1. SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE Toni C. Antonucci University of Michigan Measuring Social Activity and Civic Engagement Among Older Americans May 8, 2007 A Workshop Organized by The Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics The Gerontological Society of America’s Civic Engagement in an Older America Project Washington, DC

2. OVERVIEW SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVES Basic Terms Basic Terms Relevant Theories/Related Models Relevant Theories/Related Models Empirical Evidence Empirical Evidence Measures/Indices Measures/Indices Data Sets Data Sets Links to Civic Engagement Links to Civic Engagement

3. Social Relations: Basic Terms Social Networks Social Support Support Quality

4. Types of Support Aid - instrumental aid, help Aid - instrumental aid, help Affect - emotional support, affection Affirmation - information, confirmation

5. Definitions Emotionally close – love/like, care for, confide in Emotionally close – love/like, care for, confide in Roles – spouse, parent, child, friend Roles – spouse, parent, child, friend Provide Support – give aid, affect, affirmation Provide Support – give aid, affect, affirmation Receive Support – aid, affect, affirmation Receive Support – aid, affect, affirmation Quality of relations – positive Quality of relations – positive Quality of relations – negative Quality of relations – negative Age, race, gender, culturally normative Age, race, gender, culturally normative

6. Measures/Methods Measures: open-ended, targeted/specific questions, objective/subjective, actual perceived Measures: open-ended, targeted/specific questions, objective/subjective, actual perceived Methods: laboratory studies, daily diary studies, ethnographic/observational studies, beeper studies, epidemiological studies, interviews/surveys Methods: laboratory studies, daily diary studies, ethnographic/observational studies, beeper studies, epidemiological studies, interviews/surveys Types of Data:self-reports, observations, biomarkers, triangulation reports Types of Data:self-reports, observations, biomarkers, triangulation reports

7. Social Relations are life-spanlongitudinalhierarchical positive, negative -- often both

8. Relevant Theories/Related Models

9. Multiple Level Influences Environment/Culture Family/community Individual YOU Gene/ Biology

10. Biopsychosocial Cumulative Effects Model ( Seeman & Crimmins, 2001) Psychological Characteristics (self-efficacy, self-esteem, etc.) Social Relationships (structural and qualitative) Demographics (age, sex, ethnicity) Socioeconomic Status Behavioral Factors (exercise, smoking, etc.) Biological Pathways (e.g., cardiovascular system, immune system) Health Outcomes physical mental mortality Macro- level

11. Convoys Over the Life Course Well-being Properties of the Person Properties of the Situation Social Network Social Support Support Quality

12. Multiple types of relations – e.g. close, peripheral Influence of personal and situational characteristics, e.g. age, gender, race, roles, environment Life-span, longitudinal; dynamic Effects well-being The Convoy Model

13. Empirical Evidence Age and Cohort differences in social contact, religion, organizational membership Age and Cohort differences in social contact, religion, organizational membership SES – Health link modified by Social Support SES – Health link modified by Social Support Depressive symptom subscales in 4 countries Depressive symptom subscales in 4 countries Profiles of relationships/well-being Profiles of relationships/well-being Positive and Negative support  mortality Positive and Negative support  mortality Cultural differences in reciprocity Cultural differences in reciprocity Volunteering and Health Volunteering and Health

14. Social Contact with Friends and Relatives Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992) Cohort 1 (born < 1892) 65+ M=1.85 Cohort 2 (1893-1912) 45-64 M=1.96 65+ M=1.89 80+ Cohort 3 (1913-1932)25-44 M=2.08 45-64 M=1.84 60-79 M=1.75 Cohort 4 (1933-1951) 25-44 M=2.02 41-59 M=1.65 Cohort 5 (1952-1967) 25-40 M=1.81 Across Cohorts M=2.00 M=1.94 M=1.75

15. Religious Involvement Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992) Cohort 1 (born < 1892) 65+ M=3.72 Cohort 2 (1893-1912) 45-64 M= 3.83 65+ M= 3.74 80+ M= 3.59 Cohort 3 (1913-1932)25-44 M= 3.80 45-64 M= 3.52 60-79 M= 3.65 Cohort 4 (1933-1951) 25-44 M= 3.12 41-59 M= 3.20 Cohort 5 (1952-1967) 25-40 M= 2.97 Across Cohorts M= 3.80 M= 3.38 M= 3.20

16. Community Organization Membership Time 1 (1957) Time 2 (1976) Time 3 (1992) Cohort 1 (born before 1892) 65+ M=.41 Cohort 2 (1893-1912) 45-64 M=.51 65+ M=.43 80+ M=.53 Cohort 3 (1913-1932)25-44 M=.57 45-64 M=.47 60-79 M=.64 Cohort 4 (1933-1951) 25-44 M=.45 41-59 M=.75 Cohort 5 (1952-1967) 25-40 M=.73 Across Cohorts M=.52 M=.45 M=.71 :

17. SES, Social Relations & Health in Mid and late life (40-93) HYPOTHESES: 1. Social Support will be different for men and women at different education levels 2. Social Support will effect the SES-health link differently depending on the type and source of support

