Why Don’t You Get on My Nerves Anymore? Socioemotional Aging Karen L. Fingerman Professor Human...
-
Upload
arabella-shepherd -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
5
Transcript of Why Don’t You Get on My Nerves Anymore? Socioemotional Aging Karen L. Fingerman Professor Human...
Why Don’t You Get on My Nerves Anymore? Why Don’t You Get on My Nerves Anymore? Socioemotional AgingSocioemotional Aging
Karen L. FingermanKaren L. FingermanProfessor Human Development & Family SciencesProfessor Human Development & Family Sciences
Faculty Affiliate, Psychology DepartmentFaculty Affiliate, Psychology Department
University of Texas at AustinUniversity of Texas at Austin
Relationship Problems Relationship Problems
Poor Mental Health…Poor Mental Health…
With age, adults report With age, adults report fewer problems with:fewer problems with:
Friends Friends (Blieszner & Adams, 1995)(Blieszner & Adams, 1995)
Spouse Spouse (Carstensen, Gottman, & (Carstensen, Gottman, &
Levenson, 1995)Levenson, 1995)
Children Children (Fingerman, Chen, Hay, (Fingerman, Chen, Hay,
Cichy, & Lefkowitz, 2006)Cichy, & Lefkowitz, 2006)
Grandchildren Grandchildren (Fingerman, (Fingerman,
1998)1998)
Sibling Sibling (Bedford, 1989)(Bedford, 1989)
Relationships Relationships (Akiyama, et al., (Akiyama, et al.,
2003; Fingerman & Birditt, 2003; Rook, 1987)2003; Fingerman & Birditt, 2003; Rook, 1987)
Why do they have fewer problems?Why do they have fewer problems?
Person Changes…Person Changes…– EmotionsEmotions– CognitionCognition– BrainBrain
Social Context…Social Context…– Selection of most rewarding partnersSelection of most rewarding partners– RolesRoles
Person Features
Relationship Features
Adult’s
Socioemotional
Response
Partner’s Input
Social Input Model of Socioemotional Response
Fingerman & Baker, 2006; Fingerman & Pitzer, 2007
Fingerman & Charles, 2010
Social Partner’s Input….Social Partner’s Input….
Social partners may hold views of older adults that Social partners may hold views of older adults that influence their behaviors towards that older adult.influence their behaviors towards that older adult.
Perceptions of remaining time.Perceptions of remaining time.
Interpersonal dyadic reactions.Interpersonal dyadic reactions.
It takes two to tango…..It takes two to tango…..
Overview of Social ProblemsOverview of Social Problems((NN = 187) = 187)
TEENAGERS (aged 13-16)TEENAGERS (aged 13-16)
YOUNG ADULTS (20s)YOUNG ADULTS (20s)
MIDDLE-AGED (40s)MIDDLE-AGED (40s)
YOUNG OLD (60s)YOUNG OLD (60s)
OLDEST OLD (80s)OLDEST OLD (80s)
NIA, Grant # AG1448401, “Adults’ Reasoning about Social Problems”NIA, Grant # AG1448401, “Adults’ Reasoning about Social Problems” Fingerman, Hay, & Birditt (2004) Journal of Marriage and Family
Social Problems StudySocial Problems Study
Demographics, vocabulary, & healthDemographics, vocabulary, & health
Social desirabilitySocial desirability
Kahn & Antonucci measureKahn & Antonucci measure
Measure of problematic tiesMeasure of problematic ties
Open-ended questions about interpersonal Open-ended questions about interpersonal problems, behaviors, and emotionsproblems, behaviors, and emotions
Ratings of behaviors and emotionsRatings of behaviors and emotions
Classify relationships as:Classify relationships as:
Close onlyClose only
Problematic onlyProblematic only
Mixed or ambivalentMixed or ambivalent
Average Number of Relationships Average Number of Relationships Classified as Close OnlyClassified as Close Only
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Teen Young Middle Yold Oldold
Close
Average Number of Relationships Average Number of Relationships Classified as AmbivalentClassified as Ambivalent
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Teen Young Middle Yold Oldold
Ambivalent
Average Number of Relationships Average Number of Relationships Classified as Problematic OnlyClassified as Problematic Only
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Teen Young Middle Yold Oldold
Problematic
Overall Findings….Overall Findings….
Older adults experienced fewer ambivalent as well as fewer Older adults experienced fewer ambivalent as well as fewer problematic only ties. problematic only ties.
People of all ages experienced the greatest ambivalence People of all ages experienced the greatest ambivalence towards close family (spouse, child, parent)…towards close family (spouse, child, parent)…
Which means that older adults somehow manage to avoid Which means that older adults somehow manage to avoid getting upset with their close social partners….getting upset with their close social partners….
Young and middle-aged adults are most Young and middle-aged adults are most ambivalent and upset with close familyambivalent and upset with close family
Adult Family StudyAdult Family Study
Phone interviews (CATI) Phone interviews (CATI) individuallyindividually
Background InformationBackground Information
Positive and Negative Qualities of Positive and Negative Qualities of RelationshipsRelationships
Adult Family Study Adult Family Study 158 Families (158 Families (NN = 474) = 474)
Son or Daughter (22 to 49, Son or Daughter (22 to 49, MM = 34 years) = 34 years)
Mother (40 to 82, Mother (40 to 82, MM = 60 years) = 60 years)
Father (43 to 84, Father (43 to 84, MM = 62 years) = 62 years)
Stratified sampling by age, gender, ethnicityStratified sampling by age, gender, ethnicity
Fingerman, NIA Grant AG17916-01, “Problems between Parents and Offspring in Adulthood”
Positive Emotions Positive Emotions
HappyHappy
RelaxedRelaxed
InterestedInterested
PleasedPleased
ProudProud
DelightedDelighted
Negative EmotionsNegative Emotions
IrritationIrritation
Disappointment Disappointment
Guilt Guilt
Worry Worry
JealousJealous
DisgustDisgust
EmbarrassmentEmbarrassment
How do partners’ emotions fit together?How do partners’ emotions fit together?
Intensity of Negative EmotionsIntensity of Negative Emotions
0
1
2
3
Intensity of Negative EmotionsIntensity of Negative Emotions
Offspring worry
Parent feels loved
Hay, Fingerman, Lefkowitz (2007)
Negative for the offspringNegative for the offspring
But positive for the elderly parentBut positive for the elderly parent
Socioemotional Processes as Socioemotional Processes as Interpersonal TransactionsInterpersonal Transactions
IndividualReading Cues & Responding
to Partner
IndividualReading Cues & Responding
to Partner
Age Differences in BehaviorsAge Differences in Behaviors
Tell me about the last time you were irritated, Tell me about the last time you were irritated, bothered, hurt, or annoyed with (name of social bothered, hurt, or annoyed with (name of social partner)partner)
What did you do in this situation? What did you do in this situation?
Birditt & Fingerman (2005) Journals of Gerontology
Coding for ResponsesCoding for Responses
ConstructiveConstructive: discuss problem, ask person to stop, tried to : discuss problem, ask person to stop, tried to solve the problemsolve the problem
AvoidanceAvoidance: Remain calm, pray, do nice things for person : Remain calm, pray, do nice things for person unrelated to the problemunrelated to the problem
ConfrontConfront: Argue, yell, name call: Argue, yell, name call
NeglectNeglect: Ignore person, sulk, not talk to the person: Ignore person, sulk, not talk to the person
A bit more about the codesA bit more about the codes
Reliability established across 100 out of 833 Reliability established across 100 out of 833 responses (12% of data)responses (12% of data)
Kappas ranged from .79 to .93Kappas ranged from .79 to .93
7% of data did not fit any codes 7% of data did not fit any codes
(cry, harm another object, exercise)(cry, harm another object, exercise)
Distributions of BehaviorsDistributions of Behaviors
ConstructiveConstructive AvoidAvoid ConfrontConfront NeglectNeglect
Teens ( n =187)Teens ( n =187) .50.50 .14.14 ..3636 .11.11
Young adult Young adult
(n =203)(n =203)
.56.56 .19.19 .18.18 .10.10
Middle agedMiddle aged
(n =162)(n =162)
.68.68 .14.14 .11.11 .08.08
Young old Young old
(n =179)(n =179)
.68.68 .20.20 .07.07 .05.05
Oldest oldOldest old
(n = 102)(n = 102)
.48.48 .33.33 .09.09 .07.07
Behaviors in Daily Interpersonal ProblemsBehaviors in Daily Interpersonal Problems
National Daily Diary Study National Daily Diary Study ((NN = 1,242) = 1,242) – Part of the MIDUS study Part of the MIDUS study – Adults aged 25 to 74Adults aged 25 to 74– Participants completed interviews about daily stress Participants completed interviews about daily stress
each day for 8 dayseach day for 8 days– 666 participants who indicated that stress involved 666 participants who indicated that stress involved
another person (another person (nn = 1,618 responses) = 1,618 responses)
Birditt, Fingerman, and Almeida (2005)
Replicate FindingsReplicate Findings
Older adults were less likely to argue or Older adults were less likely to argue or use confrontational behaviors than were use confrontational behaviors than were younger adultsyounger adults
Older adults were more likely to “do Older adults were more likely to “do nothing” or describe a non-specific passive nothing” or describe a non-specific passive behaviorbehavior
Summary…..Summary…..
Older adults attempt to avoid interpersonal Older adults attempt to avoid interpersonal tensionstensions
Younger adults more confrontational…Younger adults more confrontational…
But older adults were interacting with other older But older adults were interacting with other older adults, younger adults interacting with younger adults, younger adults interacting with younger adults….adults….
But in the real world…Social partners But in the real world…Social partners come prepackaged by age…come prepackaged by age…
So, how do social partners So, how do social partners
treat older adults?.....treat older adults?.....
Social partners treat Social partners treat older adults better…older adults better…
Holiday Card Study…..Holiday Card Study…..
Fingerman & Griffiths, 1999
How Older Mothers & Daughters Handle How Older Mothers & Daughters Handle TensionsTensions
Mother/Daughter Problems StudyMother/Daughter Problems Study((NN=96)=96)
MothersMothers– Over age 70Over age 70– Well-educatedWell-educated– HealthyHealthy
Daughters Daughters – Mean age 45Mean age 45– Live within 50 miles of their mothersLive within 50 miles of their mothers
Study DesignStudy Design– Individual interviewsIndividual interviews, , joint interviewsjoint interviews, questionnaires, questionnaires
Daughters’ BehaviorsDaughters’ BehaviorsDuring InterviewsDuring Interviews
IndividualDirect
Disclaim
Joint
Direct
Disclaim
Mothers’ BehaviorsMothers’ BehaviorsDuring InterviewsDuring Interviews
Individual
Direct
Disclaim
No response
JointDirect
Disclaim
What’s going on here?What’s going on here?
Daughters see problemsDaughters see problemsBut, in the best relationships But, in the best relationships
tone down their responses in tone down their responses in their mothers’ presencetheir mothers’ presence
Why? Why?
Don’t have much time leftDon’t have much time left
She’s not going to change. She’s not going to change.
Relationships have Time PerspectiveRelationships have Time Perspective
Ho 1: Perception that time in the relationship is running out leads social partners to behave more “positively”
Fingerman, Miller, Charles, 2008
SampleSample
Younger ParticipantsYounger Participants
Aged 22 to 35Aged 22 to 35
nn = 70 = 70
MM = 25.64 years = 25.64 years
57% women57% women
67% college degree67% college degree
Older ParticipantsOlder Participants
Aged 65 to 77Aged 65 to 77
nn = 71 = 71
MM = 70.21 years = 70.21 years
51% women51% women
79% college degree79% college degree
Procedures: Within Participant DesignProcedures: Within Participant Design
Report on the young adult (aged 18 to 35) feel Report on the young adult (aged 18 to 35) feel closest toclosest to
Report on the older adult (age 65+) feel closest toReport on the older adult (age 65+) feel closest to
NOT their romantic partnerNOT their romantic partner
Manipulation of Time Perspective Manipulation of Time Perspective
Young adult: Joining cultural Young adult: Joining cultural immersion program in Peace immersion program in Peace CorpsCorps
Older adult: Moving to Older adult: Moving to retirement community in retirement community in HawaiiHawaii
Reaction to Negative Behavior: Reaction to Negative Behavior: Insult ManipulationInsult Manipulation
Now, imagine the following situation: You are Now, imagine the following situation: You are talking in a group of people, describing a talking in a group of people, describing a problem you are having. (Name of problem you are having. (Name of older/younger adult)_______ responds by saying older/younger adult)_______ responds by saying something highly critical and slightly insulting something highly critical and slightly insulting about you. You are surprised and hurt by these about you. You are surprised and hurt by these remarks.remarks.
