
some consideration. Questions about age. health and of a
personal nature were buried in the body of the interview
schedule. Most of the questions were devised as
closed-ended and were designed so that the categories would
be read out to the respondents. However. during the pretest
of the instrument. it became clear that this approach was
somewhat confusing for some. particularly when there were
too many categories to choose from. In cases that posed a
problem. the categories were used as guidelines for marking
purposes rather than read to them. Questions two. three.
seven. eight and 14 appearing on the questionnaire were

accompanied by their respective categories (see appendix A).

46

However. these categories were not read to the respondents.
The open-ended questions particularly questions 46 through
52 were taken from an earlier study (Shimonaka & Nakazato.
1980). The technique of the questioning required the
provision of a stem. which was read to the respondent.

These stem statements were then completed by the respondents
(see appendix A).

Some questions were eliminated entirely upon
pretesting. An example of the questions that were not read
to respondents were 17. 26 and 30 (see appendix A). The
open-ended questions were administered and any changes in
affect or hesitency were noted along side the questions.

The prepared interview schedule was tested on 13 individuals
from different neighborhoods. Several were tested at a
housing complex. The appropriate changes were made and
administered by the researcher after a letter of
introduction was sent and a phone call made to set up the

appointment (see appendix C.).

SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTING

This study utilized a ’snowball’ sample technique.
This technique has been described as a "method through which
you develop an ever increasing set of sample observations"

(Babbie. 1983). It is a non-probabilistic sample not

47

commonly utilized in survey research. The homogeneity or
heterogeneity of a popu- lation is an important
consideration in sample size (Backstrom & Cesar. 1981). In
general. the more alike any given population is. along the
dimensions being studied. the smaller the sample required.
Conversely. a larger sample size is necessary when there is
a great deal of variance in the general population.

By utilizing a ’snowball’ sample. a greater degree of
control could be ensured over the variables under
consideration. The process itself was designed to provide
the study with all future participants. Each interviewee
was asked to provide the names of two friends. one of whom
lived in a housing environment "where there are mostly
persons of the same age group". and the other who lives in a
neighborhood housing environment "where there are persons of
different age groups". They were also told that we were
interested in interviewing persons who were 60 years of age
or over. in good health. who had not changed residence in
the past three years. nor been widowed in the recent past
three years.

The ’draftees’ were chosen by individuals because they
stood out from among their acquaintances on the basis of
some special characteristic. not only on the specifications
we provided to them. Some were singled out by respondents

on the basis of longevity. or because they were

48

"interesting" and therefore worthy of interviewing. In
essence. the respondents were a select group of people who
fit the characteristics of age. health and length of
residence and marital status.

It was felt that one of the advantages of using a
’snowball’ sample would be the ability to draw upon
individuals who would have similar socio-economic
backgrounds. This. it was felt. would reduce the number of
variables under consideration by holding an important
variable constant and thereby ensuring a measure of
equivalency. However. in this study. experience proved to
be somewhat different from what was expected. First of all.
not all respondents contributed to the sample frame equally.
Names from one category were given. but not the other. In
fact. this was more true of residents who lived in
neighborhood housing environments with others of the same
age group (concentrated). In general. they were less likely
to know persons from other types of neighborhoods than the
group that resided in neighborhoods of mixed ages (dispersed
housing environments).

A total of 82 individuals were interviewed between
November of 1983 and June of 1984. Of that number. three of
the completed questionnaires were not included in the
analysis for various reasons. The three questionnaires

technically met the requirements of the rules. however.

49

there were other mitigating circumstances that would violate
the original intention of those rules. For example. one of
the individuals that had been interviewed fit all the
qualifications such as being over sixty. in good health:
however. it became evident that she was taking care of her
husband who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. This
was felt to affect the data and so this particular
questionnaire was not subjected to analysis. Similarly.
another questionnaire was dropped because the interview took
too long to complete. The flow of the questions was
interrupted many times and in fact the 'right’ answers had
to be picked out from a narration of life’s events. The
information was overwhelming in that particular case:
therefore. it did not seem proper to include the case.
Initially. each person was sent a letter of
introduction and some information about the study (see
appendix A). The letter was followed up with a telephone
call to set up the appointment for interviewing. This was
done within one to two weeks of being sent a letter. About
two attempts were made at different times of the day to get
in touch with individuals. The majority of interviews were
conducted during working hours nine to five. In some cases
they took place in the evenings. Most of the interviews
were done in the individual’s homes. although a few
preferred to be interviewed at a more neutral place. such as
at the Union Building at the University or at the Tri-County

Office on Aging.

50

The initial contacts were made through one of the area
agencies. the East Lansing Older Peoples Programs. The time
required for each interview varied between thirty minutes to
a little more than one hour: however the majority of
interviews took between forty five to fifty minutes. At the
end of the interview there was often some informal

socializing with the individuals.

DES I ON 0 AMP E

As noted earlier. of the 82 persons interviewed. three
cases were dropped prior to submission of data for analysis.
After controlling for age. health. length of residence 72
cases fit the characteristics that were included as
important to this investigation. The description that
follows pertains to the 72 respondents who were similar in
that they were all over 60 years of age. in good health. who
had been residents of their respective housing for close to
three years and had not been widowed in the recent past.

The age range found among the sample respondents was
between 60 years and 97 years. Given this considerable
range and because it was felt that individuals in the early
sixties and seventies can not be appropriately compared with
later ages. the data was evaluated based on the age
categories ’young-old’ (less than 74 years) and ’old-old’

(74 years of age or over). Approximately 47 percent of the

51

respondents were younger than 74 years of age while 53
percent were 74 years of age or over (see figure 2 below).

Figure 2: The age characteristics of respondents in this
study.

YOUNG-ELDERLY OLD-ELDERLY

(<74 years) (74+ years)

 

Legend

:g:lYoung
" ELderly

=72 ‘7 0”

Elderly

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information pertaining to these specific categories
will be presented in greater detail at the end of the
chapter. (refer to Table 1 in appendix B)

The majority of the sample were female. All attempts
were made to include men in the sample. Whenever possible.
husbands and-wives were interviewed to accomodate for the
under- representation of males. There were 11 couples
interviewed. seperately whenever possible. Altogether. 26
percent of the total were male and 74 percent were female.
There are various explanations for this phenomenon. The
most obvious is that. in this age group there tend to be
more women than men. Also. women have traditionally found

themselves active in the domain of socializing. therefore

52

referrals tended to include more of them. Finally. when a
person in an (age) concentrated setting was asked to provide
names. they tended to refer to people within their
neighborhood housing environment where males were under-
represented.

However. interestingly enough. in this study there
tended to be more males represented in the concentrated
setting as compared to the dispersed settings. This may be
explained by the fact that males in such settings commanded
more attention than in dispersed settings. Therefore it is
not a reflection of the actual sexual representation found
in the settings. (refer to Table 2 in appendix B)

A larger percent of the respondents lived in single
family dwelling units (almost 56 percent). The next most
typical housing classification was a unit attached to three
or more units (such as an apartment building). Almost 42
percent lived in an apartment building. Very few
individuals classified their housing as different from the
two noted above. Less than three percent said that they
lived in housing which could be described as a duplex or a
mobile home. The dispersed group was more likely to live in
single family dwelling units as compared to the concentrated
group. (refer to Table 3 in appendix B)

More than half (61 percent) of the respondents were

sharing their living quarters with at least one other

53

person. Of those who shared their living quarters. a large
percent said that they shared it with a spouse (88 percent).
Sharing living space with children or unrelated persons was
not a common practice among the respondents (refer to Table
4 in appendix B)

A majority of the respondents reported that the major
wage earners of the family were high school graduates. and a
substantial percent of this group had some experience at
college. A larger portion of the concentrated group as
compared to the dispersed group noted that the major wage
earner had not gone beyond high school. On the other hand.
the major wage earners from dispersed settings tended to
have higher educational attainment. Eighty percent of the
dispersed group as compared to 60 percent of the
concentrated group had been to college and. in fact. were
more likely to have had three or more years of college.
(refer to Table 1 below)

Table 1 Comparison of educational backgrounds of the
major wage earners by neighborhood group.

 

 

 

EDUCATION DISPERSED CONCENTRATED 2 Difference
less than or
equal to H.S. 21 39 18
One to four
year of 80 6O 20
College

39 33 N = 72

Note: The above table contains percentages
rounded to the nearest integers.

54

Respondents noted that widely varied occupations were
held by the major wage earners of their families. The
occupations were grouped into five categories for this
investigation and were labeled as 1) unskilled 2)
semiskilled 3) highly skilled technical 4) business and
5) professional. A high correlation was found between the
two variables of education and occupation (R = .7686 at the
P = .001 level). The dispersed group was more likely to be
in occupations which required technical skills. (refer to
Table 5 in appendix B)

The age composition of the housing environment (concen-
trated/dispersed) is an important independent variable in
this investigation. The study basically hinges on the two
classifications devised. which were based on the perception
of elderly age peers in the neighborhood housing
environment. As discussed in chapter II. when there are
higher concentrations of elderly households in a given
neighborhood "they become a visible minority" (Rosov. 1967)
and are perceived as such. Thus classifications were based
on individual respondent’s perception of the age composition
in their neighborhood housing environment. The
classifications were a direct result of question 29 in the
questionnaire (see question 29 in appendix A). Respondents
were asked to consider the question "What age groups would
you say mostly live in your neighborhood or building

complex?". They were read the following categories: a.

55

young singles b. young families c. families and senior
citizens d. senior citizens and e. all age goups.

Figure 3 below shows 47 percent who said that 'all age
groups’ were represented in their neighborhood. Twenty-six
percent said that ’families and senior citizens’ mostly
lived in their neighborhoods or building complexes. Twenty
percent said that ’mostly senior citizens’ constituted the
residential make up of their neighborhood or building
complex. Only seven percent lived in settings where there
were mostly young singles or young families.

Firgure 3: The perceived age composition of respondents
neighborhoods as related to the two comparative

  
 
  
  
  
 

groups.
DISPERSED CONCENTRATED
(54x) (46%)
. .' w-——Families &
A1] Ages ' Senior Citizens

 

w—-—Senior Citizens

LEGEND Dispersed
I Concentrated [3

Responses to the question were then grouped by the

Young Singles

Young Families

perception of the individual respondents. It was
rationalized that if a significant number of respondents age
peers were also residents of their housing complex or
neighborhood. respondents would mention senior citizens in
the context of the question asked. Forty-six percent of all
the respondents mentioned senior citizens as being the

prevalent group or a prevalent group among families.

56

Fifty-four percent. on the other hand. did not mention the
elderly when asked about the age groups mostly residing in
their neighborhoods. The former group was given the name
’concentrated’ while the latter was called ’dispersed’
(refer to Table 6 in appendix B). There were rougly equal
number of young-elderly (<74 years of age) and old-elderly
(74+ years of age) respondents within the Dispersed and
Concentrated Neighborhood Housing Environments (Refer to

Figure 4 below)

Figure 4: A comparison of the age characteristics of
respondents from Dispersed and Concentrated
Housing Environments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent
N=39 N=33
100-
512 - '. 551.- Legend
_ I 3 ' 'i J ,1 Young-
50 5;'}};’;2{:}'§.’.; , .. ...“... .... E l d e r l y
49: 45:
.':':'.-'-‘:’.L‘:°;..: .:::.:..~_o:.:',:.: Elderly
Dispersed Concentrated

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

In order to analyze the data. the first order was to
create a code book. The closed ended questions and the

Likert scales were readily transfered into codes. Open

57

ended questions required a content analysis of each
question. They were therefore. coded and further recoded by
content. Some of the open ended questions such as questions
four. six. eleven. twelve. thirteen and fifteen had to be
regrouped in order to reduce the data to more manageable
proportions (see appendix A). Having done this. each of the
cases was recorded on code sheets and these were then
transfered to punch cards and on to computer files.

A Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
was used for processing the data. An analysis of the data
was limited to frequency count. contingency table analysis
and some correlation analysis. Techniques that are more
suited to statistical inferences were not utilized in this
study. Such techniques were judged to be inappropriate
given the non-probabilistic sampling technique (snow ball
sample) utilized.

On the whole. percentages were compared and the
magnitudes of differences between groups (ie. dispersed and
concentrated). and within groups by age (young-old and
old-old) were noted. Data were noted and described in
chapter four. only when the magnitudes of differences were
equal to or greater than 15 percent within and between
groups. Differences were not discussed when less than 20
percent of the respondents reported the category. A

comparison of these differences will be reported in chapter

58

four. with the aid of crosstabulations. As in chapter III.
only the tables that are of interest to the the conclusion

are highlighted by inclusion in the following chapter.

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

In this chapter the data will be analyzed and reported

in three sections. The three sections are:
l. Pers a ts
a. It includes information on who and how

many individuals among family and friends
make up the social networks of
respondents.

b. It also includes a description of the
characteristics of those named by
respondents as the ’significant others’
among their social networks.

