Expert answer:Unit 5 discussion 1
Solved by verified expert:Family, Friends, Neighbors, and CommunitiesUsing your interviews of aging adults, readings from the course text, and the family in the Riverbend City scenario, provide two examples of how the social roles and relationships have changed for the aging adults affected. How have the following modifications been addressed by social support systems (family, friends, neighbors, and community)?Physical and mental well-being.Feelings of personal control, autonomy, and competence.Improved cognitive abilities.Active aging and resilience.Diminished adverse effects of stressful life events.Reduced disability and mortality risk.
chapter_9.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Chapter 9 The Importance of Social Supports: Family,
Friends, Neighbors, and Communities
This chapter focuses on informal social support systems,
including
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Social networks, social engagement, and their importance for health and active aging
• Multigenerational families
• Different types of family relationships
o
LGBT families
o Grandparents and great-grandparents and grandchildren
o Grandparents as primary caregivers to grandchildren
• Friends, neighbors, and acquaintances as social supports
• Social support interventions
• Intergenerational programming
• Pets as social support
As people age, their social roles and relationships change. Earlier chapters have noted that
physiological, social, and psychological changes, as well as opportunities for social
engagement in the larger environment, affect how older people interact with others. For
example, after having raised their children and without daily contacts with coworkers, older
people may lose a critical context for social integration. At the same time, their need for
social support may increase because of changes in health, cognitive, and emotional status.
Such incongruence between needs and environmental opportunities can negatively
influence elders’ well-being.
The Nature and Function of Informal Supports
A common myth is that many older adults are lonely and isolated from family and friends.
Contrary to this misperception, even older people who appear isolated are generally able to turn
to an informal network for advice, emotional reassurance, or concrete services. Social
networks encompass interrelationships among individuals that affect the flow of resources and
opportunities. Families, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances such as postal carriers and grocery
clerks, can be powerful antidotes to some of the negative social consequences of the aging
process. Elders can draw on these informal networks as a source of social support that may be
informational, emotional, or instrumental (e.g., assistance with tasks of daily living). Older adults
first turn to informal networks for support before seeking formal assistance. As suggested by the
person–environment model, elders draw on their informal networks as a way to enhance their
competence (Moren-Cross & Lin, 2006). Definitions and measures of social support vary widely.
Most research on social supports differentiates social networks, social integration, and social
capital; support that is assistance-related and nonassistance-related (e.g., feelings of worth,
emotional closeness, and belonging); and the importance of perceived social support. In fact,
perceptions of support may be more important than the actual support received (Antonucci,
Birditt, & Akiyama, 2009; Lyyra & Heikkinen, 2006).
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF SOCIAL SUPPORTS
• Physical and mental well-being (increased morale and self-confidence, reduced depression)
• Feelings of personal control, autonomy, and competence
• Improved cognitive abilities
• Active aging and resilience
• Diminished negative effects of stressful life events (bereavement, widowhood)
• Reduced disability and mortality risk
Social integration, which encompasses both social networks and support, refers to the degree to
which an individual is involved with others in the larger social structure and community. This
concept captures the degree of emotional closeness, the availability of support when needed, and
the perception of oneself as a person actively engaged in social exchanges (such as
volunteering). The social structure shapes the individual, but the individual may also affect the
social structure (Antonucci et al., 2009; Antonucci, Sherman, & Akimaya, 1996; Berkman, 2000;
Moren-Cross & Lin, 2006). Both of these concepts, social support and social integration, take
account of (1) the specific types of assistance exchanged within networks; (2) the frequency of
contact; (3) how a person assesses the adequacy of supportive exchanges; and (4) anticipated
support or the belief that help is available if needed. Social integration, however, tends to
•
•
•
•
•
•
emphasize the giving as well as the receiving of support, and thus takes account of crossgenerational interdependence.
Consistent with theories of social exchange described in Chapter 8, most older adults try to
maintain reciprocal exchanges—being able to help others who help them. Even frail elders who
require personal care from their families may still contribute through financial assistance or child
care. The meaningful role of helping others also benefits the helper, and is associated with
positive affect, self-esteem, a sense of purpose, life satisfaction, and physical and mental health
(Keyes, 2002; Krause & Shaw, 2000; Morrow-Howell et al., 2001; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001;
Temkin-Greener et al., 2006; Uchino, 2004). The social convoy model captures how close social
relationships that surround an individual can provide a protective, secure base, but also how
personal and situational characteristics of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, and social class
influence the type and extent of support needed (Anotonucci, et al., 2009; Ajrouch, Blandon, &
Antonucci, 2005). As noted in Chapter 6, supportive networks generally foster active aging and
characterize resilient elders.
SOCIAL SUPPORT AMONG FRIENDS
After 40 years of marriage, Nan was devastated by her husband’s decision to divorce her. Her
children lived across the country, and she had no close relatives in the town where they had
raised their children. Nan turned to two women whom she had confided in for more than 30
years of child rearing and the ups and downs of their marriages. These other women, both
divorced, provided emotional support as Nan grieved the loss of her marriage and a life of
economic security. They helped her find a good divorce attorney and financial advisor, who in
turn helped her obtain an adequate settlement from her husband. Most importantly, the friends
were available 24/7 to help her cope with this unexpected phase in her life, giving her more
strength than her children or other relatives could have.
The Impact of Informal Networks and Social Supports on
Well-Being
As noted above, informal reciprocal relationships are crucial for older adults’ physical and
mental well-being, cognitive functioning, feelings of personal control, sense of meaning, morale,
and even for preventing disability and delaying mortality (Berkman & Harootyan, 2002;
Krause, 2006; Lubben & Gironda, 2003a, 2003b; Lubben et al., 2006; Lyyra & Heikkinen, 2006;
Uchino, 2004). In fact, one study found that older adults with limited social support were 3.6
times more likely to die within the next five years than those with extensive support
(Blazer, 2006). Provision of support, like its receipt, contributes to elders’ perceptions of support
availability, which is generally linked with physical and mental health. Face-to-face interactions
and the size of informal networks are also associated with improved cognitive functioning.
Social support can mediate the effects of adversity and other stressful life circumstances, such as
retirement, widowhood, illness, or relocation. It is unclear, however, whether such supports act
as buffers against the negative impact of life events on health, or whether they have a more direct
effect, independent of the presence or absence of major life events. The extent of perceived
control or self-efficacy may also mediate the relationships between social support and health
(Antonucci et al., 2009; Cohen, 2004; Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2001; DuPertuis, Aldwin,
& Bosse, 2001; Eng et al., 2002; Fiori, Antonucci, & Akiyama, 2008; Holtzman et al., 2004;
Liang, Krause, & Bennett, 2001; Moren-Cross & Lin, 2006; Seeman et al., 2002).
Alternatively, loss of social support through divorce, widowhood, or the death of loved ones may
contribute to health problems. For example, older adults who live alone and are not regularly tied
into informal networks are more likely to use formal services and to be placed in residential care
settings. Their self-reported well-being tends to be lower. Similarly, social isolation may increase
the risk of disability, poor recovery from illness, and earlier death. Although several longitudinal
studies identified an association between social support structures and reduced mortality risk,
findings are mixed on whether such support actually diminishes the risk of mortality
(Findlay, 2003; Lyyra & Heikkinen, 2006; Moren-Cross & Lin, 2006). The Lubben Social
Network Scale, a widely applied to assess social integration and to screen for social isolation
among community-dwelling elders, has been used with culturally diverse elders in many
countries. Low scores on this scale—indicating social isolation—are correlated with a wide
range of health problems (Lubben et al., 2006). Living alone, however, does not necessarily
mean social isolation, especially for women who tend to maintain active social ties (Antonucci et
al., 2009; Jeon et al., 2007; Michael, Berkman, Colditz, & Kawaski, 2001).
The extent to which networks vary with age is not clear-cut. While some studies identify a
decline in friendship networks, others report that changes occur primarily in network
composition (e.g., less contact with couples, more with informal helpers) or in the role played by
this network (e.g., increased need for instrumental support) (Antonucci et al., 2009; Jeon et
al., 2007; Kalmijn, 2003). In fact, elders active in voluntary associations or retirement
communities
may actually expand and diversify their networks. A process of social selection may occur
whereby healthy people are more likely to have supportive social relationships precisely because
they are healthy. Conversely, poor health may hinder them from initiating or sustaining social
relationships (Wethington et al., 2000). In some cases, negative interactions with one’s informal
networks can have adverse effects on health. In addition to conflictual relationships, other types
of negative interactions may be due to incongruence between an older person’s needs and
competence level, such as disappointment that one’s children are not visiting often enough or
that relatives are giving unsolicited advice or criticism. The concept of ambivalence conveys that
close relationships can have both positive and negative features (Antonucci et al., 2009;
Krause, 2004, 2006).
The family—the basic unit of social relationships—is the first topic considered here. We
examine the rapid growth of the multigenerational family and how relationships with spouses,
partners, adult children, parents, grandparents, and siblings shift with age.
Long-term married couples generally express satisfaction with their marriages.
Changing Family Structure
Contrary to commonly held perceptions of elders as separate from families, the lives of young
and old, even at a geographic distance, are intertwined through cross-generational support. The
family is the primary source of such support for older adults; nearly 94 percent have living
family members. These include partners, adult children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren,
and siblings. Approximately 80 percent of adults over age 65 have children, but this percentage
is declining because of reduced fertility rates (Cruikshank, 2009; Uhlenberg, 2004).
About 66 percent of older adults live in a family setting—with a partner, child, or sibling—
although not necessarily in a multigenerational household (Figure 9.1). Given the higher rates of
widowhood among women than men, older men are more likely to live in a family setting,
typically with a spouse or partner than are women (81 and 61 percent, respectively). Only about
6 percent of older men and 17 percent of older women live with children, siblings, or other
relatives instead of a spouse or partner (Federal Interagency Forum, 2008). However, the
majority have at least one child living close by who sees them regularly but older adults typically
do not want to live with their adult children (Davidson, 2006). Nevertheless, declining health,
loss of a former caregiver or partner, desire for companionship, and lower income often
precipitate the move to a shared residence. Widowed mothers are more likely to live with a child
than are divorced, single, or married mothers (Wilmouth, 2000). In a growing number of
households, adult children are moving back into the family home, typically for financial reasons
or following a divorce or unemployment; such arrangements may strain family relations
(Calasanti & Kiecolot, 2007).
Factors associated with geographic proximity to the nearest child are:
•
•
•
•
• parents’ health: as health declines, parents tend to move closer to an adult child
• parents’ age: parents over age 80 live closer to adult children
• parents’ socioeconomic status: higher social class tends to be associated with greater geographic
distance
• marital status: widowed mothers live closest to daughters; remarried parents tend to live at a
greater geographic distance than parents who remain married to each other
FIGURE 9.1 Living Arrangements of Persons 65+, 2008
Administration on Aging (AOA). (2008). A Profile of Older Americans. Washington,
DC.
Geographic distance in itself does not impair the quality of parent-adult child relationships. In
fact, as described in Chapter 10, adult children often provide care to parents at a considerable
distance.
SOURCE:
The Growth of the Multigenerational Family
The term multigenerational family encompasses the growing reciprocity across three or more
generations, both in the United States and globally. Since 1990, the number of multigenerational
households has grown by approximately 60 percent. Nearly four million American households
consist of three or more generations living together, with about 78,000 households nationwide
consisting of four generations (Generations United, 2009). For individuals born in 1900, the
chances of both parents dying before the child reached age 18 were 18 percent; by age 30, only
21 percent had any grandparents alive. In contrast, 68 percent of individuals born in 2000 will
have four grandparents alive when they reach age 18; and 76 percent will have at least one
grandparent at age 30—almost four times that of the cohort born in 1900. In fact, 20-year-olds
today are more likely to have a grandmother living (92 percent) than 20-year-olds in 1900 were
to have their mother alive (83 percent) (Kleyman, 2006). Another indicator of changing
multigenerational dynamics is that increasing numbers of people over age 65 have a child who is
also over 65, who may then be both a child and a grandparent at the same time. In sum, persons
at all stages of life are more likely to have kinship networks involving older people than in the
past. This has resulted in parents and children now sharing five decades of life; siblings perhaps
sharing eight decades; and the grandparent–grandchild bond lasting three or more decades.
Multigenerational families cut across race, ethnicity, and social class.
Family gatherings help maintain multigenerational ties.
Increased life expectancy may create multigenerational kinship networks to provide family
continuity, along with instrumental or emotional support when needed. Yet increased longevity
may also mean extended years of family dysfunction and caring for relatives with chronic
disabilities. Although families are experiencing more cross-generational relationships,
paradoxically, fewer people within each generation are available to care for older family
members. Demographic and societal trends that underlie this paradox include a decrease in
overall fertility rates that have reduced family size, an increase in family dissolutions, and more
women employed. As life expectancy has grown and the birthrate has declined, delaying the age
of childbearing has become common, and resulted in a shift in the age structure for most families
from a “pyramid” to a “beanpole.” This means that American families are smaller today
(averaging 2.6 people in the nuclear family) than ever before, with the age of first births now 25
years, and first births to women age 35 years and older increasing nearly eight times since 1970
(United Press International, 2009). Nevertheless, cross-generational obligations and exchanges
have remained relatively stable across time (Bengtson, 2001; Bengtson & Putney, 2006;
Harper, 2006).
Multigenerational families often provide reciprocal support.
The number of women entering the paid workforce has increased dramatically in the past 50
years; over 60 percent compared to 33 percent of women in the 1950s (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2006). The distribution of women in the workforce across the life-course is also
striking, with women in their childbearing years most likely to be employed, increasingly for
economic reasons. Even though many family relationships are becoming more egalitarian, most
women still face multiple care responsibilities across the life-course: for children and young
adults with disabilities or chronic illnesses, parents or grandparents during the woman’s middle
age, a partner in old age, or an adult child with developmental disabilities until the woman
reaches advanced old age. Other societal trends that are increasing the heterogeneity of the
American family structure include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• a growth in divorce and blended families (e.g., families reconstituted by divorce and
remarriage)
• more people living alone
• more single-parent households
• never-married individuals living together as nontraditional families (e.g., LGBT families,
cohabitation of heterosexual couples, and single parents choosing to raise children on their own)
• more egalitarian relationships in younger generations
• more emphasis on affective bonds and choice, less on normative prescriptive relationships
• more grandparents and great grandparents with primary responsibilities for grandchildren.
For the first time, only 23.5 percent of U.S. households are composed of nuclear families.
Similarly, the number of children living in single-parent households grew from about 12 percent
in 1950 to about 32 percent today. As a result, the pattern of first marriage and nuclear family is
no longer the societal norm, but one of numerous family structures. In fact, the blended family
may soon outnumber other forms (Doodson & Morley, 2006).
Defining Multigenerational Families
Consistent with social constructionism theory described in Chapter 8, definitions of families are
socially constructed and vary by culture and socioeconomic class. In this text, family is broadly defined
by interactional and emotional quality, not necessarily by members living together, by birth, or
marriage. Kinship is a matter of social definition, particularly within families of color, as reflected in the
role of fictive kin within populations of color: grandparents as primary caregivers to grandchildren, “play
relatives,” godparents, and friends. Among gays and lesbians, chosen or “friendship” families are
common. Gerontological practitioners and policy makers must be sensitive to the ways in which elders
and their networks define family in order to work effectively and respectfully with family members.
A life-course and multigenerational perspective on families captures the interdependence of lives in
three ways: the interdependence of cohorts in societies, that of generations in families, and individual
life paths in relation to these interdependencies. It also takes account of individual, family, and historical
time (Bliezsner, 2006; Hagestad, 2003). Multigenerational families are characterized by crossgenerational reciprocity and interdependence rather than dependence or independence. None of us, no
matter what our age, is ever totally independent. Generations are interd …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades