ETHNICITY AND INFORMAL SUPPORTS AMONG OLDER ADULTS MARGARET J. PENNING NEENA L. CHAPPELL University of Manitoba
ABSTRACT: This article examines patterns of ethnic variabilityin informalfamilial and extrafamilialsources of social support. Data &rived from a stratifiedrandom sample of people age 65 and over residingin Winnipeg,Manitoba, Canada are used to compare&e dijjerent ethnic groups in termsof variousaspectsof support (incltding availability,interactions,satisjkction,exchanges of assistanceand support, and confidant rekionships). The analysesrevealsimilaritiesas wellas diflerences among the groups. The implicationsof the jkdings are discussed in terms of attempts to conceptualize patterns of ethnic variabilityin informal networks on the basis of distinctionsbetween “traditional” txtendedfamily and linealauthoritystructures,and more “mo&m” nuclear family and colkteral authoritystructures.
Much of the literature relevant to ethnicity and aging points to the importance of cultural factors for an understanding of the nature, extent, and use of informal social supports among older individuals. Yet, there is relatively little empirical evidence that indicates how primary relationships are differentiated by ethnicity. Although literature has recently begun to focus on ethnic variations in relation to patterns of interaction and support visible within the context of the family, much of it concentrates on intergenerational or parent-child relationships (Mindel 1983). Considerably less is known about relationships with peers including spouse and siblings as well as friends, neighbors, and confidants. This is particularly the case for ethnic groups subsumed within “Anglo” or “White” ethnic categories (Guttman 1979; Holzberg 1982; Rosenthal 1983; Woehrer 1978). This article addresses some of the deficits apparent in our knowledge regarding patterns of ethnic variation in informal familial and nonfamilial sources of social support. Literature that examines ethnic group variations in terms of informal net*Direct all communications to: Maqamt J. Penning, Centre on Manitoba R3T 2N2, Can&a
Aging, University
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES, Volume 1, Number 2, pages 145-M. Copyright Q 1987 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 08904065.
of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
146
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
works is discussed and the results of comparisons among respondents representing a number of different ethnic groups are presented.
BACKGROUND IN THEORY AND RESEARCH A great deal of literature attests to the importance of familial relationships in later life. Generally regarded as being the primary source of support and interaction available to older adults, relationships with kin have been noted as taking priority over other types of relationships (Guttman 1979). The maintenance of close ties with family members is said to facilitate adjustment, increase well-being, and act as a buffer modifying the impact of life stress (Cohler and Lieberman 1980; Larson 1978). There is extensive reference, as well, to the significance of ethnic factors for defining these relationships. Woehrer (1978, 1982), for example, contends that close relationships exist among ethnic family structures, associated socialization practices, and the nature of intergenerational patterns of interaction and support that occur in later life. As a result of culturally defined expectations, ethnic families are said to vary “in the residential proximity of kin, in their frequency of interaction, in the amount and kinds of help they exchange, and in their norms and expectations regarding the individual’s place within the context of the wider family” (Woehrer 1978, p. 332). Among the structural characteristics believed to differentiate ethnic family types are authority relations and patterns of familism (Mindel 1983). According to Woehrer (1982), intergenerational relationships take their character largely from the organization of roles and relationships into either lineal or collateral family authority structures. She notes that, in general, lineal structures generate greater involvement and support for older family members. This is because expectations regarding interpersonal assistance and support tend to be less clearly defined within familial networks founded on more egalitarian or collateral relations. More often, attention tends to be focused around the importance of differences between nuclear and extended family forms. Literature that employs this distinction draws attention to the depth and breadth of the support system available to older family members in particular ethnic groups as a consequence of their greater integration within extended kin networks. Cohler (1979, p. 115), for example, articulates this view and notes that, in terms of intergenerational relationships, closeness tends to be greater among families “from traditional peasant societies such as those of eastern and southern Europe” because these families continue an historical tradition of reliance upon extended family ties. Similarly, French (1976) found that among French Canadian and French American families extended kinship ties remain prominent. Unlike the majority of those in western societies, he noted that French families tend to have a wide range of priority kin and, within this context, preserve the status and integration of older family members. Similar distinctions are often made in terms of racial comparisons. Staples (1976) noted that black kinship networks were generally considered to be more cohesive and extensive than those appropriate to whites. Along similar lines, Cantor (1979, p. 154) predicted that because of the “cultural patterns of the Black and Hispanic communities, particularly the extended or augmented family structure and value system,” older adults within these groups will enjoy greater access to informal avenues of social support than will older whites.