2. ct v t t t

a. It includes information on the frequency
with which respondents contacted friends
and relatives in person at the others
homes and in their own homes over the
previous month.

b. Also included in this section is the
involvement of respondents in various
types of organizations. the number of
organizations respondents report they

belonged to. frequency of attending

59

 

 

 

60

meetings for such organized activities and
the types of organizations respondents
reported belonging to (formal and
informal).
3. Share tt t des
a. This section will investigate attitudes
and beliefs of respondents toward various
’topics related to: a. self
b. family
c. neighborhood
d. society
b. This section makes note of shared
attitudes and beliefs which may prove to
indicate that the modal characteristics of
those around the respondents (either the
"significant others" around an individual
or those individuals who share a physical
space. such as in a dwelling unit or
neighborhood housing environment) has an
influence on these attitudes and beliefs.
In doing the analysis. the data were first analyzed by
comparing the young-elderly of one housing environment with
the old-elderly of the same housing environment. In other
words. the young elderly (dispersed) were compared to the
old-elderly (dispersed) group. Similarly. the young-elderly

(concentrated) group were compared to old-elderly

61

(concentrated) group. The within grgup difference was then

made note of in the accompanying tables.

Next. the young-elderly and old-elderly of one group
was compared to the young-elderly and old-elderly of the
other group. More explicitly. the young-elderly (dispersed)
were compared to the young-elderly (concentrated). as were
the old-elderly (dispersed) compared to the old-elderly
(concentrated) group. The differences between age peers
were noted as bggwegn ggggp giffgrgggeg (also in the
accompanying tables).

The data were reported in the accompanying tables and
magnitudes of differences equal to or greater than 15
percent (within or between groups were made note of). It
was recognized that although in some cases the magnitudes of
differences were larger than the established 15 percent.
some of these differences were perhaps less relevant than
others. In that context. it is perhaps more important to
look at response categories and make particular note of the
percent of respondents in that category and then to also
make note of the magnitudes of differences within and
between the groups.

For example. in a hypothetical case where 80 percent of
all respondents specified category X. and 20 percent of
respondents specified category Y. the magnitudes of
differences in category X would perhaps be more meaningful

given the difference in the numbers (and percentages). This

62

is an exploratory study where the intent is to make note of
differences within and between groups; therefore. most of
the differences (magnitudes greater than 15 percent) will be
discussed. The emphasis will be on categories reported by
at least 50 percent of the respondents. The categories
reported by more than 21 percent but less than 49 percent
will be discussed with reserve and no discussion will take
place when less than 20 percent of the respondents report a
particular category. Magnitudes of differences greater than
15 percent will be outlined on the tables only when more
than 20 percent of the respondents report that particular
category.

For the purposes of this study. the young-elderly
respondents were defined as being less than 74 years of age.
while the old-elderly were equal to or more than 74 years of
age. These definitions were based on the fact that there
were roughly equal numbers of respondents below this age and
over this age (N=34 and N=38). The age breakdown of 74
years is close to 75 years which is used to define
’young-old’ and ’old-old’ else where (NIA 1984).

W

Personal environments of respondents were
operationalized as the individuals who were significant in
the lives of the respondents. In that regard. the number of
persons making up the networks of the individuals. the
relationships and the ages of those who were important to

the respondents were examined.

63

NUMBE OF RELA IV ND IE SP NDENT R RTED EING
CLOS 0 AND HAVIN A GU NT C W T .
AT S

Most of the respondents had relatives within 15 miles.
In general. they reported having between one and 28
relatives within that distance. More than half (57 percent)
of the respondents had between one and eight relatives with
in the specified distance. The old-elderly (concentrated)
group was more likely to report having no relatives or more
than nine relatives within the Lansing area as compared with
the other three groups. (refer to Table 7 in appendix B)

Of the relatives who were within 15 miles of the
respondents. approximately two-thirds (64 percent) reported
being in contact (by phone or face to face) with one to
seven or more relatives on a regular basis. There were no
meaningful differences within or between the four groups in
the numbers of relatives they reported being in contact with
(by phone or face to face) on a regular basis. All of them
seem to be in regular contact with similar numbers of
relatives. with more of each group reporting to be in
regular contact with between one and seven relatives.

(refer to Table 8 in appendix B)

FRIEND§

Over all. most of the respondents knew between one and

60 persons "well enough to visit with in each others homes".

 

 

 

64

The old elderly (dispersed) were less likely than their age
counterpart. the old-elderly (concentrated) group to report
that they knew between ’one and 60 persons’. however they
were more likely as a group to report knowing ’more than 60’
persons as compared to their age counterpart (the old-
elderly-concentrated). (refer to Table 9 in appendix B)
Almost half of the respondents reported having regular
contact (by phone and/or in person) with one to 12 persons:
another 44 percent were in contact with more than 13
persons. The young-elderly (concentrated) were most likely
to report being in regular contact with more than 13
persons. The old-elderly (concentrated) group were less
likely than their younger counter part (young-elderly-
concentrated) to report being in regular contact with more

than 13 persons. (refer to Table 10 in appendix B)

SU MARY OF ATA R ATED TO HE NUM ER OF PERSONS WITH WHOM
RESPONDENTS WER IN REGULAR CONTACT

In summary. it would seem that there were many
similarities between the four groups (the young and old
elderly from dispersed housing environments and the young
and the old elderly from the concentrated housing environ-
ments). Basically. they had similar numbers of relatives
and friends in Lansing and were in contact on a regular
basis with similar numbers of both. The exceptions were the
old-elderly (concentrated) group who had no relatives or
more than nine relatives. This fact did not play a role
in the frequency of contacting relatives. as they were no
more nor less likely to report ’being in regular contact
with more relatives than the other three groups.

The old-elderly (dispersed) group were more likely than
the other groups to report knowing more than 60 person
"well enough to vist with in each others homes". However.

65

the number of persons they contacted "on a regular basis"
was not greater that the other groups. in fact the old-
elderly (concentrated) were in regular contact with ’more
than 13 persons’. This may be explained by the fact that
the old-elderly (concentrated) group were more likely to
report having friends in the same neighborhood as they drew
friends locally. more than did the other groups.

DESCRIPTION OF RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO ARE MOST
SIGNIFLQANT TQ RESPONDENTS

One of the important points under consideration was
whether social interaction occurred with age peers or with
persons younger or older than themselves and to what extent

the groups differ in socializing with those younger.

R LAT V S T ON FIRS
When respondents were asked to specify the

relationships of the three relatives with whom they visited
most often. children was reported more often. Seventy-six
percent of all respondents reported the relationship of the
first relative as that of their own children. There were no
meaningful differences (differences greater than or equal to
15 percent) within and between groups. Their own children
were named most often by respondents from each of the four

groups (refer to Table 2 below).

RELATIV ENTION SECOND

The relationship of the second relative reported was
much the same as for relative mentioned first.Their own
children were mentioned more often than any other

relationships. (See Table 2 below)

66

Table 2: Relationship of the three family members with whom
respondents socialized most often in percentages.

 

 

 

 

 

RELATIVE RELATIVE RELATIVE

Relationship ONE TWO THREE

2 X X
No Relatives O 4 15
Children/in-Law 76 60 32
Sibling/in-Law 18 18 24
Parents/in-Law 4 4 6
Grandchildren 1 14 24

N=72 N=72 N272

Footnote: To compare the above group differences to those
reported for relationship of relative mentioned
first. see Table 11 in appendix B).

RELAT VES MENT 0 TH RD

When asked about the relationship of the third relative
with whom they socialized most often. responses were fairly
evenly distributed between their own 1) children. 2)
siblings. and 3) grandchildren. Table 3 below corresponds
with the relationship of relative mentioned third. It is
presented here because data differs with observations for
relative mentioned first and second. Table 3 presented the

with-in and between-group differences.

67

Table 3: Relationship of relative mentioned third by
neighorhood group and by age group.

DISPERSED CONCENTRATED Group Differnce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship (74 74+ <74 74+ Within between
X X X X X D C Y/O 0/0

No relatives 15 11 15 13 22 4 9 2 7

Children/inlaw 32 42 2O 47 22 22 _2g 5 2

Siblings/inlaw 24 16 40 13 22 [a 9 3 3—5

Parents/inlaw 6 11 O 7 6 11 l 4 6

Grandchildren 24 21 25 2O 27 4 7 1 2

19 20 15 18 N=72

Note: Reported as percentages.

Children/in laws were again mentioned by more
respondents as the third relative with whom they socialized
most often as compared to other relatives. Thirty-two
percent of the respondents gave that response. Siblings and
grandchildren were mentioned equally as often. Each was
mentioned by 24 percent of the respondents (refer to Table 2
above). There were some interesting differences however
within and between groups. Their own ’children’ were
mentioned by fewer older-elderly (of both housing groups)
than by the young-elderly. In mentioning children the
differences between the young-old and old-old (from within
each of the two housing environments was 22 percent and 25
percent respectively). The old-elderly (dispersed) group

were most likely to report a sibling as the third relative

 

 

68

with whom they socialized most often. (Refer to Table 3

above)

FRIENDS
Age chagacteristigs 9f friends mentigned first

When respondents were asked the ages of the three
friends with whom they socialized. 72 percent reported the
ages of friends as being over 60. Data supports earlier
investigations. that social interaction occurs mostly with
age peers. This was true for all four groups. On the
whole. 50 percent or more of each of the four categories
reported the ages of their friends to be between 61 years
and 75 years. In general. the young-elderly (from both
housings environments) were more likely to have younger
friends (16 to 60 years). whereas the old-elderly (from both
housing environments) were more likely to have friends older

than 76 years of age. (Refer to Table 4 below)

Table 4: Age of friend mentioned first with whom the
respondents visited most often by neighborhood
group and age group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age of Z DISPERSED CONCENTRATED Group Difference
Friend (74 74+ <74 74+

D C Y/O 0/0

F”?

16-60 28 37 15 33 28 22 5 4 Q3)

61-75 61 63 65 67 50 2 l7 4 15

76+ 11 0 20 O 22 2O 22 O 2

19 20 15 18

N=72

 

 

69

Sixty-five percent of the old-elderly (dispersed) group
reported the ages of their friends as being between 61 and
75 years of age. 50 percent of the old-elderly
(concentrated) group also gave that response. The magnitude
of difference was 15 percent.

Data indicated that the older-elderly (dispersed) group
had contact with the older age groups and were least likely
to have friends younger than 60 years. The old-elderly
(concentrated) group drew friends from somewhat a larger age
spectrum. They were more likely to report having older
friends as well as younger friends (the magnitude of
difference was almost 15 percent). This observation is
interesting given the fact that old-elderly (dispersed)
respondents live in neighborhoods where the elderly are not
significant in numbers while the old-elderly (concentrated)
group live in neighborhoods where the age concentration is
higher.

The ages of friends mentioned second and third were
similar to the ages mentioned first and thus are not being

presented here. (refer to Table 12 in appendix B).

SUMMARY OF DATA DESCRIBING FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WITH WHOM
THEY VISITLD ON A REGULAR BASIS

On the whole. respondents from all four groups reported
their children as the ones they were most in contact with
among their relatives: however. when asked about the
relationship of the relative mentioned third. the old-
elderly (dispersed) group were less likely to mention
children and more likely to mention siblings above all
other relationships.

 

 

70

Social interaction of all four groups occurred with age
peers; however the old-elderly (dispersed) group were less
likely to report friends from among the younger age groups
as compared to old-elderly (concentrated) group who drew
friends from a larger spectrum of age groups.

As no information regarding ages for relatives was
gathered. it is assumed that an age gradient is involved
between the grandchildren. children. sibling and parent
generations. With this assumption. the inescapable obser-
vation was that the old-elderly from the dispersed group
seem to be involved (to a greater degree) with a ”subgroup"
of age peers both within the family and within the friend-
ship circle.

A NT

Activity Orientation was described as the frequency
with which respondents contacted relatives and friends and
the extent to which respondents were involved in

organizations.

W

Freggeggy of yisiting relativeg ig persgn at gash gtherg
hem

Respondents were asked "how often do you visit in
person (at your home or theirs) any relatives with whom you
have a regular contact". The question was not limited to
relatives who lived in town. By and large respondents
visited with relatives more often than once a month. Almost
three quarters of the respondents said that they visited
with relatives ’somewhat frequently’. while another 26

percent reported that they did so infrequently). In other

71

words. they reported visiting with relatives as often as
once a month or more (up to once a week). Basically. all the
four groups personally visited with relatives. and there
were no meaningful differences within and between groups in
the frequency with which they visited with relatives.

(Table 5 follows)

Table 5: Frequency of personally visiting relatives in an
out of town by neighborhood grouping and by age.
in percentages.

 

 

 

Group
Difference
Frequency DISPERSED CONCENTRATED Within Between
of visiting Z (74 74+ (74 74+ D C Y/O O/O
r-si
Infreq 26 21 35 20 23 1135 s 1 7
. 1"
Somewhat 73 79 65 so 73 ‘ 315.5 7 1 8
Very freq
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: Infrequently = (less often than once a

month but once a year) Somewhat freq =
once a week to to once a month Very freq =
(more than once a week to every day).

73 percent of all respondent reported personally visiting

relatives ’somewhat frequently and very frequently’.

 

72

The number f times durin e st month that re atives
visit d re nde ts n eir m

More than half (58 percent) of the respondents reported
that they had been visited by relatives between ’one and
four’ times during the month preceding the interview.
Twenty-six percent of them reported having had no relatives
visit in their own homes over the same period. Fifteen
percent said that they had been visited by relatives more
than five times over the period specified above.

