Quite a few people know my name or face. (Sunday is music at Red Cedar, Tuesday is music at Moriarties, Thursday is trivia at Moriarties; all are bars, so alcohol is involved, there will be no condemnations of that.) All part of my plan to exponentially expand my social connections to prevent dementia. Alcohol will be involved and there will be no naysaying of that.
Local Ties in the Social Networks of Older Adults
Abstract
Objectives
Family members and friends who live nearby may be especially well-positioned to provide social support and companionship for community-residing older adults, but prior research has not examined the distribution and characteristics of local ties in older adults’ networks. We hypothesize that local ties are newer, more frequently accessed, and more embedded in the network, and that social disadvantage and neighborhood conditions structure older adults’ access to local ties.
Methods
We use egocentric network data from 15,137 alters named by 3,735 older adults in Wave 3 of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP). We conduct dyadic analysis to compare characteristics of local and nonlocal ties. Logistic regression models estimate how personal and neighborhood characteristics are associated with naming local kin and local non-kin ties.
Results
Nearly half of the older adults named at least one local network tie, and about 60% of these local ties are non-kin. Local ties are newer, frequently accessed, and highly embedded in older adults’ networks. Local kin ties are most common among socially disadvantaged older adults. Local non-kin ties are most common among white older adults and those who live in areas with high levels of collective efficacy, although local non-kin ties are also associated with residence in high-poverty neighborhoods.
Discussion
Local ties may bring unique benefits for community-residing older adults, but their availability is likely structured by residential mobility, neighborhood context, disparities in resources, and support needs. Future research should consider their implications for health and well-being.
Keywords: Family, Neighborhood context, Social network, Social support
Sociological research emphasizes the role of spatial proximity in structuring social networks by providing opportunities to cultivate ties, mobilize social capital, and exchange support through face-to-face interaction within shared spaces (Small & Adler, 2019). Social gerontological research similarly emphasizes that residential proximity to adult children provides an opportunity structure for intergenerational solidarity and exchanges of support (Silverstein, Bengtson, & Lawton, 1997). Indeed, older adults have higher rates of contact with children who live within 25 km, compared to those who live father away (Hank, 2007). And, children and parents who reside within walking distance are more likely to provide a wide range of forms of help and support than those who live farther away (Logan & Spitze, 1994). Nearby adult children are also particularly well-positioned to help older adult cope with new challenges or losses. For example, widowed older adults who have at least one adult child residing within an hour’s drive report lower levels of psychological distress than those whose adult children live farther away (Ha & Carr, 2005), and proximity to an adult child is thought to reduce the likelihood that newly disabled older adults enter a nursing home or require formal care (Choi, Schoeni, Langa, & Heisler, 2015).
The benefits of spatial proximity likely extend beyond relationships with adult children; other family and friends who live nearby may be important sources of companionship and support. Living nearby provides opportunities for face-to-face interaction and a sense of common ground (Ikkink & van Tilburg, 1999). Close relationships with neighbors may be key sources of support and information about local resources, and may promote social integration within the neighborhood (Logan & Spitze, 1994). Having a close friend or family member nearby may be a critical factor continued independent residence, particularly for the growing share of seniors who are aging without a partner or child (Mair, 2019). However, the availability and relevance of local kin and local non-kin ties in older adults’ networks has been understudied in prior research.
We address this gap by examining the prevalence and characteristics of local kin and non-kin ties in older adults’ social networks. We draw from prior research on social integration in later life to develop a set of hypotheses about how relationships with local ties may differ from those that are more geographically distant. Then, we consider how access to local network ties may be structured by individual and neighborhood characteristics. We use new data from the third wave of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP), in which respondents indicated whether each of their network ties live within a mile (or about a 20-min walk) from their residence. We conclude by considering the implications of these findings for older adults’ access to resources provided by spatially proximate network ties.
The Value of Local Ties
Classic sociological theories of urbanism suggested that increases in transportation and communication technologies reduce geographic constraints on the formation of close relationships (Fischer, 1982; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Wirth, 1938), and some researchers today argue that the new communication technologies render geographic proximity irrelevant for social network structure (Cairncross, 2001). Today, about 67% of adults age 65+ use the internet (Anderson & Perrin, 2017) and over 40% use social networking sites such as Facebook (Smith & Anderson, 2018). The use of these new communication technologies enhances individuals’ ability to access companionship and support from geographically distant network ties (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018; Quan-Haase, Mo, & Wellman, 2017). However, Fischer (2011) suggests that face-to-face interaction, and the importance of local ties, have not declined over the past several decades.
We propose that, despite the advent of new communication technologies, spatially proximate ties are uniquely positioned to provide particular types of support and companionship for community-residing older adults for several reasons. First, network ties that live nearby can provide locally relevant support—information, advice, and resources that can assist older adults with practical, social, and emotional needs. For example, a local network member can provide information about local organizations, events, and activities, which may promote older adults’ social engagement within the broader neighborhood (Logan & Spitze, 1994).
Second, more frequent interaction allows local ties to provide companionship, recognize support needs, and provide just-in-time support. In addition, local ties can also provide practical support that requires physical copresence, such as personal care, transportation, and household help (Hank, 2007). Geographically distant ties could also provide these forms of support, but we argue that local ties are better positioned to do so. In fact, greater face-to-face contact and ready access to support often underlie decisions to relocate to be closer to adult children or other family members (Spring, Ackert, Crowder, & South, 2017).
Finally, geographic proximity may also enhance network members’ relationships with one another. Social networks that have a high level of density, or interconnectedness, have greater potential for network members to coordinate support or assistance during a crisis such as bereavement or illness (Hurlbert, Haines, & Beggs, 2000). Kin ties generally have a high level of embeddedness in the network, due to their relationships with other kin ties. Geographic proximity may be particularly important for interconnectedness of non-kin ties. Non-kin ties that live nearby have greater access to an individual in his or her home during longer stretches of time, affording opportunities to interact with coresidents and visitors.
If local network ties provide unique forms of companionship and support, individual preferences and strategic actions may drive network proximity. Prior research suggests that older adults cultivate particular types of ties to fulfill needs. For example, older adults who have few kin ties may seek friendship ties as an alternative source of social integration (Mair, 2019). And, later-life changes such as bereavement or health decline may lead older adults to narrow focus to their closest and most emotionally rewarding relationships (Charles & Carstensen, 2010; Wellman & Wortley, 1990). If local ties are particularly well positioned to provide companionship, intimacy, and support, then older adults who shift focus to their closest and most rewarding ties may, effectively, focus on their local ties. Network propinquity may also increase if older adults relocate to be closer to family (Silverstein & Angelelli, 1998).
More at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment