SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVE Toni C. Antonucci University of Michigan

1. SOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVEToni C. AntonucciUniversity 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. OVERVIEWSOCIAL SUPPORT PERSPECTIVES • Basic Terms • Relevant Theories/Related Models • Empirical Evidence • Measures/Indices • Data Sets • Links to Civic Engagement

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

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

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

6. Measures/Methods • 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 • Types of Data: self-reports, observations, biomarkers, triangulation reports

7. Social Relations are life-span longitudinal hierarchical positive, negative -- often both

8. Relevant Theories/Related Models

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

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

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

12. The Convoy Model • 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

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

14. Social Contact with Friends and Relatives

15. Religious Involvement

16. Community Organization Membership :

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 60-90Depressive Symptomotology French Germany USA Japan

23. Four Subscales of CES-D Depression Positive Affect Depressed Affect I was happy I enjoyed life I felt hopeful about the future I felt as good as other people 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 Interpersonal Depression People were unfriendly I felt that people disliked me Somatic Activities 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

24. Subscales Composition in CES-D by Countries

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

26. Married People Without Best Friend

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

28. Table 2 Psychological Well being by Social Relationship Clusters Self Esteem Life Satisfaction Depressive Symptoms Participants with best friend High quality network 6.09(. 12) 6.42(.81) 3.74 (.04) , a a a b High quality family / friend 5.68(.12) 8.82 (.82) 3.59 (.04) a a, b a High quality spouse /family 6.02(.15) 7.92 (1.01) 3.67 (.05) a a, b a Low quality spouse/family 4.73(.19) 12.45 (1.30) 3.37(.06) b b b Low quality network 5.40( .14) 11.47 (.89) 3.47 (.04) c b b Participants without best friend High quality network 6.06(.24) 6.43(1.26) 3.76(.06) a a a High quality family 5.95(.26) 8.82(1.40) 3.71(.06) a, b a, b a, b Moderate quality network 5.50(.26) 7.24(1.35) 3.48(.06) b a a, b Low quality family 5.36(.32) 11.03(1.69) 3.57(.08) a , b a, b a, b Low quality spouse 5.05(.25) 11.45(1.37) 3.49(.06) b a , b b Low quality network 5.33(.33) 13.63(1.70) 3 .48(.08) a,b b b Note. Standarderrors are in parentheses. Means in the same column that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the Bonferonni comparison , withtwo exceptions: 1) Life satisfaction comparisons among people without a best friend were margin ally 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 BUT • 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

32. Table 4. Regression Analysis for Self-Rated Health with Interaction Variables. N=313 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 Course • National Survey of American Life • Americans Changing Lives • Berlin Aging Study • French PAQUID study • National Study of Households and Families • Panel Study of Income Dynamics • National Survey of American Life • National Social Life Health and Aging • Heath and Retirement Study

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

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

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