Sixty-seven percent of the young-elderly (concentrated)
group reported that they had relatives visit them in their
homes. between one and four times. where as only 47 percent
of the young-elderly (dispersed) group also reported that
category. The young-elderly (dispersed) group were more
likely to report having had relatives visit in their own
home more than five times over the past month than the other

three groups. (refer to Table 13 in appendix B)

F I NDS

Freguency of pegsgnally visiting with friends (othgr thgg

over the phgne)

When respondents were asked about the frequency of
visiting friends. approximately two thirds (67 percent) of
them reported that they visited with friends ’very

frequently’ ie. every other day if not every day. There

73

were some rather interesting differences between the four
groups in that a larger percent (85 percent) of the
old-elderly (dispersed) group said that they ’very
frequently’ personally visited with friends as compared to
the other groups. The magnitude of within group difference
(between the young-elderly dispersed and old-elderly
dispersed) and particularly between groups (old-elderly
dispersed and old-elderly concentrated group) was large.

(refer to Table 14 in appendix B)

h u r s t w s te e d n
ter t

Half of the respondents reported that they had been
visited by friends between one and four times over the
previous month. while a third of them reported having had
friends over to visit more than five times during the
previous month. There were basically no meaningful
differences in responses given by respondents from the four
groups. Approximately equivalent percent of respondents
reported that they had had relatives visit them in their own
homes between ’zero times’ to ’more than five times during

the previous month. (Refer to Table 15 in appendix B)

 

 

74

SUMM O D A E T D O R U NCY OF VISI G TH

ENIENQS AND RELAEIZE§

In summary. it would seem that most of the respondents
were active in visiting relatives and friends. The largest
group of respondents reported visting with relatives ’some-
what frequently’. while the largest group of respondents
reported that they personally visited with friends ’very
frequently’. This supports the observation that the day-to-
day interaction of most of the respondents was with age
peers and social exchange was primarily with friends rather
than with family.

The four groups were fairly similar in the responses
they gave to the frequency with which they visited relatives
in each others homes. However. the young-elderly
dispersed) group tended to be most likely to report having
relatives visit them more often in their own homes in the
previous month.

In visiting with friends. the old-elderly (dispersed)
group was the most active of all the other groups. A large
percent of them reported visiting friends very frequently
(every other day if not every day). They were some what
(23 percent) more likely to give that response as compared
to the other groups. However. they were not more likely to
report having friends visit them (in the preceding month in
their own homes) more often than the other groups.

Nu be a izati i h nts ed

Belonging to organizations was very common among the
respondents. Ninety-eight percent of them reported
belonging to between one and 14 organizations. Only about
two percent did not report belonging to any organizations of
any kind.

On the whole. the young-elderly (dispersed and
concentrated) groups tended to report belonging to fewer
organizations (one to four) than did the old—elderly

(dispersed and concentrated) who were more likely to report

 

 

 

75

belonging to more than five organizations (refer to Table 16
in appendix B). This observation is contrary to the
discussion in chapter II where it was noted that with age
there is a tendency toward reduced organizational
participation. The data could be explained by the personal
observation from the interviewing experience. Many of the
respondents tended to claim membership in organizations over
their life span rather than at the time of the interview.
For example. they would name organizations and then would
say that they did not attend meetings for it. Perhaps. the
question was misunderstood by some respondents. but the fact
that older members claimed membership in more organizations
was in itself an interesting fact. Belonging to
organizations seemed to be regarded highly among the
respondents. It can be conjectured that this question did
not really tap the information about actual membership in
organizations but rather the attitudes toward belonging to
such organizations (and perhaps attitudes towards activity)
within the ’Subculture’ of the elderly (Table 16 in appendix

B).

Freguegcy 9f Organizatigngl Participatigg
Although the older-elderly (both groups) claimed

membership in more organizations than the young. there were
no differences (greater than 12 percent) within and between

the groups in terms of the frequency with which they

 

 

76

attended meetings for such organized activities (refer to

Table 17 in appendix B).

T e f Or a i at n t c r de t bel n ed

Respondents belonged to both formal and informal types
of organizations. The range of formal types of
organizations was considerable. They belonged to hospital
auxillaries. gardening clubs. Retired Seniors Volunteer
Program (RSVP). profession-related organizations and
church-related organizations.

By far. church sponsored organizations were mentioned
first above all other types of organizations. Approximately
three quarters percent of the respondents reported belonging
to at least one. The concentrated group (young-elderly and
old-elderly) were more likely than the dispersed group
(young-elderly and old-elderly) to report belonging to a
church-sponsored organization. The young-elderly
(concentrated) group were more likely than their age peers
(young-elderly dispersed) to report belonging to a
church-sponsored organization. whereas the young-elderly
dispersed group were more likely to report belonging to a
larger range of organizations. (refer to Table 19 in
appendix B)

The types of organizations reported second were (in
rank order) social service related organizations (22

percent). church sponsored (18 percent). hobby-related (17

77

percent). Forty-three percent of the organizations
mentioned second were labeled as ’other’. (refer to Table

18 in appendix B)

el r l t r i

By and large. informal types of organizations such as
bridge clubs. coffee klatches were reported infrequently.
Almost three quarters (74 percent) of the respondents did
not report belonging to any ’informal’ types of
organizations. Of the 26 percent who reported belonging to
informal groups. they were likely to report only one such
organization. Over all. the dispersed group (young-elderly
and old-elderly) were more likely to report belonging to
such an informal type of organization than were the
concentrated groups; however. there were no meaningful
differences within and between the groups. Equivalent
percent of each of the four groups reported belonging to an
’informal’ type of organization (refer to Table 20 in

appendix B).

UM A OF S ON ON 0 GA 12 T NA PARTICIPATION

Belonging to organizations was very common among the
respondents. The observation that older elderly reported
belonging to more organizations is contrary to research
findings (discussed earlier in chapter II). that with
increasing age. membership and participation in organi-
zations of various types is reduced.

Although. older-elderly respondents reported belonging
to more organizations than did the young-elderly. they were
not more likely to attend meetings for such organized
activities. There were no meaningful differences between or
within groups in the frequency of attending such meetings.

 

 

78

Respondents reported belonging to organizations of
various types. The concentrated group was more likely to
report belonging to a church sponsored organization that was
the dispersed group. This was true of the young-elderly
(concentrated) group to a greater extent as they were most
likely to name such an organization. while the young-elderly
(dispersed) group were more likely to report belonging to a
range of organizations not related to church.

Of the respondents (26 percent) who reported belonging
to informal types of organizations. only one such informal
type of organization was mentioned by them. The dispersed
group was somewhat more likely to name an informal organi-
zation: however. the difference was less than the
established 15 percent within and between groups.

S A T I U E

Shared attitudes were recorded (between and within the
four groups) toward self. family. neighborhood and society.
This was done by using two methods of questioning. One of
the methods involved administering a Lickert Scale where a
statement was read to the respondents and for each statement
read they were asked if they ’strongly agreed’. 'agreed’.
’neither agreed or disagreed’. ’disagreed’. or ’strongly
disagreed’ with it. The other method illicited respondents
own attitudes and beliefs. It involved giving the
respondents the stem of a statement which was then completed

in their own words.

What attitudes and beliefs a person holds about his/her
health. how ’important’ one believes one is to others and

how he/she interprets social order in this world are all

 

 

79

inextricably related. The section on ’Self’ reports on
group differences in attitudes toward one’s own health.
one’s body. toward aging. importance of self to others. and

one’s perception of how others see the respondent.

"I t A
When respondents were read the statement "I consider my
self to be healthy". most (96 percent) of the respondents
either ’agreed’ or ’strongly agreed’ with the statement.
The fact that respondents agreed that they were healthy
reinforced one of the assumptions of the study. that the
sample was. in fact. in good health. The groups differed as
they endorsed the statement with differing emphasis on the
statement. Some respondents ’strongly agreed’ with the
statement while others just ’agreed’ with it. For example.
the dispersed group (both young-elderly and old-elderly)
’agreed’ with the statement while a greater percent of the
concentrated group (young-elderly and old-elderly) ’strongly
agreed’ with it. A larger percent (67 percent) of the
young-elderly (concentrated) endorsed the statement by
’strongly agreeing’ with the statement (as compared to their
age peers (the young elderly dispersed) as well as their
older counterpart. In other words the (young-elderly-
concentrated group) were most likely to ’strongly agree’
that they ’consider them selves to be healthy. (Refer to

Table 21 in appendix B)

 

80

" y pgdy..."

When respondents were asked to complete the stem
statement "My body...". responses were categorized in six
ways. The two categories given by more than twenty percent

of the respondents and therfore. are being discussed here

were ’importance of body’ and (positive) physical condition
of body.’ On the whole. the concentrated group was more
likely than the dispersed group (both young and old) to make
positive statements about their body. Again. the young-
elderly (concentrated) group was most likely to complete the
stem statements with a positive response related to the
physical conditions of their bodies than the other groups.
Forty-seven percent of the young-elderly (concentrated)
group said some thing positive about their body such as:

"my body is healthy" or ”is sound" (Refer to Table 22 in

appendix B).

" cgnsider my self t9 be impgrtant t9 9thers"

Respondents were read the statement "I consider myself
to be important to others". The majority of respondents (86
percent) ’agreed or strongly agreed’ with the statement.
Less than 20 percent were ’undecided’ or ’disagreed’ with
the statement. All (100 percent) of the young-elderly
(dispersed) group agreed with the statement while only 70
percent of the old-elderly (dispersed) group ’agreed’ (a 30

percent within group difference). The young-elderly

 

81

(dispersed) group were not only more likely than their older
counter part to agree.but they were more likely to do so
when compared to their age peers (the young elderly

concentrated group). (refer to Table 23 in appendix B).

" g I “£9! 21422..."

Respondents were asked to complete the stem statement
"As I grow older...". Completed statements were coded in
two different ways. The first required statements such as
"get wiser". "appreciate family more”. "more time to do my
work" to be labeled as ’positive statements’. Statements
such as "more aches and pains". "more limitations" to be
labeled as ’negative statements’ and statements such as
"more aches and pains (smile)". "realize how important
health is" to be labeled as ’neutral’. Responses that did
not fit any of the categories were entered as ’other’ (Table
24 in appendix B).

’Positive’ and ’negative’ endings such as those
described above were given by more than 20 percent of the
respondents. Nearly equivalent percent of each of the four
groups completed the stems with positive statements.
However. the old-elderly (concentrated) group were most
likely to complete the stem "As I grow older..." with

endings such as "more aches and pains more limitations".
They were more likely than their younger counter-part

(young-elderly- concentrated group) and age peers (old-

 

82

elderly-dispersed) to give such negative endings to the

stems provided. (refer to Table 24 in appendix B).

"As 1 gzgw gldeg..."

When responses to the stem statement "As I grow

older... were categorized by content. four categories were
made note of and labeled. The two that are discussed here
are: l) Philosophy/adaptability and 2) physiology/health.
Sixty percent of the statements (such as "As I grow older
(I) get more tolerant”. or "As I grow older (I) get wiser")
were categorized as Philosophy/Adaptability: while 29
percent of the statements such as "watching for wrinkles".
"more aches and pains" were labeled ’physiology/health’.
More of the young-elderly (from both dispersed and
concentrated) groups and the old-elderly (dispersed) group
talked about growing older with sentiments related to
adaptability/philosophy. The old-elderly (concentrated)
group was least likely to talk about aging by referring to
'adaptability’. The old-elderly (concentrated) group were
more likely to complete the stem statement about aging by
talking about the physiological aspects of aging such as
"wrinkles". "more aches and pains". Half of all the
old-elderly (concentrated) group gave such stem completion
statements. while only 15 percent of the old-elderly

(dispersed) group did so. (Refer to Table 25 in appendix B).

 

83

"Pegple think gf me as..."

The final question relating to ’Self’ asked the
respondents about their perception of how others saw them.
Respondents were asked to complete the stem "People think of
me as...". Five categories were defined by the content of
the statements. The two categories labeled ’doer’ and ’kind
and loving’ were each mentioned by between 25 percent and 47
of the respondents. More people believed that others saw
them as ’kind and loving’ than as a ’doer’. The former was
mentioned by 47 percent of the respondents while 25 percent
mentioned the latter. Typical sentences in the former
category were "(people think of me as) friendly and
helpful". "community grandmother" and "good guy". The
young-elderly (from both housing groups) were more likely
than the old-elderly of either group to believe that others
saw them as ’kind and loving’. Approximately three quarters
of the young elderly (concentrated) group completed the stem
with such endings. Only about half (47 percent) of the
young-elderly (dispersed) group completed the sentence with
statements such as "good guy". "friendly and helpful".

’Doers’ were people who reported that others saw them
as "dependable". "strong and self-sufficient". "competent"
or "willing to take responsibility". The dispersed group
(young and old) were more likely to believe that others saw
them as ’doers’. The concentrated group was less likely to

respond in that manner. (refer to Table 26 in appendix B).

84

SUMMAR OF ATTITU ES TOWARD 8 LF

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the statement "I
Consider myself to be healthy". The dispersed group (young
and old) endorsed the statement by agreeing with it while
the concentrated group (young and old) were more likely to
’strongly agree’ with it. The young-elderly (concentrated)
group had the highest portion of respondents to ’strongly
agree’ with the statement about health.

When respondents were asked to complete the stem "My
body..." A larger percent of the concentrated group (young
and old) gave statements that reinforced the responses they
gave about health. The concentrated group completed the
stem statement about their body by describing it in
’positive’ terms such as "is healthy" or "is sound". The
young-elderly (concentrated) group was most likely to
describe it in those terms as compared to the other groups

"As I grow older..." was analyzed in two ways. First
by coding it as positive. neutral. and negative statements.
The second was grouped by subject. There were no meaninful
difference between the four groups in that equivalent
percentages of each group gave ’positive’ endings to the
statements. However. the old-elderly (concentrated) group
were more likely to complete the stems with ’negative’
statements such as "more aches and pains". "more limita-
tions".

Content was then coded by subject matter. Most of the
respondents completed the stems "As I grow older..." with
statements such as "(I) get wiser" or "(I get) more tolerant
which were labeled as ’adaptability/philosophy’. The older
elderly (concentrated) group was least likely to complete
stems with such endings. On the other hand. the dispersed
groups were less likely than the concentrated groups to
complete the stems with statements related to physiology/
health aspects of aging. The old-elderly (concentrated)
group were most likely to complete stems with such endings.

When asked to complete the stem statement "People think
of me as...". statements related to categories ’kind and
loving’ and ’doer’ were each given by more than 20 percent
of the respondents. The young elderly (dispersed and
concentrated) groups believed that others thought of them as
kind and loving’. They tended to complete the stems with
statements such as "friendly and helpful". "community grand-
mother". Young-elderly (concentrated) group was the most
likely to complete sentences with such statements. The
dispersed groups (young and old elderly) reported that
others thought of them as ’doers’ and completed the state-
ment "People think of me as..." "competent. "strong and self
sufficient.

85

EAMILI

A family is. first of all. an institution. within which
there exists a mutually interacting system of personalities
related by blood. marriage. descent. or adoption. performing
the function of nurturant socialization (Morris and Winter.
1978). It has already been mentioned that for the elderly
the family is an important reference group. especially at

times of illness and personal emergencies (chapter II).

"Cgmpgrgd with mgst fgmiligg...."

Approximately two thirds (63 percent) of the
respondents completed the statement "Compared with most
families. mine...". with positive endings such as "is nice".
"is great" or "is very understanding". About 29 percent
gave ’neutral’ endings to the stems such as "is average".
"is normal" etc. More than 50 percent of each group gave
such ’positive’ endings to the statement about their
families: however. the largest percent of old-elderly
(concentrated) group reported ’positive’ endings to the stem

and were less ’neutral’ about their families than were the

other three groups. (see Table 27 in appendix B)

"_£_L§_megy£§nt to 25 nggr familyI even if one is far from
friends"
Respondents were asked if they ’strongly agreed'.

’agreed’. ’neither agreed nor disagreed’. ’disagreed’. or

86

’strongly disagreed’ with the statement "It is important to
be near family even if one is somewhat far from friends".

More than half of the respondents (56 percent) ’agreed
or strongly agreed’ with the statement. Twenty-eight
percent ’strongly disagreed or disagreed’ with the
statement. In general the old elderly were more apt than
the young-elderly to ’agree or strongly agree’ that "it is
important to live near family even if one is some what far
from friends". Almost three quarters of old-elderly
(concentrated) group ’agreed or strongly agreed’ with the
statement and were more likely (by more than 15 percent)
than their younger counterpart (young-elderly concentrated)
to do so. Only 32 percent of the young-elderly (dispersed)
group agreed with the statement. There were no meaningful
differences between the four groups as equivalent
percentages of each group ’disagreed’ with the statement.
The magnitudes of differences were less than 15 percent

(refer to table 28 in appendix B).

SU M Y OF TIT T WA D F I Y

It would seem that almost two thirds of the respondents
described their families with adjectives that were

’positive’. The next largest group completed the sentences
with ’neutral’ endings such as "is average" or "is no
different". The old-elderly (concentrated) group was most

likely to complete stems with positive endings and least
likely to describe their family with neutral statements.
When importance of proximity to family was analyzed.
proximity to family. (even though one may be far from
friends) was important to a larger percent of the old-
elderly (dispersed and concentrated) groups. It was
important to most of the old-elderly (concentrated) group
72 percent of them agreed with the statement). On the other

, 'MJ

 

 

 

87

hand. the young-elderly (dispersed) group had the lowest
percent of respondents (32 percent) who agreed with the
statement "It is important to be near family even if one is
somewhat far from friends".

NEIGHNONNOOD

The concept of ’neighborhood’ is important to
individuals. Whether an individual believes him/herself to
be ’integrated’ within their neighborhood. the attitudes a
person held about the age composition of their neighborhood
are all important elements of this section. An individual’s
definition may have coincided with ’proximate space’ (such
as a city block) or with the "distinguishing characteristics
of that space" (Webster.1963). Examples of "distinguishing
characteristics of space" may have to do with:

a) The physical characteristics of the region (such as
an apartment complex or a development of single
family dwelling units).

b) The characteristics of persons within one’s
perceptual distance (age of residents might be an
important distinguishing characteristic of space).

" feel ver muc a art f m nei hb rh od"

The question respondents were asked to consider about
the neighborhood was "I feel very much a part of my
neighborhood". Approximately three quarters (71 percent) of

them ’agreed or strongly agreed’ with the statement. In

88

general. a larger percent of the young-elderly groups (from
both housing environments) as compared to the old—elderly
groups ’agreed or strongly agreed’ that they felt very much
a part of their neighborhoods. The young-elderly
(concentrated) group were almost unanimous (93 percent) in
their support of the statement: however. a little nore than
half of their older counterpart (old-elderly concentrated)

agreed with the statement. (refer to Table 29 in appendix

B).
"ngple ghgulg liyg jg neighhgrhgggg wherg there is a
mi t r es"

Two statements (about desired age composition) were
read to the respondents (refer to questions 41 and 44 in
appendix A). The first statement read to the respondents
was "People should live in neighborhoods where there is a
mixture of all ages". The second statement was similar to

the first and was read as Pegple should live in neighbor—

h s e t e e a r al h h ne
is far frgm friends". Responses to these two statements

differed. Eighty-five percent of the respondents ’agreed or
strongly agreed’ with the first statement. They felt that
"people should live in neighborhoods where there is a
mixture of all ages". However. agreement with this
statement was not evenly shared by the four groups. The

young-elderly (dispersed) group unanimously agreed with the

89

statement as did more than 85 percent of the young and
old-elderly (concentrated) groups. The old-elderly
(dispersed) group were least likely to ’agree’; however. 70
percent of them concurred with the statement. (refer to
Table 6 and 7 which follow)

Table 6: Responses to the question "people should live in
neighborhoods where there is a mixture of all

 

 

 

 

ages".

Response to DISPERSED CONCENTRATED Group Difference
statement Z (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between

D C Y/O O/O
S.disagree.
disagree 8 O 10 7 O 10 7 7 10
Undecided 7 O 10 7 11 2O 4 7 9
S.agree. F“?
agree 85 100 70 86 89 a 3 [143

19 2O 15 18
N=72

Table 7: Responses to the statement "people should live in
neighborhoods where there is a mixture of all ages
even though one is far from friends".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to DISPERSED CONCENTRATED Group Difference
statement X (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
D C Y/O 0/0
S.disagree.
disagree 21 11 5 33 22 6 31 42 17
Undecided 15 32 5 7 17 27 10 25 12
S.agree. . . .
agree 64 58 90 40 61 32 18 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

19 20 15 18
N=72

90

Fe s ld e n b d w re th re is xture
f a e r u 3 even th u h ne s ar f frie .

When the question was asked with a slightly different
ending as compared to the former question. the responses
were interesting. Whereas 85 percent of the respondents
’agreed. or strongly agreed’ with the first statement
related to desired age composition of neighborhood. only 64
percent of them agreed that "people should live in
neighborhoods where there is a mixture of all ages. even
though one is some what far from friends". The four groups
were divided in their opinion about the second statement.

On the whole. the old-elderly (dispersed and concentrated)
groups tended to agree with it as compared to the young-
elderly groups. Ninety percent of the old-elderly dispersed
and 61 percent of the old-elderly concentrated group agreed
with the statement while only 58 and 40 percent of the
young-elder counterpart did so. The within group
differences were greater than 15 percent. The old-elderly
(dispersed) group almost unanimously (90 percent) agreed
with the second version of the statement. indicating that
living in neighborhoods close to where friends lived was not
an important criterion for them. Less than 61 percent of
each of the other three groups (young-elderly dispersed:
young and old-elderly concentrated) also agreed with the
statement. The magnitudes within and between housing
environment groups were greater than 15 percent (refer to

Table 7 above).

 

u. . r: Nana-“militia.

 

91

Only 21 percent of the respondents ’disagreed’ with the
statement "people should live in neighborhoods where there
is a mixture of all ages. even though one is some what far
from friends". Overall. a larger proportion of the
concentrated group ’disagreed’ with the statement.
Approximately half (53 percent) of the young-elderly
(concentrated) group disagreed with the statement while only
a fifth (23 percent of their older counterpart (old—elderly
concentrated) also disagreed.

On the whole. the concentrated group was more likely to
disagree with the second statement. A larger proportion of
the young-elderly (concentrated) group as compared to their
age peers ’disagreed’ with the statement. Clearly. to this
group proximity to friends was more important than being in
a neighborhood where there is a mixture of ages. The
old-elderly (concentrated) group to a lesser extent than
their younger counterpart ’disagreed’ with the statement.

(refer to Table 7 above).

S MMAR TT S D G O HOOD

On the whole. three quarters of the respondents ’agreed
or strongly agreed’ with the statement "I feel very much a

part of my neighborhood". The young-elderly (of both
housing groups) were more likely to agree with the statement
as compared to the older elderly group as a whole. The

young-elderly (concentrated) group were almost unanimous
(93 percent) in agreement with the statement; however.
agreement was 50 percent among their older counterparts

(old-elderly concentrated group). Most of the respondents
(85 percent) agreed that "people should live in neighbor-
hoods where there is a mixture of all ages". The young-

elderly (dispersed) group unanimously (100 percent) agreed
with the statement and were joined in agreement by more than

92

80 percent of the young-elderly (concentrated) and old-
elderly (concentrated) groups. The old-elderly (dispersed)
group was the exception. Less than three quarters (70
percent) of this group agreed that "People should live in
neighborhoods where there is a mixture of all ages" It must
be noted that this group. the old-elderly (dispersed). did
in fact live in neighborhoods which were recongnized by them
to have a mixtue of age groups.

The last question related to neighborhoods. also dealt
ith the age composition of neighborhoods. A smaller
ercent of respondents (64 percent) agreed with the state-
ent "people should live in neighborhoods where there is a

mixture of all ages. even though one is far from friends".
as compared to the former statement. A larger proportion

of the older-elderly (dispersed and concentrated) groups
were less likely to ’agree’. The Old-elderly (dispersed)
group who were least likely to agree. that "people should
live in neighborhoods where there is a mixture of all ages.
were most likely to agree that they should live in neighbor-
hoods where there is a mixture of all ages. even if one is
somewhat far from people of one’s own age.

A little over 20 percent of respondents ’disagreed’
with the statement that "people should live in neighborhoods
where there is a mixture of all ages. even though one is
somewhat far from firends". More than half (53 percent) of
the young-elderly (concentrated) group agreed with the
statement. They were more likely however. than the other
three groups to disagree with the statement.

mm

The attitudes a person holds about 'society’ are in a
sense directed toward a faceless undefined entity. These
attitudes are based on one’s own ongoing life experiences
and in that regard. one’s attitudes about Self. Family. and

Neighborhood are important to how one views ’Society’.

"Society is gggd t9 glder pegple"

Almost three quarters (72 percent) of the respondents
agreed that "Society is good to older people". The old-

elderly (concentrated) group were unanimous in their

93

agreement with this statement. They were more likely than
their younger counterpart (young-elderly concentrated group)
and their age peers (old-elderly dispersed group) to agree
with the statement as given.(refer to Table 30 in appendix

3)

"T9 mg 53; wgrlg 1993;..."

The second stem statement in this section asked
respondents about their evaluation of the world. They were
read the stem statement "To me the world looks...".
Slightly less than half (46 percent) of the respondents
completed the statements with ’negative’ endings such as "in
turmoil". "a dangerous place". or "scary". Approximately
one third (36 percent) of all respondents ended the
statements with ’positive’endings such as "beautiful.
wonderful". "rose colored". and "sunny".

On the whole. a larger percent of the concentrated
group (both young and old) as compared to the dispersed
group gave negative endings to the stem "To me the world

0'

looks... Age was an important factor among respondents
from the dispersed housing environment. A larger percent
(45 percent) of the old-elderly (dispersed) group ended the

stem "to me the world looks... with negative endings.
whereas only 26 percent of their younger counterpart did so.
Almost two-thirds of the young-elderly (concentrated) group

reported that the world looked to them in negative terms

such as"a dangerous place". "in turmoil" and "scary".

 

 

kirI’E.

 

94

Thirty-four percent more respondents from the young-elderly
(concentrated group) completed the stems with negative
endings as compared to their age peers (young-elderly
dispersed).

A larger percent of the dispersed (both young and old)
group completed the stems with positive endings such as the
ones described above. Positive endings were given by more
than half (58 percent) of the young-elderly (dispersed)
group. A larger percent of them ended the stems with
positive adjectives when compared to the other three groups
(the within and particularly the between group differences
were note-worthy). There was a 38 percent difference
between the young-elderly age peers from the two housing
environments). and a within group difference of 23 percent
between the young-elderly and old-elderly from the dispersed

housing environment. (Refer to Table 31 in appendix B)

hgpg I neyer .....

