This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire PubMed PubMed Citation

Do Age Differences in Close and Problematic Family Ties Reflect the Pool of Available Relatives?

¹ Gerontology Center, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.

Address correspondence to Karen L. Fingerman, Child Development: Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, 1200 West State St., West Lafayette, IN 47907-2055. E-mail: karenf{at}purdue.edu.

	Abstract

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Older adults consistently report having fewer close and fewer problematic social ties than do younger adults. Yet, prior studies have not explicitly examined associations between the availability of living relatives and the nature of family ties in later life. One hundred sixty-four individuals ages 13 to 99 described their networks of close and problematic social ties. Then they provided information about specific living relatives (e.g., spouse, mother, father, sons, daughters, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren). Older individuals reported more living relatives than did adolescents or young adults. Although individuals of all ages tended to name the majority of living relatives as close social contacts, most adults did not name all available relatives as close contacts. Age differences emerged with regard to naming relatives as problematic social ties. Older adults were less likely to indicate that their relatives caused problems. Findings are discussed in terms of an extension of investment theory, the availability hypothesis, which suggests that individuals with few living relatives are likely to view more of these relatives as close ties and fewer of these relatives as problematic.

The family serves as a primary milieu for positive and negative social ties throughout adulthood (Bedford & Blieszner, 1997; Fingerman & Bermann, in press; Troll, 1988). Indeed, although the overall size of social networks generally grows smaller with age, individuals tend to place greater emphasis on close family relationships as they grow older (Ajrouch, Antonucci, & Janevic, 2001; Antonucci, 2001; Carstensen, Gross, & Fung, 1997; Lang & Carstensen, 1994). Yet researchers have not looked at whether adults feel close to all available family members as they age or whether selection processes are also evident in this social context. Nor do researchers know whether adults of different ages experience family ties as irritating or annoying to the same extent. Although older adults report fewer problematic social ties than do younger adults (Rook, 1984; Walen & Lachman, 2000), it is not clear whether this pattern is true for relatives. The family arena is particularly interesting to study because people have little freedom in selecting the individuals to whom they are related. Thus, the pool of available living relatives may contribute to the nature of family ties in adulthood.

The importance of the pool of available social contacts is highlighted in literature pertaining to the oldest old individuals. Researchers have attributed the diminished social networks of oldest old individuals to the fact that they have outlived people whom they once might have named as close or problematic social ties (Johnson & Barer, 1997; Troll, 1994). On the other hand, Carstensen and her colleagues (Carstensen, 1992, 1993; Carstensen et al., 1997) have argued that if mortality accounted for age differences in social network size, loss of social ties would be evenly distributed across close and peripheral social ties; this is not the case. Rather, older adults report having as many close social ties as do younger adults, particularly in the family realm (Ajrouch et al., 2001; Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987). Thus, it is not clear whether the availability of living relatives is an important factor in determining close ties across adulthood or only for the very oldest adults. Indeed, few studies have specifically compared oldest old individuals to younger age groups. This study looks at age differences in close and problematic family ties as a function of the size of the available pool of living relatives across adolescence and adulthood.

First, we considered the pool of family members available to individuals of different ages. Limited research pertaining to oldest old adults has suggested that individuals may find their social resources depleted as family members in their own generation die (Johnson & Barer, 1997; Troll, 1994). Indeed, very elderly adults may outlive family members in the generations below them (Johnson & Barer, 1997). Although findings on this issue are scant, we hypothesized that oldest old adults would report fewer living relatives than would adults in younger age groups. We then considered associations between the pool of available relatives and the tendency to list family members as close and problematic social ties.

Close Social Ties and Available Living Relatives
Several theories suggest that older adults may be more sensitive to the availability of relatives than are younger adults. Socioemotional selectivity theory indicates that adults place a greater value on their close social ties (particularly family) as they approach terminations such as death (Carstensen, 1992, 1993, 1995). The convoy model (e.g., Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Kahn & Antonucci, 1980) indicates that life context (e.g., work roles, children in the home) contributes to age differences in the composition of social networks. We examined the available pool of family members as a social context. Prior studies have indicated that adults of all ages list five to seven intimate social contacts when asked to describe their social networks and that most of these social contacts are family members (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Fingerman & Griffiths, 1999; House, Kahn, McLeod, & Williams, 1985). If oldest old adults have fewer relatives, these remaining ties may play a particularly important role in their social networks.

Although theories of hierarchical compensation suggest that individuals substitute different social contacts for family members they never had (e.g., Chatters, Taylor, & Jackson, 1986; Connidis & Davis, 1990), we did not expect to find such substitutions compensating for depleted family resources in the current study. For example, according to this substitution model, childless older adults may have strong ties to a niece or nephew. The situation may be different with regard to family members an individual once had, however. When individuals outlive their spouse, siblings, and children, they may turn to fictive kin or new friends (Bedford & Blieszner, 1997), but substitutes cannot make up for a lifetime of shared experiences. Rather, remaining relatives may become more important. Thus, we expected older adults to name a greater proportion of their remaining relatives as close social ties, although we expected individuals of all ages to list a similar absolute number of relatives as close social ties.

Finally, we developed a hypothesis based on investment theory (Fingerman, 1998b; Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994). Investment theory suggests that individuals' reactions to a given social contact reflect their investment in that relationship (Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986). Individuals place a greater emphasis on a relationship when they have fewer alternatives to the person in that relationship. Extending this premise to look at the family, we anticipated that older adults who have fewer available relatives would place a greater emphasis on these remaining family ties and would thus name a greater proportion of those individuals as close ties. We refer to this offshoot of investment theory as the availability hypothesis. This hypothesis does not consider the quality of the relationships in question, but rather focuses specifically on the availability of kin ties. Prior studies have suggested that individuals of all ages generally feel close to their living relatives (e.g., Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Carstensen, 1992; Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999; Lang, 2000, 2001). We know little, however, about the availability of family relationships and networks of close social ties.

In summary, we expected (a) younger and older adults to report a comparable number of relatives as close social ties; (b) older adults' close family ties to represent a greater proportion of their living relatives, based on their smaller pool of available relatives; and (c) the proportion of living relatives listed to reflect the size of the pool of available relatives regardless of age.

Problematic Social Ties and Available Living Relatives
We were also interested in examining individuals' reports of problematic family ties and the availability of living relatives. As mentioned previously, although individuals select social contacts that are most rewarding in some arenas (e.g., Carstensen, 1992), they may be reticent or unable to exclude family members who are annoying. Thus, we might expect reports of problematic family ties to be constant across adulthood. Yet, studies have found that older adults report fewer problems in their family relationships (Walen & Lachman, 2000), their parent–child relationships (Fingerman, 1995, 1996; Umberson, 1989), grandparents' ties to grandchildren (Fingerman, 1998a), and sibling relationships (Bedford, 1989), and even difficult marriages appear to be less conflicted in later life (Akiyama & Antonucci, 1995; Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1993).

Older adults might have fewer difficulties with their relatives for several reasons. As they grow older, adults may better regulate their own emotions and the emotional qualities of their relationships (Lang, 2001; Schulz, 1985; Troll & Fingerman, 1999). We consider this issue elsewhere (Birditt & Fingerman, 2002). Here, we looked at whether the pool of available relatives also contributes to perceptions of problems with these relatives. According to investment theory, individuals who have few alternatives to a given relationship are more likely to overlook difficulties in that relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991). Extending this premise through the availability hypothesis, individuals with a small pool of living relatives may be unlikely to report problems with those remaining relatives. Thus, we again expected older adults to have fewer available living relatives and, therefore, to name a smaller proportion of these living relatives as problematic.