22. Four Nation Samples: Ages 60-90 Depressive Symptomotology FrenchGermanyUSAJapan

23. Four Subscales of CES-D Depression I felt sad I felt lonely I felt fearful I felt depressed I had crying spells I thought my life had been a failure I felt I could not shake off the blues I could not get ‘going’ My sleep was restless I talked less than usual I felt that everything I did was an effort I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor I was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me Depressed Affect Somatic Activities I was happy I enjoyed life I felt hopeful about the future I felt as good as other people Positive Affect People were unfriendly I felt that people disliked me Interpersonal Depression

24. Subscales Composition in CES-D by Countries

25. Figure 1. Relationship quality profiles for married people with and without best friends Married People With Best Friend

26. Married People Without Best Friend

27. Profiles and Well-being… Among marrieds with a best friend Among marrieds with a best friend Good relationships of 2 types  well- beingGood relationships of 2 types  well- being Among marrieds without best friend Among marrieds without best friend Good relationships with spouse necessary for well-beingGood relationships with spouse necessary for well-being

28. Table 2 Psychological Wellbeing by Social Relationship Clusters Life Satisfaction Depressive Symptoms Self Esteem Participants with best friend High quality network 6.09(.12) a 6.42(.81) a 3.74 (.04) a, b High quality family / friend 5.68(.12) a 8.82 (.82) a, b 3.59 (.04) a High quality spouse /family 6.02(.15) a 7.92 (1.01) a,b 3.67 (.05) a Low quality spouse/family 4.73(.19) b 12.45 (1.30) b 3.37(.06) b Low quality network 5.40(.14) c 11.47 (.89) b 3.47 (.04) b Participants without best friend High quality network 6.06(.24) a 6.43(1.26) a 3.76(.06) a High quality family 5.95(.26) a, b 8.82(1.40) a, b 3.71(.06) a, b Moderate quality network 5.50(.26) a, b 7.24(1.35) a 3.48(.06) b Low quality family 5.36(.32) a, b 11.03(1.69) a,b 3.57(.08) a,b Low quality spouse 5.05(.25) b 11.45(1.37) a,b 3.49(.06) b Low quality network 5.33(.33) a,b 13.63(1.70) b 3.48(.08) b Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. Means in the same column that do not share subscripts differ at p <.05 in the Bonferonni comparison, with two exceptions: 1) Life satisfaction comparisons among people without a best friend were marginally significant. 2) The self esteem comparison among people without a best friend between the low quality network and high quality network was marginal.All estimates control for gender, age, ethnicity, and number of family members.

29. Summary: Negative and Positive Relations  Mortality Positive relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people those who are well but lower with those who are ill Positive relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people those who are well but lower with those who are illBUT Negative relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people who are ill Negative relationships with family and friends associated with higher survival among people who are ill

30. Social Relations Reciprocity among older people In three groups French, African American and White Americans

31. Ages 65+ US whites US blacks French 65-7475-9765-7475-9765-7475-97 Rec. less 126 (38%) 58 (27%) 15 (47%) 7 (37%) 53 (4%) 48 (4%) Equal 154 (46%) 105 (48%) 12 (36%) 8 (37%) 790 (59%) 766 (63%) Rec. more 51 (15%) 54 (25%) 5 (15%) 5 (26%) 502 (37%) 406 (33%)

32. Table 4. Regression Analysis for Self-Rated Health with Interaction Variables. N=313 Model 1 Model 2Model 3 Predictor VariablesB SE(B) Education.06***.02.07***.02.08***.02 Volunteer 1.14***.32 -.58.46-3.39 † 1.76 Network size.07***.02 Volunteer X Network size -.10**.03 Network age-.01.01 Volunteer X Network age.02 †.01 Pos. child.17.15 Volunteer X Pos. child.73*.36 Adjusted R 2 F 0.09 9.0*** 0.06 6.2*** 0.07 6.2*** Notes: Each column represents a significant regression model. Only significant models and interactions are presented. † p<.10, *p<.05; **p=.01; ***p<.001

34. Data Sets Social Relations over the Life CourseSocial Relations over the Life Course National Survey of American LifeNational Survey of American Life Americans Changing LivesAmericans Changing Lives Berlin Aging StudyBerlin Aging Study French PAQUID studyFrench PAQUID study National Study of Households and FamiliesNational Study of Households and Families Panel Study of Income DynamicsPanel Study of Income Dynamics National Survey of American LifeNational Survey of American Life National Social Life Health and AgingNational Social Life Health and Aging Heath and Retirement StudyHeath and Retirement Study

35. Measures/Indices Positive and negative Positive and negative Giving and Receiving Giving and Receiving Perceived and actual Perceived and actual Spouse, family, friends Spouse, family, friends Life-time/current Life-time/current Crises, non-crises i.e. direct/buffering Crises, non-crises i.e. direct/buffering

36. Links to Civic Engagement In our culture people like to give In our culture people like to give Norm of reciprocity Norm of reciprocity Investments in the Support Bank Investments in the Support Bank ‘National registry’ of support given and received ‘National registry’ of support given and received

37. This work was conducted with many colleagues - especially Kristine Ajrouch Kristine Ajrouch Hiroko Akiyama Hiroko Akiyama Kira Birditt Kira Birditt James Jackson James Jackson French team French team Japanese team Japanese team