The content of the responses were related to
dependency and/or to social situations. As these responses
are related to society in some sense. they are being
included in this section.

Approximately. half (49 percent) of the respondents
completed the sentences with statements related to
’dependency’. Statements such as "be disabled". "come to
the point where I can’t take care of my self". "have to

depend on my children" were typical sentiments and were

95

labeled as ’dependent’. Twenty-one percent of the
respondents completed the sentences with sentiments that
were related to social situations and were therefore labeled
as ’social’. They completed the sentence "I hope I
never...". with statements such as: "make any one angry" or
"become garulous and troublesome".

On the whole. respondents from the dispersed group were
more likely to complete the statements with endings related
to dependency in some way: however. there were no meaningful
differences between individual groups in the responses
given. Equivalent percentages of each of the four groups
completed the stem "1 hope I never" with endings that were
categorized as 'dependent’ or ’social’. In rank order. each
of the four groups completed the statements with the hope

that they did not have to be ’dependent’ nor ’troublesome’

to others in any way. (Refer to Table 32 in appendix B)

SUMM OF T TU ES TOWARD CIETY

Most (72 percent) of the respondents agreed that

society is good to older people". The old-elderly (concen-
trated) group was almost unanimous in their agreement of the
above statement. A larger percent of them ’agreed’ with the

statement as compared to the other three groups.

When respondents were asked to complete the sentence.
"To me the world looks...". responses were coded as
’positive’. ’neutral’ and ’negative’. Negative stem endings
were given by a larger percent of the respondents while
positive stem endings were given by a smaller percent of
them. A larger percent of the respondents (young-elderly
and old-elderly) from the concentrated housing environments

described the world in negative terms while more of the

96

dispersed group completed the stems with positive endings.
Age was an important factor with the dispersed group. More
older-elderly respondents from the dispersed group as
compared to their younger counterpart ended the sentence
with negative descriptions of the state of the world. The
young-elderly (dispersed) group were most likely to be
positive about "the world".

Finally. the stem endings to the statements "I hope I
never..." were analyzed. The content suggests that
’dependency’ and ’social’ aspects were of concern to the
respondents. These concerns were shared by all four groups
as there were no meaningful differences noted between them.
The sentiments verbalized by the respondents were that they
would not have to be dependent on others nor be troublesome
to others.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY

Conclusions drawn from this investigations will be
discussed in this chapter. followed by the implications of
these findings for future research. Several themes have
emerged through this study and the concepts are interwoven
within it. These themes were presented and summarized in
the preceding chapter and are as follows:

1. Personal Environment

a. "significant others"
b. description of significant others

2. Activity Orientation

a. interaction with family and friends
b. membership in organizations
3. Shared Attitudes Toward
a. Self
b. Family
c. Neighborhood

d. Society/world.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The summary of data and the conclusions drawn from this

study were based on a non-probabilistic sampling technique

97

98

and. therefore. it is necessary to make note of the fact
that findings from this study can not be extended and
generalized to the larger elderly population.

Another caveat that is important to note at this
juncture is that educational and occupational differences
existed between the respondents from dispersed and
concentrated housing environments. These differences were
not controlled to the extent desired. thus differences noted
in this investigation may be attributed to socio-economic
backgrounds of the groups. Future studies will need to hold

such differences constant.

MAIN QONCLQSIQNS OF STUD!

One of the objectives of this study was to provide an
insight into the parameters important in social and
attitudinal dynamics of elderly individuals. The two
independent variables that were the focus of this
investigation have already been specified as:

1. Perceived housing concentration and
2. Age of respondent

The first inescapable conclusion that was drawn from
this investigation was that (perceived) age concentration of
the neighborhood (housing environment) was an important
variable related to the social processes of individuals.

This was concluded on the basis of the fact that although

99

the dispersed and concentrated groups were similar in many
respects. the differences outnumbered the similarities.
Overall there were many more instances where the groups were
meaningfully different than they were similar.

Similarities and differences that were found in the
context of ’Personal Environments’ of respondents from
dispersed and concentrated neighborhood housing
environments. are discussed to illustrate the point that the
two groups (though not totally different from each other)
differed in many important ways. For instance. when
respondents were asked about the relationship of the
relatives with whom they were in regular contact. all four
groups reported their own children first. above any other
relationship. However. the old-elderly (dispersed) group
were more likely. when compared to the other groups to
report a sibling/in-law as the third relative with whom they
were in regular contact.

The fact that respondents from dispersed and
concentrated neighborhood housing environments were similar
in reporting the number of times they were visited by
friends over the past month. but differed in the reporting
of being visited by relatives over the same period
illustrates the important ways in which the ’Activity
Orientation’ of groups differed. For example. there were no

meaningful differences between groups in the number of times

100

respondents reported having friends visit in their own homes
over the past month: however. there were differences when
groups were compared on the basis of the number of times
they had reported having relatives visit over in the same
period.

Chapter IV is replete with examples of more differences
than similarities in ’Shared Attitudes’ toward Self. Family.
Neighborhood and Society. The one exception has to do with

the open ended statement "I hope I never...’. There were no
meaningful differences between the two neighborhood housing
environment groups in the responses they gave to the
statement. The two groups were equally likely to complete
the stem by talking about ’dependency’ and about ’social
situations’ such as being "troublesome" or a "bother".

Other than the fact that the differences out-numbered
similarities. another basis for the conclusion that was
drawn has to do with the magnitude of differences between
the dispersed and the concentrated groups. Differences were
even more striking when shared attitudes were analyzed.

Clearly. age was an important variable in social
dynamics. Having studied a cross section of ages. it may
well be that the differences noted in chapter IV were due to
aging of individuals. However tempting as it may be to

assume these differences as being due to aging. it may be

prudent to keep in mind that they may be attributed to a

101

co-hort effect in light of the fact that analysis was based
on a cross-section of elderly. In essence. the differences
noted between the young-elderly and the old-elderly from
each housing environment are probably due to aging of
individuals; however. this is being concluded with some
caution.

Literature documents the observation that social
intercourse is a function of aging. It was suggested in
chapter II that as individuals age. they are involved in a
’shrinking’ social sphere. Based on these data. however.
there was insufficient support for the thesis that older-
elderly individuals participate in a "shrinking social
sphere". Results of the data analysis show that the
older-elderly groups reported that they were in regular
contact with equally as many persons as the young-elderly
groups. In fact. the old-elderly (concentrated) groups
reported being in contact on a regular basis with more
friends than did their younger counterpart.

The "shrinking social world" analogy is also not true
when applied to social interaction with families. All the
four groups reported being in "regular contact" with similar
numbers of relatives. There were also no differences
(greater than 15 percent) between the groups in the
frequency with which they reported visiting relatives in

person at each others homes. The one exception to this

 

 

 

102

finding was that the young-elderly (dispersed) group were
more likely to report having relatives visit them (in their
own homes) more times over the preceding month than did
their older-elderly counterpart.

The older-elderly respondents reported that they
belonged to more organizations than did the young-elderly.
They also reported that they attended meetings for such
organized activities as often as did the younger-elderly.
If self-report of participation in social intercourse is
indicative of actual rates of participation. then it could
be assumed that healthy older-elderly groups are equally as
"active" as are the young-elderly.

To conclude that respondents from the two housing
groups differed. and that age was an important variable
(along the lines described earlier and discussed above) one
has only to refer to the magnitudes of differences within
groups. In essence. what was noted in this investigation
was that. there may be cause to believe that there are
innate ’lifestyle’ differences between the young and old
from dispersed and concentrated neighborhood housing
environments. While it is true that these differences do
not constitute a measure of differing ’life styles’ per se.
they are important aspects of ’lifestyle’ (See glossary for

definition).

103

CONC US ON ABOUT S BG 0 N A A Y Y OF
MD.

The "Sub Culture Theory’ of aging suggests that for
various reasons. social interaction among the elderly occurs
within the ’subgroup’ of age peers. The degree to which any
individual participates in such a subgroup and is affected
by it varies and is unique to individuals. Data confirmed
the thesis that the elderly interact significantly more with
their own age groups than with other age groups. However.
one of the findings of this investigation was that the
old-elderly (dispersed) group was more likely (when compared
to the other groups) to report interaction with a
’sub-group’ of age peers. both from within the family and
outside of it. The old-elderly dispersed group were less
likely to report having friends who were younger than 60
years of age and more likely to report a ’sibling’ as the
third relative with whom they visited most often. One of
the contributions of this investigation is in forwarding the
hypothesis that old-elderly individuals living in dispersed
neighborhood housing environments are more likely to
interact with a ’sub group’ of elderly peers as compared to
the other groups examined. This finding is different from
the finding of Rosow who reported that "confinement of
friendships with in age groups is disproportionately greater
among high density rather than low density residents" (see

Chapter II).

104

SHARED ATTITUDES AND GROUP CONCIOUSNESS

It was suggested that the "modal characteristics" of
persons around an individual affect a person’s evaluation of
him/her self and also affects his/her attitude toward
family. neighborhood.and society. Clearly. there were
attitudinal differences between the dispersed and
concentrated housing groups. Examples of these differences
have been noted through out chapter IV and therefore will
not be discussed in detail here: however. some examples are
used here to illustrate the points being made.

The dispersed group (young-old and old-old) agreed with
the concentrated group that they were healthy. However the
dispersed group endorsed the statement with less emphasis
than did the concentrated group. Also. the dispersed group
differed from the concentrated in their attitude toward
their own bodies. The concentrated groups were more likely
to describe their bodies in positive terms as compared to
the dispersed groups. On the basis of these findings one
might conclude that respondents who lived in neighborhoods
which were perceived by them to have higher elderly
concentrations were more ’positive’ about their health and
their body as compared to those who lived in environments
where there were lower elderly concentrations.

Paradoxically. attitudes toward aging were not

compatible with the positive attitudes reported by the

105

concentrated groups toward health and body. The dispersed
and the concentrated groups differed in their attitudes
toward aging. Whereas. the dispersed groups were more
likely to talk about aging in terms of ’adaptability’ and
’philosophy’. the concentrated groups were more concerned
with the ’physiological’ and ’health’ aspects of aging. The
fact that the concentrated group emphasized the physical
side of aging may be related to the ’aging characteristics
of residents surrounding the individual repondents. Another
difference was that the old-elderly (concentrated) group
were more negative about aging than were the other groups.
This was true despite the fact that they talked about their
bodies and their health in more positive terms.

Other attitudinal differences between the dispersed and
concentrated groups were related to society and the world.
The concentrated group as compared to the dispersed group

completed the stem "to me the world looks... with negative

endings. They were more likely to see the world as "a
dangerous place" or "a scary place". The dispersed group on
the other hand were less likely to see the world in those
terms.

The dispersed groups saw themselves as ’doers’ more
often than did the concentrated group who thought of them

selves as ’kind and loving. In other words. the dispersed

group was somewhat more likely to report that others saw

106

them as activists. not necessarily in the political sense of
the word but rather as people who were stewards of their own
lives. The concentrated group believed that others thought
of them in more passive terms such as ’kind and loving’.

The real question is. do respondents agree with the image
they believe others have of them. and are there in fact.
differences between groups in the degree to which they take
responsibility for themselves? Although becoming
’dependent’ was a general concern of all elderly. the

dispersed group was more concerned about it.

SPECIF C HYPO SE N OM V ST GATIO

A brief summary of some specific hypotheses arising
from this investigation are given below. This is by no
means an exhaustive list of hypotheses that one could come
up with from the data provided.

1. Life Styles of young-elderly and old-elderly
individuals from Dispersed and Concentrated
neighborhood housing environments differ.

2. Life Styles change as a function of age of
respondent.

3. Elderly place a high value on ’Activity’ and thus
aging healthy elderly individuals do not
necessarily experience the phenomenon of a

"shrinking social sphere" of activity.

107

4. Old-Elderly individuals from dispersed neighborhood
housing environments are most involved with a
subgroup of elderly peers.

5. Healthy individuals in age concentrated
neighborhood housing environments evaluate health.
and body. in positive terms. The hypothesis is
that it is not the age concentration of the
neighborhood. per se. that is important in
perception of one’s health. but rather the actual
health status in combination with the supra-
personal characteristics of the environment. In
essence. an individual who is unwell in an aging
environment would be more likely to downgrade
his/her health status than a person who was
environed by different age groups where morbidity
was not a part of the social psyche of the

individuals.

While several differences in attitudes between the two
groups (dispersed and concentrated) have been illustrated.
it is not possible nor is it the intent of this study to
conclude that these differences are due to the identifi-
cation of individuals with the "modal characteristics" of
the dominant group in the neighborhood housing environment.

or to persons with whom respondents are most in contact.

108

These modal characteristics have been axiomatically accepted
as part of the conceptual and theoretical framework. This
study has been an attempt to establish the areas in which
differences arise and to explore future directions. Some of

the extentions for future studies are suggested below.

N NV 0

Describing the areas where differences exist between
groups and within groups. is one of the contributions of
this investigation. The natural extention of this type of
reasoning is to establish why such differences exist between
groups.

One reason for the existence of those differences is
speculated as age of respondent (a major variable in this
study). Indeed. there seem to be differences between the
young-elderly and old-elderly within each of the housing
environments. Given the data. it can probably be assumed
that attitudes and beliefs are dynamic and that they undergo
changes over time as the individual and his/her environment
change. Future studies might incorporate a research design
which would look at the competencies of the individuals and
the demands placed upon the aging individual by the
environment in which he/she lives. Any future
investigations in this direction may be better served by a
design that incorporates a longitudinal approach. (Lawton.