	Methods

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Participants
These data are from a larger study of social relationships involving 187 individuals. Eighty-nine percent of participants were reached for a follow-up phone call after the initial interview. The 164 individuals were distributed across both genders in five age groups: adolescence/13 to 16 years (n = 38), young adulthood/20 to 29 years (n = 28), midlife/40 to 49 years (n = 32), young-old age/60 to 69 years (n = 36), and oldest old age/over 80 years (n = 32). Individuals ages 20 to 29 were difficult to recontact. Individuals in their 20s who were not contacted by phone did not differ from those individuals who were with regard to age, gender, educational attainment, work status, or the overall size of the close and problematic networks. There were no gender differences with regard to background variables other than marital status (only 3 oldest old men were widowed, whereas all oldest old women were). Participants generally rated themselves as being in good health (M = 3.89, SD = 0.96; 1 = poor, 5 = excellent). Table 1 includes additional information about the sample in this study.

Procedure
The initial battery consisted of a 1- to 2-hr interview followed by a brief questionnaire. Participants were contacted by telephone at least 2 weeks after their initial interviews and were asked about specific relatives who were alive at that time. We solicited the list of living relatives in a separate session following the initial interview so participants would not be tempted to go back to add living relatives that they had not named in their network of close social ties.

Background information
Participants provided their education level, employment history, marital history, age, religion, ratings of their health, and other demographic information.

Social desirability
A 13-item version of the Crowne and Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Robinette, 1991) was administered. This measure assesses whether participants are trying to present a positive image to the interviewer rather than responding openly to questions that might reflect poorly on them.

Close and problematic relationships
We examined close and problematic social networks separately. Kahn and Antonucci's (1980) social network questionnaire was used to assess participants' close ties (e.g., Antonucci, 2001; Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Levitt, Guacci-Franco, & Levitt, 1993). Individuals completed a diagram by placing members of their social network into three concentric circles, based on psychological proximity. Those individuals who are most important are placed in the innermost circle, and social partners of decreasing importance are placed in each of the next two circles. Participants then provided more detailed information about the people they had named, including their relationship to these individuals and the frequency with which they have contact.

An adaptation of the Kahn and Antonucci (1980) measure was developed to assess problematic relationships. Participants placed individuals who bother them most in the inner circle and, again, placed individuals of lessening negative emotional intensity in the next two circles. Interviewers told participants that they could name people they had already named or new people. This study is the first to use the measure in this manner. Previous studies have used the Kahn and Antonucci measure to assess negative aspects of relationships by asking about individuals within the positive network who also cause distress (e.g., Ingersoll-Dayton, Morgan, & Antonucci, 1997; Morgan, Neal, & Carder, 1997).

Living family members
During the phone interview, participants indicated how many of the following family members were alive at the time of their initial interview: mother, father, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, grandchildren/great-grandchildren, grandparents/great-grandparents (see Appendix, Note 1). We used participants' subjective definitions of these terms and included step-relatives as daughters, sons, parents, or siblings if the participant chose to do so. Whether the participant had a spouse at the time of the interview had already been ascertained.

We selected these relatives on the basis of their kinship proximity and literature indicating that these ties are central family relationships throughout life (Bedford & Blieszner, 1997; Troll, 1988). This list of relatives covers 76% of family ties that participants named in their networks. We also looked at the distribution of the 24% of family ties not assessed in the phone interview (e.g, cousins, aunts, nieces, uncles) in order to ensure that we had not systematically excluded relationships of importance to a particular age group. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no age group differences in the total number of such family ties, F(4,159) = 1.03, p >.10. Thus, we captured the majority of family relationships named by participants in all age groups. For the sake of convenience, we use the term relative to refer to relatives covered in the phone survey.

	Results

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
First, we considered the number of living relatives that individuals reported. Then, we examined the number of relatives that individuals listed anywhere in their close and their problematic networks. We further looked at whether the absolute number of relatives named in the networks varied as a function of extraneous variables (e.g., social desirability, vocabulary/education, frequency of contact). Then, we considered the proportion of living relatives who were named in the close and problematic networks. Specifically, we examined the availability hypothesis by considering whether the proportion of living relatives listed in these networks reflected the size of the pool of available relatives. Where analyses involved age group differences, we used ANOVA and grouped participants into five discrete categories (teenagers, young adults, middle-aged adults, young-old adults, oldest old adults). Where age served as an independent variable associated with a continuous dependent variable, we used regression analyses with the actual ages of participants entered as a continuous variable.

Number of Living Relatives
On average, participants reported that they had 6.98 living relatives (SD = 4.47). A one-way ANOVA looking at age group differences in total number of living relatives was significant, F(4,160) = 7.21, p <.001. Contrary to our expectation, Scheffé's post hoc tests revealed that young-old and oldest old adults had more living relatives than did younger age groups. Relatives were not evenly distributed across relationship types, however, and the category for grandchildren appeared to skew findings. Nine participants in the older age groups had more than 10 grandchildren. In addition, no teenagers were married or had children or grandchildren. Given that most participants in the 20- to 29-year-old age range were actually in their early 20s, few of these individuals were married. As mentioned previously, the majority of oldest old women were widowed, whereas the majority of oldest old men were married.

As a check on the effects of potential skews in the data, we repeated the analyses including only those family members who were within one generation of the participant (e.g., spouse, child, sibling, parent). When grandchildren and grandparents were excluded from the total, the sample average for number of living relatives dropped to 4.58 (SD = 2.14). The ANOVA for age group differences remained significant, F(4,160) = 6.48, p <.001, with grandparents and grandchildren excluded. Yet, Scheffé's tests revealed that individuals in their 40s and 60s had more living relatives than other age groups. Given these disparities, subsequent analyses were conducted twice, once including grandchildren and grandparents and once excluding these relatives. Because findings did not differ substantially with regard to these separate analyses, only analyses including all relatives are reported here.

Number of Relatives Named in the Close and Problematic Networks
Table 2 shows the total number and the proportion of living relatives whom participants of different ages named in the close and the problematic social networks. We looked first at the absolute number of relatives who were named as close and problematic ties. The sample average for number of relatives listed as close social ties was 5.25 (SD = 3.28). The sample average for number of relatives listed as problematic was 1.59 (SD = 1.55).

There were also age differences in the number of kin named as problematic, F(4,159) = 4.79, p <.001. This time, the pattern fit our expectations. Scheffé's tests revealed that young-old and oldest old adults named fewer relatives as problematic than did younger individuals. On average, teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults named two relatives as problematic; young adults named one to two relatives as problematic; and oldest old adults named zero or one relative as problematic.

Control variables and number of relatives named as close and problematic
We then considered associations between reports of the number of close and problematic ties and control variables. There was a small negative association between scores on the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) social desirability measure and the number of relatives named in the problematic social circles (r = -.17, p <.05). There was not a significant association between social desirability and the number of relatives listed as close social contacts. There were no significant associations between scores on the Shipley Vocabulary test and the number of relatives named as close or problematic.

It is also possible that frequency of contact with relatives (rather than size of available pool) determines whether or not relatives are considered close or problematic ties. There were age differences in frequency of contact with relatives listed as close ties, F(4,159) = 11.83, p <.001, and those listed as problematic ties, F(4,159) = 3.86, p <.01. Scheffé's test revealed that on average teenagers had more contact with the relatives that they named in their networks than did individuals of other ages, but the other age groups did not differ.

Pool of Living Relatives and Close and Problematic Ties
Our research questions asked about associations between the proportion of relatives named in the close and problematic networks and the available pool of relatives. On average, participants named 73% (SD = 0.28) of their living relatives in their network of close social ties and 26% (SD = 0.27) of their living relatives in their network of problematic social ties. Over one third of participants named all of their living relatives as close ties, and over one third of participants named fewer than 10% of their living relatives as problematic ties.

Table 3 shows ANOVAs examining age group differences in the proportions of living relatives named. We had initially expected older adults to name a greater proportion of their living relatives as close ties. This expectation was based on their presumed smaller pool of living relatives. In fact, there were no significant differences in the proportion of relatives whom participants of different ages named as close ties, F(4,159) = 1.25, p >.10.

Availability hypothesis
Next, we considered the availability hypothesis. The availability hypothesis predicts that individuals with the smallest pool of living relatives would name most of their relatives as close ties and would name very few of these relatives as problematic ties. To examine this issue, we estimated regression analyses in which the number of living relatives and participant age (as a continuous variable) served as independent variables and the proportion of relatives named in the positive and negative circles served as dependent variables.

As can be seen in Table 4, the size of the pool of living relatives was negatively associated with the proportion of relatives who were named as close ties. Individuals with more living relatives named a smaller proportion of those relatives as close ties. There was no significant effect for age in this regression. For problematic ties, the pattern was in the opposite direction of our expectations. Participants with a greater number of living relatives named a smaller proportion of those relatives as problematic. There was also a strong effect for age in this regression, with older adults naming a smaller proportion of their relatives as problematic above and beyond the effect of the pool of living relatives.

	Discussion

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
The findings of this study partially supported the premise that the size of the pool of relatives is associated with the proportion of those relatives who are named as close or problematic social ties. In general, older participants named a larger number of their relatives as close social ties but did not name a greater proportion of their relatives. Findings did not support the availability hypothesis that individuals with fewer living relatives would name a smaller proportion of those relatives as problematic, however. There were differences in the number and the proportion of living relatives named as problematic ties, but these differences were more strongly associated with age than with available relatives who could be considered problematic.

Our findings were not as expected in part because our initial premise regarding the size of the pool of living relatives was not substantiated. Contrary to our expectation that older adults would have fewer living relatives, when grandchildren were included, older adults had more available living relatives than other age groups. When grandchildren and grandparents were excluded, oldest old adults had fewer living relatives within one generation of themselves than their middle-aged and young-old counterparts, but the same was true for young adults and teenagers. The oldest old adults may have diminished social resources in comparison to what they once had, but not in comparison to the number of relatives available to younger individuals who have not yet married or had children. Thus, our first expectations concerning the pool of living relatives were not met.

Networks of Close and Problematic Family Ties
We had initially predicted that younger and older adults would name a comparable absolute number of relatives as close social ties. In fact, older adults named a greater number of family members as close social ties than did younger adults. Moreover, adults of all ages named a comparable proportion of their living relatives among their close social ties. On the one hand, availability is an issue; the size of the network of close family ties varied as a function of the number of living relatives. Yet, even among close relatives, some form of selection or hierarchy was involved in determining who was listed in the social network. Adults of all ages listed two thirds to three quarters of their available living relatives as close social ties, leaving out other potential relatives. As has been suggested elsewhere, even oldest old adults did not feel close to all of their living relatives (Troll, 1994). In sum, individuals do seem to be sensitive to the pool of living relatives, but they consider certain living relatives more important than others.

Problematic social ties seem to function under a different mechanism than do close social ties. Oldest old adults listed fewer living relatives in absolute numbers and a smaller proportion as sources of irritation. This finding does not seem to reflect a lack of available living relatives that one could complain about. Nor does it seem to involve selection of certain relatives who are particularly emotionally rewarding and, by extension, exclusion of relatives who are not. Indeed, older adults tended to name a majority of living relatives as close ties as did adults of other ages. Moreover, older adults named a greater absolute number of relatives as close ties; they were not choosier than were younger adults in this regard.

The age difference was in the number of relatives deemed problematic. Younger adults feel both close to, and irritated by, their living relatives. By contrast, the findings suggest that older adults do not get upset with the relatives with whom they have close ties. These findings may reflect older adults' increased ability to regulate emotions and their tendency to experience fewer negative emotions on the whole (Almeida, 1998; Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001; Gross et al., 1997; Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998; Troll & Fingerman, 1999). Future research might further consider the mechanisms that allow older adults to avoid interpersonal problems with family members.

Alternately, it is possible that older adults report fewer problems with their relatives because their relatives treat them more kindly than do relatives of younger adults. Indeed, in our prior research, we examined incoming social stimuli in the form of holiday greetings and found that older adults received more sentimental cards than did younger adults (Fingerman & Griffiths, 1999). In other words, other people may act in a manner with older adults that allows these older individuals to respond with few negative emotions. Moreover, although healthy older adults may not receive more help from their relatives than they give to their relatives, they may derive greater pleasure from the help that they receive (Fingerman, 2000; Smith & Goodnow, 1999). This enhanced enjoyment may lead older adults to overlook faults in these kin ties.

Finally, cohort differences in the experience and expression of emotion may contribute to age differences in individuals' likelihood of listing relatives as problematic social ties (Charles et al., 2001). Although the findings in this study did not appear to reflect social desirability considerations, it is possible that individuals who were raised in different social climates have varying degrees of tolerance for their relatives' misbehaviors. Thus, the oldest old adults may have accepted their relatives' irritating behaviors when they were young adults, whereas the teenagers in this study may still be annoyed with their relatives in late life.

The Availability Hypothesis
There appears to be limited support for the availability hypothesis with regard to close social ties, but findings must be interpreted with caution. In keeping with initial predictions, regression analyses revealed that individuals with fewer available living relatives were more likely to make maximum use of these ties by viewing most or all of them as close social contacts. Yet, these findings with regard to close ties might be interpreted in more than one way. Researchers have suggested that adults of all ages name five to seven people as close social ties across social contexts (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987; Fingerman & Griffiths, 1999; Grossman, D'Augelli, & Hershberger, 2000; House et al., 1985). Therefore, individuals with few living relatives may name all of them to keep their number of close ties stable. If this alternate explanation is correct, the inclusion of all living relatives as close ties would still reflect who is available to be named; individuals with more available family members would name fewer of them. Yet, the smaller pool would not drive this pattern as is suggested by the availability hypothesis; rather, the need for five to seven close ties would. Future studies should attempt to disentangle these two possible explanations for the findings in this study.

At the same time, findings for problematic ties did not support the availability hypothesis. There was a strong age effect for the likelihood of naming few or no relatives as problematic above and beyond the effect for the pool of living relatives. Older adults named fewer relatives as problematic. As has been discussed, this finding is in keeping with current theory on emotion in later life (e.g., Carstensen et al., 1999; Troll & Fingerman, 1999). Intrapsychic factors associated with age are a likely explanation for the decrease in reports of problems in family ties. Individuals may simply experience fewer irritations as they grow older, particularly in the interpersonal arena. Alternately, extrapsychic factors such as treatment by other people or cohort differences may explain these findings.

Future Research
There are several areas where future research might illuminate some of the findings from this study. First, it is important to note limitations to this study, including the homogeneous sample, the skew in the number of individuals in their 20s who were available for the follow-up interview, and the cross-sectional nature of the data. Moreover, we only asked about a few types of living relatives. These types of relatives included the majority of family ties listed by individuals of all ages. Troll (1988) argued that these types of relatives are the ones that individuals of different ages use in defining their families. Yet, the propensity to define family around mother, father, siblings, and offspring may be specific to European American populations (Bedford & Blieszner, 1997). Researchers have found that the size of social support networks, and the proportion of kin in those networks, varies with ethnicity (Ajrouch et al., 2001). Future studies might include multiple ethnic groups and incorporate subjective definitions of kin. Adults of all ages also have friends whom they consider integral to their social networks. Other studies might address the available pool of friends and close and problematic social ties.

Findings from this study also provide fodder for longitudinal research examining how availability of living social contacts contributes to individuals' definitions of close and problematic social ties. Secondary analyses of longitudinal data have indicated that individuals increasingly select social ties that are emotionally rewarding as they grow older (Carstensen, 1992) and that individuals are increasingly satisfied with their social contacts with age (Lansford, Sherman, & Antonucci, 1998). Prospective longitudinal studies might include questions about what happened to social contacts who were listed at previous waves but are not listed at present (Lang, 2000). Researchers could also ask about living kin at each wave.

Data from the current cross-sectional study revealed that individuals do not list all of their close relatives in their social networks. There is no explanation for why some relatives are listed and some are not. By looking at changes in social networks over time, researchers will gain insights into whether some relatives are selected "out" of networks over time, are lost due to death, or were never considered important. Indeed, as was mentioned previously, there has been little attention to past relationship quality in research on social networks in late life. Some relatives may simply never develop close affinities. Moreover, the mechanisms guiding definitions of problematic ties may differ from those that influence definitions of close ties. Some relatives may be problematic throughout life but remain in the network of close social ties. Problematic ties have not been examined longitudinally, but future research could fill this gap and provide important information about the nature of social ties across the lifespan.

	Appendix

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Note

1. We also asked about child and parent-in-law relationships, but these relationships were only available to individuals who were married or whose offspring were married. These relationships are not included in the analyses presented here.
   

	Acknowledgments

 
This study was funded by National Institute on Aging Grant AG1448401, "Adults' Reasoning About Social Problems Across Adulthood" awarded to Karen L. Fingerman. This article was written while Kira S. Birditt was supported by a training grant from the National Institute on Aging. We are grateful to Beth VanCitters for help on all aspects of this project and to Stacey Kleinbaum for contributions in initial stages of the phone follow-up interviews. Aurora Sherman provided helpful comments on an early draft of the article. Kira S. Birditt is now at the School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Received for publication April 13, 2000. Accepted for publication July 15, 2002.

	References

TOP Abstract Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

• Ajrouch, K. J., Antonucci, T. C., Janevic, M. R. (2001). Social networks among blacks and whites: The interaction between race and age. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 56B,S112-S118.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Akiyama, H., Antonucci, T. C. (1995, November). Negative aspects of close relationships across the lifespan. In K. L. Fingerman (Chair), Negative aspects of social relationships. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of The Gerontological Society of America, Los Angeles, CA.
• Almeida, D. (1998, August). Age differences in daily, weekly, and monthly negative affect. In D. Mroczek & W. Fleeson (Chairs), Intraindividual variability and change: New directions in personality and affect. Symposium presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
• Antonucci, T. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In J. E. Birran & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 427–453). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Antonucci, T. C., Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42,519-527.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Bedford, V. H. (1989). Understanding the value of siblings in old age: A proposed model. American Behavioral Scientist, 33,33-44.[Free Full Text]
• Bedford, V. H., Blieszner, R. (1997). Personal relationships in later life families. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 523–539). New York: Wiley.
• Birditt, K. S., Fingerman, K. L. (2002). Age and gender differences in emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. Unpublished manuscript.
• Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7,331-338.[Medline]
• Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 40. Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 209–254). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4,151-155.
• Carstensen, L. L., Gross, J. J., Fung, H. H. (1997). The social context of emotional experience. In K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics (Vol. 17, pp. 325–352). New York: Springer.
• Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54,165-181.[Medline]
• Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,136-151.[Medline]
• Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., Jackson, J. S. (1986). Aged Blacks' choices for an informal helper network. Journal of Gerontology, 41,94-100.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Connidis, I. A., Davies, L. (1990). Confidants and companions in later life: The place of family and friends. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 45,S141-S149.
• Crowne, D. P., Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,349-354.[Medline]
• Earles, J. L. K., Connor, L. T., Smith, A. D., Park, D. C. (1997). Interrelations of age, self-reported health, speed, and memory. Psychology and Aging, 12,675-683.[Medline]
• Fingerman, K. L. (1995). Aging mothers' and their adult daughters' perceptions of conflict behaviors. Psychology and Aging, 10,639-650.[Medline]
• Fingerman, K. L. (1996). Sources of tension in the aging mother and adult daughter relationship. Psychology and Aging, 11,591-606.[Medline]
• Fingerman, K. L. (1998a). The good, the bad, and the worrisome: Complexities in grandparents' relationships with individual grandchildren. Family Relations, 47,403-414.
• Fingerman, K. L. (1998b). Tight lips: Aging mothers' and their adult daughters' responses to interpersonal tensions in their relationship. Personal Relationships, 5,121-138.
• Fingerman, K. L. (2000). "We had a nice little chat": Age and generational differences in mothers' and daughters' descriptions of enjoyable visits. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B,P95-P106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Fingerman, K. L., Bermann, E. (2000). Family dynamics in adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51,5-29.[Medline]
• Fingerman, K. L., Griffiths, P. C. (1999). Season's greetings: Adults' social contact at the holiday season. Psychology and Aging, 14,192-205.[Medline]
• Gross, J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Goetestsam Skorpen, C., Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12,590-599.[Medline]
• Grossman, A. H., D'Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L. (2000). Social support networks of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults 60 years of age and older. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B,P171-P179.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• House, J. S., Kahn, R. L., McLeod, J. D., Williams, D. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S. Cohen & S L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 83–108). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
• Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Morgan, D., Antonucci, T. C. (1997). The effects of positive and negative social exchanges on aging adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52,S190-S199.[Abstract]
• Johnson, C., Barer, B. (1997). Life beyond 85 years: The aura of survivorship. New York: Springer.
• Kahn, R. L., Antonucci, T. C. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles, and social support. In P. B. Baltes & O. C. Brim (Eds.), Life-span, development, and behavior (pp. 254–283). New York: Academic Press.
• Lang, F. R. (2000). Endings and continuity of social relationships: Maximizing intrinsic benefits within personal networks when feeling near to death. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 17,157-184.
• Lang, F. R. (2001). Regulation of social relationships in later adulthood. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 56B,P321-P326.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lang, F. R., Carstensen, L. L. (1994). Close emotional relationships in late life: Further support for proactive aging in the social domain. Psychology and Aging, 9,315-324.[Medline]
• Lansford, J. E., Sherman, A. E., Antonucci, T. C. (1998). Satisfaction with social networks: An examination of socioemotional selectivity theory across cohorts. Psychology and Aging, 13,544-552.[Medline]
• Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender, and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8,301-313.[Medline]
• Levitt, M. J., Guacci-Franco, N., Levitt, J. L. (1993). Convoys of social support in childhood and early adolescence: Structure and function. Developmental Psychology, 29,811-818.
• Morgan, D. L., Neal, M. B., Carder, P. C. (1997). Both what and when: The effects of positive and negative aspects of relationships on depression during the first 3 years of widowhood. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 3,73-91.
• Mroczek, D. K., Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,1333-1349.[Medline]
• Park, D. C., Hertzog, C., Kidder, D. P., Morrell, R. W., Mayhorn, C. B. (1997). Effect of age on event-based and time-based prospective memory. Psychology and Aging, 12,314-327.[Medline]
• Robinette, R. L. (1991). The relationship between the Marlowe-Crowne Form C and the validity scales of the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47,396-399.[Medline]
• Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,1097-1108.[Medline]
• Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 16,172-186.
• Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Ed.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., Morrow, G. D. (1986). Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations, 39,45-63.[Abstract]
• Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,53-78.
• Shipley, W. C. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
• Smith, J., Goodnow, J. J. (1999). Unasked-for support and unsolicited advice: Age and quality of social experience. Psychology and Aging, 14,108-121.[Medline]
• Troll, L. E. (1988). New thoughts on old families. The Gerontologist, 28,586-591.[Medline]
• Troll, L. E. (1994). Family-embedded vs. family deprived oldest-old: A study of contrasts. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 38,51-63.[Medline]
• Troll, L., Fingerman, K. L. (1999). Emotional experiences in later life. In D. Levinson, J. Ponzetti, & P. Jorgensen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 390–394). New York: Macmillan.
• Walen, H. R., Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17,5-30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Miller, S. T. Charles, and K. L. Fingerman Perceptions of Social Transgressions in Adulthood J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, September 1, 2009; 64B(5): 551 - 559. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. T. Newsom, K. S. Rook, M. Nishishiba, D. H. Sorkin, and T. L. Mahan Understanding the Relative Importance of Positive and Negative Social Exchanges: Examining Specific Domains and Appraisals J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2005; 60(6): P304 - P312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Birditt and K. L. Fingerman Age and Gender Differences in Adults' Descriptions of Emotional Reactions to Interpersonal Problems J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., July 1, 2003; 58(4): P237 - 245. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Services Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire PubMed PubMed Citation