3 behavioral responses to insult3 behavioral responses to insult
Confront 2 items: Confront 2 items: Confront, raise voice, Confront, raise voice, = .58 = .58
Engagement 3 items: Engagement 3 items: Calmly discuss, try to find, solution Calmly discuss, try to find, solution = .79= .79
Avoidant 4 items: Avoidant 4 items: Situation blow over, accept nothing can Situation blow over, accept nothing can do, avoid dealing with, act as if nothing going on do, avoid dealing with, act as if nothing going on = .83 = .83
Control for: Typicality of the situationControl for: Typicality of the situation
Other measuresOther measures
IndividualIndividualTime perspectiveTime perspective (Carstensen & Lang, 1996)(Carstensen & Lang, 1996)
Emotional expressivity Emotional expressivity (Kring, Smith, Neale ,1994)(Kring, Smith, Neale ,1994)
Stereotypes Stereotypes (Packer & Chasteen, 2006)(Packer & Chasteen, 2006)
RelationshipRelationship
Time perspective of relationshipTime perspective of relationship
How close, how long known, relationship qualityHow close, how long known, relationship quality
Multilevel Models: PredictorsMultilevel Models: Predictors
Target AgeManipulation: Away on
an island or notFuture Time Perspective
for Relationship
Length of RelationshipPositive Relationship QualityNegative Relationship QualityImportance of Relationship
Blame other partyHow upset about situation Typicality of situation
Participant AgeParticipant GenderParticipant Future Time
PerspectiveEmotional ExpressivityStereotypes of aging
Behavioral responses to insult….Behavioral responses to insult….
Confront if target is young adultConfront if target is young adult
Engagement if target is young adultEngagement if target is young adult
Avoidant if target is older adultAvoidant if target is older adult
NotesNotes::
Partial mediation effect of time perspectivePartial mediation effect of time perspective
Perceptions of Social TransgressionsPerceptions of Social Transgressions
Standardized Vignettes…Standardized Vignettes…
Miller, Charles, Fingerman (2009)
Development ofVignettes:Development ofVignettes:Pilot StudiesPilot Studies
Used tensions from the NSDE and from studies of Used tensions from the NSDE and from studies of most salient interpersonal problemsmost salient interpersonal problems
Rated for age appropriateness, intensityRated for age appropriateness, intensity
Rated names to be cohort transcendentRated names to be cohort transcendent
Included photos rated for attractiveness, positive, Included photos rated for attractiveness, positive, negative emotionnegative emotion
Vignettes about Interpersonal Vignettes about Interpersonal TensionsTensions
Participant RatingsParticipant Ratings
How character would react to transgressionsHow character would react to transgressions Perceived blame and forgivenessPerceived blame and forgiveness Stereotypes of agingStereotypes of aging Background characteristicsBackground characteristics
Mixed Model: ConfrontMixed Model: Confront
Predictor B SEB
Intercept 2.30*** 0.30
Transgressor Age -0.19** 0.06
Controls: Closeness of relationship, participant age, reactor age, gender, familiarity with situation, aging stereotypes
Note. Parameter estimates are fixed effects. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Mixed Model: EngagementMixed Model: Engagement
Predictor B SEB
Intercept 2.03*** 0.31
Transgressor Age -0.07 0.05
Controls: Closeness of relationship, participant age, reactor age, gender, familiarity with situation, aging stereotypes
Note. Parameter estimates are fixed effects. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Mixed Model: AvoidantMixed Model: Avoidant
Predictor B SEB
Intercept 2.97*** 0.30
Transgressor Age 0.13* 0.05
Controls: Closeness of relationship, participant age, reactor age, gender, familiarity with situation, aging stereotypes
Note. Parameter estimates are fixed effects. *p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Social partners may contribute to older adults’ Social partners may contribute to older adults’ sense that there are few problems in relationshipssense that there are few problems in relationships
Why do older adults get along better Why do older adults get along better with their social partners?with their social partners?
IndividualIndividual– Better emotion regulationBetter emotion regulation– Less likely to behave aggressivelyLess likely to behave aggressively
Relationship contextsRelationship contexts– Older social partners Older social partners – Fewer contexts in which annoyances ariseFewer contexts in which annoyances arise
Social inputSocial input– Partners are forgivingPartners are forgiving– Protective social inputProtective social input
IndividualSocioemotionalDevelopment
Social Partners’ Beliefs
Interpersonal Transactions
In our personal relationships,In our personal relationships,
The best may be yet The best may be yet to come….to come….
Average Use of Problem-solving Behaviors Toward Average Use of Problem-solving Behaviors Toward Younger and Older TransgressorsYounger and Older Transgressors