1980).

109

From this study. it can be seen that the dispersed
group was much more likely to see themselves as
’independent’ and as ’doers’. they were also more likely to
talk about ’adaptability and about "taking an active role in
ones own physical condition". The question arising out of
these observations is: how do attitudes and beliefs
mitigate the ’demand characteristics’ of environments in
light of declining competencies of aging individual elderly?
This would be an important direction for future research.

Another direction which offers a promise for further
investigation is in the area of ’beliefs' and ’attitudes’
and the interaction between the two. In furthering an
understanding in this area. techniques utilized in field
research may be more appropriate. This is so. more
particularly because field research methods can
simultaneously combine their focus on a range of activities
as well as relationships and meanings attached to such
activities and relationships as well as ’beliefs’. all
within the context of the settings (Babbie. 1983).

The importance of understanding the ’social
environment’ and ’culture’ shared by the elderly may be
important elements in truely understanding attitudes and
beliefs that elderly individuals hold towards the various
subjects that were part of this study. The existence of a
’culture’ specific to the elderly is still an intuitive

proposition. By personally conducting the interviews there

110

was much evidence of the value individual respondents placed
on "activity". Perhaps. ’activity’ is part of the general
belief system of all elderly. The fact that older-elderly
respondents reported that they belonged to more
organizations than the young elderly and that they reported
being equally as active in attending meetings for such
organized activities may well be explained as the value
elderly place on being active (not necessarily on their

actual activity).

0TH R R T ONS F R FU U N E T G TION

Other questions arising out of this investigation that
might prove to be of interest for future research are
summarized below: Attitudes toward neighborhood age
composition and desired residential distance from family is
discussed first as perhaps being worthy of further
investigation. Clearly. attitudes noted in this
investigation toward neighborhood age composition and toward
desired proximity to relatives were curious. The conclusion
one might draw from the responses to the two statements
about age composition of neighborhoods is that:
1) The old-elderly (dispersed) group were not necessarily
drawn to neighborhoods of mixed age groups. (even though
they lived in such neighborhood): 2) However. they were

even less likely to be drawn to neighborhoods where there

111

were people of "their own age" (although they seem to
socialize with a sub-group of age peers). On the contrary.
the other three groups reported that "people should live in
neighborhoods where there is a mixture of ages".
Explanations for the differing attitudes are not obvious
from this investigation: however. it is speculated that
perhaps interpretation of ’neighborhoods’ was defined
variously by the four groups. Some may have interpreted it
as ’proximate space’ such as a city block. or as the
distinguishing characteristics of that space (ie.
architectural characteristics or the human characteristics).

Also noted earlier was that the young-elderly
(dispersed) group was the most likely group to be in
frequent personal contact with their families. particularly
with their children. Although this was the case.they were
the most likely group to be undecided about the importance
of being near family (even if one is far from friends) and
were least likely as a group to agree with the statement.
suggesting that it was less important for the group to be
near family than to be near friends. Again. reasons for
attitudinal differences between groups are not clear but
could be investigated in future research.

Yet another direction which might be investigated has
to do with the old-elderly from dispersed housing

environments. Clearly. the old-elderly (dispersed) group

112

were very active in socializing (particularly with friends
and less with the family). They saw themselves as very
active in church-related religious and social activites. and
in social service oriented organizations. They also talked
about ’adaptability’ and believed that others saw them as
’doers’. Yet they were the least likely of the groups to
agree that they were important to others. The questions
that need to be investigated are: 1. Do the old-elderly
from dispersed housing environments feel more estranged from
society than do the other groups? 2. What specific
variables contribute to the belief that one is or is not
important to society?

One might address at some later time. the observation
that young-elderly and old-elderly experiences differ in
terms of the socializing patterns of each group within the
dispersed and concentrated group. If it can be assumed that
differences between groups are the result of the aging
process and that with aging. individuals change not only
physiologically but socially. then it may be possible to
note the degree of change in lifestyles that residents of
dispersed and concentrated housing environment undergo.
Changes in lifestyle (as was noted earlier) are more
important to overall wellbeing of individuals than is the
lifestyle itself (see Chapter II. page 26). For example.

the young-elderly from dispersed housing environments were

113

found to be very socially active with their families. yet
the old-elderly from the same housing environmental group
were least likely to be similarly occupied with their
families. On the other hand. the old-elderly (dispersed)
were found to be more socially occupied with their age
peers. The questions that need to be asked are: 1) What
absolute changes in lifestyle are brought about due to
aging? 2) How are these changes perceived and what
accomodations made for them? 3) What effect does it have
on the ’well-being’ of the elderly?

In concluding this investigation. it would be
meaningful to quote from one of the respondents who. when

asked to complete the stem statement "People think of me

as...". replied: "people think of me as strong and
independent....(hesitation)...they don’t know that I am
getting old". This statement was made by a lady over 74

years of age from the dispersed housing environment.

The point being raised here is that ’housing
environment’ is a symbol. It has long been recognized that
one’s house is much more than a physical structure. "it is
the symbol of status. of social acceptance. the way in which
the individual perceives him/herself and is perceived by
others" (Hudson Guild. 1960).

Symbols being what they are; (abstractions). are

important in communication with others. Thus. "housing

114

environments" convey to oneself and to others what one
believes and wishes others to believe of oneself. Perhaps.
future research might investigate whether neighborhood
housing concentration symbolizes the aging of individuals
within and thus acts as a catalyst for social interaction
with family and friends. As is speculated here. perhaps the
concentrated housing environments hold out a symbol to
family and friends to make an effort to keep in touch with
aging relatives and friends within. This may in turn
reinforce the perception of self as ’kind and loving’.
Whereas ’dispersed housing environments’ offer no such
symbols as magnets for familial interaction. thus
individuals from such environments rely even more on a
’sub-group’ of elderly peers. Perhaps. this also reinforces
the perception of self as ’doers’ or as activists. This
might also help explain the attitudinal differences toward
’dependency’. ’adaptability’ and the other variables that
were a part of this investigation. At this point. these are

only speculations. worthy of future investigations.

Aging in place

Significant
others

Diagnostic
related
groupings
(D.R.G.)

Competence

Demand
Characteristics
(of environment)

Environmental
Press

Life Style

GLOSSARY

The phenomenon noted by geographers that the
distribution of elderly in space is due to
persons living and growing old in the same
place. not due to migration factors.

Persons with whom respondents interact on a
regular basis.

They are classification scheme. categorizing
all medical reasons for hospital admissions
into 467 categories. It is based on the body
system involved. degree of complication and
possibly the age of patient. It establishes
allowed length of stay and is used for
billing purposes.

The various "supports an individual harnesses
in order to negotiate the environment are an
individuals competences.

Competencies are of two sources:

External - Economic (income.gifts.insurances)
Social (friends & family)
Institutional (church. government.

employment)

Internal - Innate qualities of individuals
physical. social and psychological
health and well-being. ego-
strength.

Attributes of the environment which an

individual has to negotiate. Demand

characteristics are many. such as:

Physical - topography of land. condition of

housing or neighborhood.

Social. Psychological - Social and
psychological climate
of an environment.

The requirements an environment places due to
its demand characteristics upon an
individual. which he/she must negotiate.

The term has been conceptualized variously by
Social Scientists. Life Styles are the
result of such forces as culture. values.
resources. symbols. license and sanction.
Life Style has also been operationalized in
terms of allocation of resources which
include: time. finances. materials. emotions
and energy. Different lifestyles are
identified by some combination of attitudes.
mannerisms. and more importantly. activity
and consumption patterns.

115

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

118

 

 

Note to interviewer: please fill in the appropriate boxes. ifld IE],

Classify the dwelling unit.

[:1 Single Family. Unattached.

[:] Mobile Home
l] Duplex

[Z] Dwelling unit attached to more than 2 units (such as an

apartment. townhouse).

[:1 Other (specify)

 

 

This section pertains to where you live in relation to where most Of

your relatives live.

1. Most of my close relatives live

in other countries.

ll:|

in this country but other states.

 

 

 

in this state but other cities.

 

l_ll

(misfit this City --

(Lansing. East Lansing. Meridian. Okemos. Haslett, Holt).

[1 I'H‘bnclc “1‘5 c:i"\\ - ~ , L0v\,5n\\, E. LAM , l\"‘¢\..Ai0\/‘ T CK’FW‘ZI Lingkk‘», HOH’

119

2. How Often would you say you socialize (face to face) with those

relatives who live outside the greater Lansing Metropolitan Area?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every day or every other day.

More than once a week. but not every other day.
About once a week.

Every other week.

About once a month.

Several times a year.

Once a year.

Don’t visit face to face with relatives outside the Lansing

Metropolitan Area.

3. How often would you say you talk on the phone with those relatives

who

p—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

live outside the Lansing Metropolitan Area?

L__J Several times a week.

__J Once a week.

More than once a month.
Once a month.

Several times a year.
Once a year.

Don't talk on telephone with relatives outside the Lansing

Metropolitan Area.

120
This section pertains to relatives who live within the Lansing Metropolitan

Area (Holt. Lansing. East Lansing. Meridian. Okemos. Haslett).

4. How many relatives other than those that you may be sharing your

home with. live within l5 miles?

'6" ...”:l
l

 

 

V

 

 

Skip to question number ii

 

 

5. How many relatives other than those that you may be sharing your

home with. live within a quarter of a mile?

 

6. How many Of these relatives who live in the Lansing Metropolitan
Area do you talk to on the phone or face to face on a regular

basis?

 

7. How Often do you talk with any of these same relatives by

telephone?

 

Every day or every other day.

 

 

 

More than once a week, but not every other day.

 

 

About once a week.
Once every other week.
About once a month.
Several times a year.

Once a year.

l—ILHIElL—Jl ll

 

i Don't talk on telephone.

l_l

106.

[0b-

This section pertains to your friends and acquaintances who live within Ga

121

How often do you visit in person (at your home or theirs) any

relatives with whom you have a regular contact?

[::l More than once a week.
[::I Once a week.

Cl Once a month.

 

 

 

 

 

[:1 Once a year or less.

More than once a month but less than once a year.

During the past month about how Often have you had relatives

visit in your home?

 

Of the three relatives with whom you visit most Often. what is

their relationship to you?

 

Children Brothers (in-laws)
Nieces/Nephews Sisters (in-laws)

Parents
(in-laws)

Other

 

Relative #l

 

Relative #2

 

Relative #3

 

 

 

 

 

Mil-Acre (A0 “vase halal-i vtS WER whom )‘cu Visit was} elf-1e.“ In“: J’

 

E 0514?." («'1‘th
\k (hunky/J!“

 

the Lansing Metropolitan Area.

 

ll.

l2.

(Cl "A 5’3";- der (7":
I
.-—-‘ CuYSHIi C‘I‘! 'Hgl-

1E In LLCW

Approximately how many people do you know in this town. other than

the relatives you noted earlier?

 

About how many of these same persons do you know well enough to

visit with in their homes or yours?

 

 

122

l3. How many of these persons do you talk to on the telephone or face to

face on a regular basis?

 

14. How often do you visit with friends other than on the telephone?

 

Almost every day.

 

 

More than once a week but less than every day.

 

 

Once a week.

 

 

More than once a week but less than once a month.

 

 

l l

Abount once a month.

 

 

 

About once a year.

 

15. During the past month about how often have you had friends over

 

to you home?

 

16. Where do these persons with whom you visit most often live in

relationship to your residential unit?

[::7 Same housing Complex or neighborhood.

 

Outside of housing Complex or neighborhood.

 

 

 

Other

 

 

17. How often do you visit with friends? (Not by telephone)

 

 

Almost every day.

 

 

More than once a week but less than every day.

 

 

Once a week.

 

 

More than once a week but less than once a month.

About once a month.

JED

18.

19.

21.

22.

123
How would you best describe the ages of the friends with whom

you socialize most often?

0 - 15

16 - 30

31 - 45

46 - 60

61 - 75

76 - 90

91 +

 

Friendi?1

 

Friend #2

 

Friend #3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you belong to any organizations, churchs or attend clubs, classes,

Friendship Ca¥01¢$ (CG‘A Phjins Cf‘m‘Y)

 

 

 

l 20. How many?

 

 

 

In order of importance, name the organizations to which you belong.

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

How often do you attend any meetings for such organized activites?

1::] More than once a week.

l::] Once a week.

1::1 More than once a month, but not every week.

1::] Once a month.
1:] Once a year.

 

124

23. Are any of the organized activities held in your neighborhood

 

or apartment complex?

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

24 . D €5CV1 19C C(C11VJ A}

 

25. Approximately how far away would you say you are from the nearest

Senior Citizen Center?

-::] On same block.

 

Within l/4 of a mile.

 

 

__T
L__ More than 1/4 of a mile but less than l mile.

 

Between 1 - 2 miles.

 

 

 

More then 2 miles.

 

1___ Don't know.

26. Over a years time, about how often do you get together with friends,

 

like going out together or visiting in each others homes?

 

 

Every day.

 

 

_::1 2 or 3 times a week.

 

About once a week.

 

 

 

_:] 2 or 3 times a month.

 

 

 

About once a month.

 

 

1::j 5 or 10 times a year.

1::] Less than 5 times a year.

125

27. How active would you say you are in the following kinds of activities:

Would you say very active, fairly active or not very active.

Not

Very Fairly Very
Active Active Active

a. Church centered religious activity [ J E ] E ]
b. Church center social activity E J E J E ]
c. Politics E J E l E 3
d. Social clubs E l E l E 1
e. Classes E ] E J E J
f. Sports as a participant E l E J E J
9. Sports as a spectator E J E l E J
h. Senior Citizen Center E l E l E J
i. Neighboring (visit with friends E J E ] E J

and relatives)

This section pertains to your environment.

 

28. How long have you lived at this address?

 

Six months or less.

 

 

:::1 More than six months but less than one year.

1::) One year and over but less than three years.

 

 

 

Three years or more.

 

29.

30.

31.

126

What age groups would you say mostly live in your neighborhood

or building complex (7 doors on either side of your front door?)

 

Young singles.

 

Young families.

 

 

Families and Senior Citizens.

 

 

Senior Citizens.

 

 

[::. All age groups.

Do you have cooking facilities in your residenial unit?

1::] Yes
[I No

 

Do you live alone or do you share your living quarters?

 

 

Live alone.

 

 

Share quarters.

 

32. Who do you share your living quarters with?

___1 Spouce

[::1 Children: how many?

 

‘
———I

Grand Children: how many?

 

Relatives

fl.

 

 

 

Unrelated persons

 

 

 

1___ Pets
33. What are the total number of persons who share

the quarters with you?

 

 

 

 

127

Now I would like to know something about you.

 

34.
35.

36.

37.

What was the year of your birth?

 

How many days have you been sick to the point of being unable to

carry on your regular activities during the last four weeks?

 

[:; No days.

[:1 l - 3 days.

r::) 4 - 7 days.
8 - 14 days.

 

 

 

Ll

More than l5 days.

How many years of formal education did the major wage earner of

the family complete?

0 - ll years.

Ll”!

High school graduate.

 

 

l - 2 years of college.

H1

3 - 4 years of college.

 

 

 

Over 4 years.

 

What is/was the main occupation of the major wage earner?

 

128
Now I am going to read to you some statements. For each statement tell
me if you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree,

strongly disagree.

 

 

SA A g 2 in.
F 9

38. I feel very much a part of my “4] [3] [‘1 {13 10]

neighborhood E J E J E J E J E J
39. I consider myself to be healthy E l E J E J E J E J
40. The young are often inconsiderate

of Senior Citizens E l E J E J E J E J
4], People should live in neighbor-

hoods where there is a

mixture of all ages E J E J E J E J E J
42, I consider myself to be important

to others E J E J E J E l E l
43, Society is good to older people E J E l E J E J E J
44. People should live in neighborhoods

where there is a mixture of all

ages even though one is some

what far from people of ones

own age E l E J E J E J E J
45, It is important to be near family

even if one is some what far

from friends E J E J E J E J E 3

129

 

 

TO INTERVIEWER: Along with completing the statement, please note

in margin provided any comments or pauses.

 

 

In this part of the guestionaire we would like to learn something

about how people feel about different matters. We have started

the sentences for you, would you please complete them. Please

indicate in a few words whatever comes to your mind first.

46.

47.

49.

51.

52.

Compared with most families, mine

 

 

To me friendly relations

 

 

 

My body

 

 

As I grow older

 

 

To me the world looks

 

 

I hope I never

 

 

Peonle think of me as

 

 

53.

54.

130

What kinds of problems do you experience, living in the neighborhood

or the housing complex that you occupy.

 

 

 

 

What would you say are the positive features of living in the

neighborhood or housing complex that you occupy.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B
TABLES

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Comparative age differences between residents from
the dispersed and concentrated neighborhood
groups.

Age 2 Dispersed Concentrated Difference

. 1 X 2

Young-Old 53 49 45 4

((74)
Old-Old 47 51 55 4
(74))
39 33 N=72
Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Table 2: Comparative sex differences between residents from
the dispersed and concentrated neighborhood
groups.

Sex 2 Dispersed Concentrated Difference

X X 1

Male 26 23 3O 7

Female 74 77 7O 7

39 33 N=72
Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Table 3: Comparative residential differences between
respondents from dispersed and concentrated
neighborhood groups (classification of dwelling
units.

Dwelling X Dispersed Concentrated Difference

Classification 1 X 1

Single Family 56 63 48 15

Mobile Home or

Duplex 2 3 2 1

3 units or

more 42 34 50 16

39 33 N=72

Note:

Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

 

133

Table 4: Comparative differences between dispersed and
concentrated groups in terms of persons
respondents shared dwelling quarters with.

 

 

 

Share Quarters X Dispersed Concentrated Differences
X X Z
Spouse 88 44 33 10
Children 8 56 66 10
Unrelated 4 O O 0
39 33 N=72

Table 5: Occupational comparisons of respondents from
dispersed and concentrated neighborhood groups.

 

 

 

Occupation X Dispersed Concentrated Differences
1 X X
Unskilled 22 18 27 9
Semi Skilled 22 23 21 2
Technically
Skilled 29 31 27 4
Business 5 5 6 1
Profession 2O 23 18 5
39 33 N=72

Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

134

Table 6: Perceived age groups in the dispersed and
concentrated neighborhoods.

 

 

 

Age Groups X Dispersed Concentrated
X 2
Young Singles 2 5 0
Young Families 5 7 0
Families and
Senior Citizens 24 O 64
Senior Citizens 20 O 36
All age groups 49 87 0
39 33 N=72
Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integers.

Table 7: The number of relatives respondents had within
fifteen miles. by neighborhood group and age

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

group.

Number I Dispersed Concentrated Group Differences

of rel. <74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 Z 2 X D C Y/O O/O

None 32 32 3O 27 39 2 12 5 9

1-8 57 63 60 60 44 3 16 3 16

9-28 11 5 10 13 17 5 4 8 7

 

 

19 20 15 18 = 72

135

Table 8: The number of relatives (within city) with whom
respondents talked on the phone or face to face on
a regular basis by neighborhood group and age

 

 

 

group.

Number 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Differences

of Rel. (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X 1 X D C Y/O 0/0

0 36 32 4O 33 39 8 6 l 1

1-6 57 63 60 54 50 3 4 9 10

7+ 7 5 0 13 11 5 2 8 11
19 20 15 18 = 72

Note: Tables noted as percentages.
Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Table 9: Number of persons respondents knew well enough to
visit with in each others homes by neighborhood
groups and age groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Differences

Contacted (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X 2 X D C Y/O 0/0

None 3 O 5 O 6 5 6 0 1

"J

1 -60 78 79 65 87 83 {13‘ 4 8 18

61+ 20 21 30 13 1 1 9 2 8 1T5)
19 2O 15 18 N=72

Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

136

Table 10: The number of persons respondents had a regular
contact with on the phone or face to face by
neighborhood group and age group.

 

 

 

 

Number 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

Contacted (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O 0/0

None 5 0 5 O 11 5 11 0 6

1-12 51 53 so 40 50 7 10 fig} 10

13+ 44 4s 35 60 39 [1"] 21'] 12 4
19 2O 15 18 N=72

Note: Percentages rounded to nearest integer.

Table 11: Relationship of relative mentioned first with
whom respondents visited most often by
neighborhood group and age group.

Relationship 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

 

of Rel. (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O

Children/

in-Law 76 68 80 73 83 12 10 5 3

Sibling/ raw

in-Law 18 26 20 ' .13 11 6 2 :13} 9

Parents/

in-Law 4 5 O 13 0 5 13 8 0

Grand-

children 1 O 0 O 6 0 6 0 6

 

 

19 20 15 18 N=72

 

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12: Ages of friends mentioned first. second and third
with whom respondents socialized most often in
percentages.

Ages of Friend Friend Friend Average

Friends One Two Three

16-60 28 21 26 25

61-75 61 64 60 62

76+ 11 15 14 13
N = 72 N = 72 N = 72

Note: Reported as percentages. Average ages of
friends derived from ages of all three friends.

Table 13: The number of times respondents had relatives
visit in their homes over the past month by
neighborhood group and age group.

Number 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

of visits (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between

1 X X X D C Y/O 012
o 26 26 35 20 22 9 2 6 {13:}
’1
1-4 58 47 60 67 61 {13] 6 [2" 1
5+ 15 26 5 14 17 21 3 12 12
19 2O 15 18 N=72

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14: Frequency of personally visiting with friends by
neighborhood group and age group.
Frequency 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
of visits <74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 Z X X D C Y/O O/O
Infreq. 7 O 5 7 17 5 IO 7 11
Somewhat .
Freq. 26 37 10 27 33 E7] 6 10 23
Very Freq. 67 63 85 66 50 [23 3
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: Infreq = less frequently than once a month.
Somewhat Freq = once a month to once a week.
Very Freq : every.other day if not every day.
Table 15: The number of times respondents had friends over
to visit in their homes during the past month by
neighborhood group and age group.
Number I Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
of visits (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X X 1 D C Y/O 0/0
0 17 16 2O 13 17 4 4 3 3
1-4 50 53 45 53 50 8 3 O 5
5-16 26 26 3O 27 22 4 5 1 8
17+ 7 5 5 7 11 O 4 2 6
19 2O 15 18 N=72

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16: Number of organizations to which respondents
belong by neighborhood group and age group.
Number 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Differences
Org. (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X Z X D C Y/O 0/0
0 2 O O 7 O O 7 7 0
1-4 53 68 35 67 44 E E 1 9
5+ 45 32 65 27 56 331 'E 5 9
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Table 17: Frequency of attending meetings for organized
activities by neighborhood group and age group.
Frequency 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Differnce
of attendance (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O
No response 2 O O 7 O O 7 7 0
Not often 14 11 2O 7 17 9 IO 4 3
Somewhat _
Often 40 47 35 4O 39 12 l 7 4
Very often 44 42 45 47 44 3 3 5 1
19 20 15 18 N=72

Note:

Not often = once a month or less.
Somewhat often = once a week or two to three
times a month.

Very often

than once a week.

every day/every other day but less

 

140

Table 18: Types of organizations mentioned second. to which
respondents belong by neighborhood group and by
age group.

 

 

 

 

 

Type of X Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

Organization (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X 2 1 D C Y/O O/O

Social

Service 22 11 35 2O 22 24 2 9 2

Church

Related 18 16 15 2O 22 l 2 4 7

Hobby

Related 17 16 15 28 11 1 17 12 4

All others 43 57 35 32 46 22 14 25 11

 

 

Table 19: Type of organization mentioned first by
respondents as the ones they belong to by
neighborhood group and by age group.

 

 

 

 

Type of X Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
Organization (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 I X X D C Y/O O/O
Church .
related 71 58 70 so 78 12 2 E2] 8
Professional 6 5 5 7 6 O l 2 1
Hobbies 7 11 10 7 O l 7 4 10
All others 16 26 15 7 17 11 IO 19 2
19 2O 15 18 N=72

Table 20: The number of informal organizations named by
neighborhood groups and age groups.

 

Number I Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
(74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between

1 Z X X D C Y/O O/O

"1

O 74 68 7O 73 83 2 10 5 1:13.}
P1

1 26 32 30 27 17 2 1o 5 11;;

 

 

19 2O 27 18 N=72

 

”it" __

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 21: Responses to the statement "I consider myself to
be healthy". by neighborhood group and age group.
Response 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
to statement (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O
Undecided 4 5 5 7 O O 7 2 5
Agree 46 53 55 27 44 2 17 23 11
S. agree 50 42 4O 67 56 2 11 EE1__EE3
19 20 15 18 N=72

 

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 22: Responses to the statement "my body..." by
neighborhood group and by age group.

Response 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

<74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O

Impt. of

body. 22 21 15 27 28 6 1 6 13

Physical cond . T—fi‘

(positive) 21 11 15 47 17 4 Q 36 2

Physical cond

(neutral) 15 16 2O 7 l7 4 10 9 3

Physical cond

(negative) 18 26 15 13 17 11 4 13 2

Active role 10 16 10 O 11 6 11 16 1

Other 14 10 25 7 11 4 14 14 4
19 2O 15 18 = 72

Note: [Importance of body] "my body is important to

me". "I take pride in my body".

[Physical condition of body (positive)] "is
healthy". is sound"

[Physical condition of body (neutral)] "is
average". "is OK".

[Physical condition ob body (negative)] "is
deteriorating" "has had it".

[Active role in physical condtion] "is kept up
with a program of diet and exercise". "is the
whole thing to me. I love it. nourish it. take
care of it".

[Other] " .......... (no response).
spirit".

and

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 23: Responses to the statement "I consider myself to
be important to others". by neighborhood group
and by age group.

Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

<74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X Z X D C Y/O O/O

Disagree 4 O 10 7 O 10 7 7 10

Undecided 10 O 20 7 11 2O 4 7 9

S agree &

agree 86 100 70 86 89 3 14

19 2O 15 18 N=72

Table 24: Responses to the statement "As I grow older..."
by neighborhood group and by age group.

Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Percent

(74 74+ (74 74+ Difference
2 X X X D C Y/O O/O

Positive 39 37 4O 4O 39 3 1 3 1

Neutral 11 16 5 20 6 11 14 4 1

Negative 21 11 15 13 44 4 311 2 [Q

Other 29 37 4O 27 11 3 16 10 a

19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: [positve] "get wiser". "appreciate family more".
"more time to do my work"
[negative] "more aches and pains", "don’t like

getting older. more limitations".

[neutral] "realize how important health is".

"more aches and pains. (smile)".

[other] no response.

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 25: Responses to the statement "As I grow older...."
analyzed by subject matter. by neighborhood group
and age group.

Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

(74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 2 X X D C Y/O O/O

Philosophy .

Adaptability 60 58 75 60 44 [E [13 2 13

Physiology .

Health 29 16 15 33 50 1 17 17 35

Social 4 11 O 7 0 11 7 4 O

Other 8 16 10 O 6 6 6 16 4

19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: [Adaptability/philosophy] "get more tolerant".
"my values change", "get wiser". '
[Physiological/health related] "more and more
thankful for health". "more aches and pains".
”I am watching for wrinkles all the time"
[Social aspects] "appreciate family more". "keep
active"

[Other] "Why so much crime is being committed".
"no difference"

145

Table 26: Responses to the statement "People think of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me as...". by neighborhood group and age group.
Content 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Differences
Categories (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X X X D C Y/O O/O
Doers 25 32 35 7 22 3 25, 13
Kind and . E
loving 47 47 30 73 39 17 3:1 26 9
Independent 7 11 lO 0 6 l 6 11 4
Frail &
delicate 4 5 10 O O 5 O 5 10
Other 18 5 15 20 34 10 14 15 19
19 2O 15 18 N=72

Note: [doers] "dependable". ”willing to take
responsibility". "competent". "strong and self
sufficient"

[kind and loving] "friendly and helpful". "good

guy". "community grandmother"
[independent] "aloof". "different from average"
"indifferent"

[frail and delicate] "frail". "sweet old lady".
"not counted seriously"
[other] no response.

146

Table 27: Responses to the open ended question "Compared to
most families. mine..." by neighborhood group and
age group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response 1 Dispersed Concentrated Percent
(74 74+ (74 74+ Difference
X X X X D C Y/O O/O
Positive 63 58 55 67 72 3 5 9
Neutral 29 37 35 33 11 2 22 4 ‘22)
Negative 5 O 10 O 11 10 11 O 1
Other 3 5 O O 6 5 6 5 6
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: [Positive] "very understaniding", ”great".
"nice".
[Neutral] "average". "normal". "stable". etc..
[Negative] is distant..(pause". "get along..

(hestitation)".

[Other] "is small" or "no family to compare
with".

Table 28: Responses to the statement "It is important to be
near family even if one is somewhat far from
friends". by neighborhood group and age group.

Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Percent Difference
<74 74> (74 74+ Within Between
2 X X X D C Y/O Y/O

 

S. agree
& agree 56 32 65 53 72 a 7
29

Undecided 17 42 10 13 O 32 13 10

S. disagree
& disagree 28 26 25 33 28 1 5 7 3

 

 

19 2O 15 18 N=72

147

Table 29: Responses to the statement "I feel very much a
part of my neighborhood". by neighborhood group
and age group.

 

 

 

 

 

Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
to statement (74 74+ <74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O
S. Agree & I . -n'
Agree 71 79 60 93 55 E E 114; 5
Undecided 15 16 10 7 28 6 21 9 18
S. Disagree
& Disagree 14 5 30 O 17 25 17 5 13
19 2O 15 - 18 N=72

Table 30: Responses to the question "Society is good to
older people”. by neighborhood group and age

 

group.

Response 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference

to statement (74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
2 X X X D C Y/O 0/0

S. disagree 11 11 15 2O 0 4 2O 9 15

Undecided 17 26 2O 13 6 6 7 13 14

8. agree

agree 72 63 65 67 94 2 4

19 2O 15 18 N=72

 

 

148

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 31: Responses to the statement "To me the world
looks...". by neighborhood group and age group.
Response 1 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
(74 74+ - <74 74+ Within Between
2 X X X D C Y/O O/O
Negative 46 26 45 60 55 5 I 10
Neutral 14 11 15 13 17 4 4 2 2
Positive 36 58 35 2O 28 23 8 38 7
Other 4 5 5 7 O O 7 2 5
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: [Negative] "in turmoil". "a dangerous place".
or "scary"

[Neutral] "troubled. but not beyond
redemption. , "confused". "a bit uncertain".

[Positive] ”sunny world". ”beautiful.
wonderful”. "rose colored"

[Other] (no response). ”I don't know".

Table 32: Responses to the statement "I hope I never" by
neighborhood group and age group.
Response 2 Dispersed Concentrated Group Difference
(74 74+ (74 74+ Within Between
1 X X X D C Y/O O/O
r'_"l
Social 21 21 15 2O 28 6 8 1 33;
Dependent 49 58 50 47 39 8 8 11 11
Life/death 13 5 27 27 17 22 10 22 10
Others 18 16 30 7 17 14 10 9 13
19 2O 15 18 N=72
Note: [Social] "make any one angry". "become garulous
and troublesome".

[Dependent] "be disabled and dependent". "can't
take care of self". "have to depend on
children".

[Life/death] "die by myself". "die with boot
straps". "kept alive if I can’t keep up".

[Other] no response.

APPENDIX C

LETTER SENT TO RESPONDENTS

150

Dear

I would like to introduce myself. I am Veena Mandrekar. a
Masters student in the Department of Human Environment and
Design. College of Human Ecology at Michigan State
University.

I am presently conducting research for my Master's thesis.
and would like to invite you to consider participation. The
Master‘s thesis is designed to study how. where people live
affects them and how they socialize with friends and
relatives.

I would very much like to have an interview with you.
Mr./Mrs. suggested that you might enjoy this
experience and be able to provide me with valuable
information.

The interview will take about 45 minutes. All information
collected will be held in STRICTEST confidence and will be
used for research purposes only. Being a part of this study
is. of course. your choice--there is no penalty for refusing
to participate. It is also your option to terminate the
interview at any time once it is underway and further. it is
your right to refuse to answer any questions. It is my
intent to ask questions which will be interesting to you and
easy for you to answer.

Your coopertation and willingness to participate in my
Master’s research is very important to me. Therefore, I
will telephone you to set up an appointment for a time that
is most convenient to you as well as to answer any questions
you might have. My thesis advisor. Dr. Bonnie Morrison.
will also be willing to answer any questions. Her telephone
number is 353-3717.

Thank you for seriously considering my request.

Sincerely.

Veena Mandrekar

 

 

 

APPENDIX D
APPROVAL LETTER FROM
UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

152

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING . mm,“ . w,
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)
238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

(517)355-2186 December S, 1983

Dr. Bonnie Haas Morrison
Human Environment and Design

Dear Dr. Morrison:

Subject: Proposal Entitled, "A Comparison of Homogeneous and
Heterogenous Environments as they Affect Social
Interaction and Attitudes Toward Neighborhood, Society
and Aging of the Elderly" to be conducted by
Veena Mandrekar

I am pleased to advise that because of the nature of the proposed research, it
was eligible for expedited review. This process has been completed, the rights
and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected, and your
project is therefore approved.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you
plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to December S. 1984.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the
UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified

promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects during the course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

We,

Henry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

HEB/jms

cc: Mandrekar

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babbie. Earl. Th9 Practice 9f Sgcial Research. Wadsworth
Publishing Company (1983).

Bull. C.N.. Aucorns. J.B.. "Voluntary Association
Participation and Life Statisfaction: A Replication

Note." JggrgaI gi Ggrgntglggy, v61. 30 (1967).

Carp. F.. "The Impact of Environment on Older People." The
Gergntglggigt. 7. (1967).

Carp. F.M.. Impact of Improved Housing on Morale and Life

Satisfaction. Thg Gergntglggist, Vol. 15 (1975).

Chapman. N.J.. Beaudet, M.. "Environmental Predictors of
Well Being for at risk Older Adults in a midsized
City." The Journal of Ggrgntglggy. Vol. 38. No. 2
(1983).

Cowgill. D.O.. Residential Segregation by Age. Jggrggl 9f
Ggrngntglggy. Vol. 33 (1978).

Cumming. E.. "Further Thoughts on the Theory of
Disengagement." ntern ti n l S l c ces

Jgurnal, Vol. 15 (1963).
Cumming, E.. Henry. W.E.. Grggigg 01g New York Basic Books

(1961).

Dean, L.. "Aging and the Decline of Affect." Journal 9f
Gergntglggy. Vol. 17 (1962).

Donald. A.. Ware. J.B.Jr.. "The Quantification of Social

Contacts and Resources. Rand CorporationI Santa
Monica. CA (October 1982) Report R 2927-H.H.S.

Cans. H.J.. "Planning and Social Life Friendships and
Neighbor Relations in Suburban Communities."

American Igstitute of Planners Jgurnal. Vol. 27
(1961).

Golant. S.M.. Lgcatign and Envirgnment 9f Elderly
PopulatignI Halstead Press (1979).

Goldenberg, L.. ngsing fgr the Elderly: Ngg Trgnd§_jn
EuropeI Garland Publishers (1981).

Havighurst. R.J.. Albrecht. R.. Older People. New York
Longmans Green (1953).

154

155

Hudson. Guild Neighborhood House and New York University.
Center for Human Relations and Community Studies.
Human Relations in Chelsea. "Report of the Chelsea
Housing and Human Relations Cooperative Project"
(1960). uman N d n H u a ica A r a h
ed. Natrass. R.. Morrison. B.M.. University Press of
America (1977).

Kimmich. M.H.. Gutowski. M.F.. "Toward Spatial Homogenity of

the Elderly Population." na f H us n r t e
Elgerly, Vol. 1 Spring/Summer Haworth Press. (1983).
Lawton. P.M.. "Ecology and Aging." Spgtigl fighayigz gf Qlder

Eegple ed. Pastalan. L.. Carson. University of
Michigan--Wayne State. Ann Arbor (1970).

Lawton. P.M.. "The Impact of the Environment of Aging and
Behaviour." flgggbggk gf ghg ngchglggy 9f Agigg ed.

Birren. J.E.. Schaie. K.W.. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
New York (1977).

Lawton. P.M.. Enyirgnment gnd Agigg. Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company. California (1980).

Lawton. P.M.. Kleban. M.H.. ”The Aged Resident of the Inner
City." The Qegggtglggistg. Vol. 11 (1971).

Lawton. P.M.. Nahemow. L.. "Social Areas and the Well Being
of Tenants in Housing for the Elderly." Multivariate

Behavigurgl Resgarch. 14. (1979).

Lawton. P.M.. Simon. B.. "The Ecology of Social
Relationships in Housing for the Elderly."

Qergntolggist, Vol. 8. (1968).

Lemon. E.W., Bengtson. V.L.. Peterson, J.A. "An Exploration
of the Activity Theory of Aging: Activity Types and
Life Satisfaction Among in Movers to a Retirement

Community." Jgurnal 9f GergntolggyI Vol. 27 (1972).

Lemon. B.M.. Bengtson. V.L.. Peterson. J.A.. "Exploration of
the Activity Theory of Aging: Activity Types and
Life Satisfaction Among in Movers to a Retirement
Community." Aging in America ed. Kart. C.S.. Manard.
B.B.. Alfred Publishing Company (1976).

McClelland. K.A.. "Self Conception and Life Satisfaction
Integrating Aged Subculture and Activity Theory."

Journal 9f Gergntglggy. Vol. 37. No. 6 (1982).

Morris. E.W., Winter. M.. ngsingI Family and Society. John
Wiley and Sons. Inc. (1978).

 

156

Noll. P.F.. "Site Selection For Housing for the Elderly: A
Proposal for Policy Change." A paper presented at
the 26th Annual Scientific Meeting. Miami Beach, FL.

'(1973).
Ostrow. A.C.. "Physical Activity as it Relates to Health of
the Aged." Trans ns f . ed. Datan. N..

Lohman. N.. Academic Press (1980).

Pastalan. L.. Carson. D.H.. atia Behav f ld
Pegple. University of Michigan--Wayne State. Ann
Arbor (1970).

Regnier. V.. "Neighborhood Planning for the Urban Elderly."
Sgiggtifig Perspggtiygg gag §gc1gl Isgugg (eds)
Woodruff. D.S.. Birren. J.B.. Van Nostrand. New York
(1975).

Rose. A.M.. "The Subculture of the Aging: A Frame Work for
Research in Social Gerontology.” A me ca:

Rgadiggs 1g §ggia1 Qgrgggglggy. ed. Kart. C.S..
Manard. B.B.. Alfred Publishing Company. Inc..

(1976).

Rosenberg. C.S.. Ihg Wgrkgz nggg 01g. Jossey Bass. San
Francisco. CA (1970).

Rosow. I.. Sggialigatign tg Old Agg. Berkeley University of
California. (1974).

Rosow. I.. cia te r t f th lder . New York Free
Press (1967). Rowles. G.D.. Growing Old Inside.

Izgggitiggg 9f Aging ed. Datan. N.. Lohmann. N..
Academic Press (1978).

Sherman. S.R.. "Patterns of Contacts for Residents of
Age-segregated and Age-Integrated Housing." Jgurnal

9f Gergntglggy. Vol. 30. No. 1. (1978).

Theodorson, G.A.. Studies in Human Ecglggy. Harper Row
(1961).

Websters. M.A.. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.
G & C Merriam Company Publishers. Springfield. Mass.
(1963).

Woodruff. D.S.. Birren. J.B.. Aging: Scientific

Perspectives ang Sgcial Issues. Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company. California (1983).

 

 

I35? an"; e ~..

"r.’ .

"11111111111111“