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
147
Distinctions among ethnic family types on the basis of authority patterns and familism generate very similar expectations regarding the nature of ethnic diversity in informal familial social supports. Thus, in accordance with the previous authors, Woehrer (1978, 1982) contended that it is within families of central, south, and east European, as well as Mexican and Asian, backgrounds that lineal structures tended to be preserved and interdependence among kin emphasized. In contrast, more collateral relations and thus greater independence among kin are considered as being characteristic of most north and west European groups.’ Often implicit within this literature is the view that relationships with those outside of the family assume lesser importance among those ethnic groups having strong familial orientations. While the family is considered the focal point of ethnic groups such as Italian, Polish, Mexican and Jewish Americans, this is said to be less true of Scandinavian, Irish, German and other families for whom extrafamilial relationships are said to assume relatively greater importance. Given the prominence of these distinctions within the literature, it is important to determine the extent to which they reflect major differences between groups rather than oversimplified or perhaps stereotypical views concerning ethnic diversity and, in particular, the place of the older family member “in the ethnic scheme of things” (Holzberg 1982, p. 253). According to Rosenthal (1983), they may reflect assumptions associated with modernization theory and the consequent tendency to examine ethnic differences on the basis of a traditional versus modem ethnic typology. Consistent with this perspective, ethnic families that are seen as products of traditional cultures are said to have respect for older members, to place a high level of importance on family ties, and to be characterized by extensive intergenerational solidarity. In contrast, such factors are assumed less prevalent within families conforming to the modem type. This characterization not only serves to idealize particular ethnic groups in terms of their treatment of the aged but also minimizes the differences apparent among those represented within each type (Driedger and Chappell 1986). To some extent, research findings lend support to the characterizations evident within the literature and indicate relatively high levels of interaction, assistance and support among family members within so-called traditional groups. However, evidence showing that, by comparison, families representing ethnic groups depicted as modem in type are lacking in extended kinship ties or place less emphasis on intergenerational interdependence is less consistent. Cantor (1979) reported that the Hispanic elderly in her inner city sample had more functional children, saw them more often, received more help from them, and reported greater closeness to them than did white elderly. However, similar differences were not found in comparisons involving black elderly. Black elderly were more involved in giving assistance to children than older whites, but no differences emerged with respect to the other measures examined. Also, despite greater involvement with their children, Hispanic elderly were less involved with siblings than were either whites or blacks. No differences emerged with respect to contact with other relatives. Dowd and Bengtson (1978) reported somewhat similar findings. In their comparison of middle-aged and older black, white and Mexican American respondents, the greatest frequency of contact with children and grandchildren was found among Mexican
148
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
Americans and the least among whites. Once again, however, no differences emerged with respect to contact with other relatives. These findings point to differences between Hispanic and Anglo elderly but relatively few differences between black and white elderly in relation to patterns of intrafamilial or, more specifically, intergenerational familial supports. Other research findings support this general pattern (see, for example, Blau et al. 1979; Mindel 1983; Nunez as cited in Korte 198 1, p. 19; Wolf et al. 1983). However, contradictory findings are also evident. Mitchell and Register (1984) reported somewhat more frequent contact with both children and grandchildren among older whites than blacks while Hanson et al. (1983) reported greater support for filial responsibility norms among white than black individuals of all ages. Finally, research by Gallego (as cited in Mindel, 1983, p. 195) indicated few differences between Mexican American and Anglo elderly in relation to both familial and friendship networks. Comparisons among black, white and Mexican American ethnic groups obscure whatever differences might be evident within each group. This is particularly problematic when it comes to the white or Anglo group, which can include respondents representing English, Irish, and German families, as well as Italians, Poles, etc. As Driedger and Chappell(l986) note, these latter groups predominate within the Canadian context. However, systematic empirical comparisons among them remain rare. Greeley (197 1) reported greater proximity among kin and more frequent interaction between parents and children among Italian, Polish, and French American respondents than among Irish or English American respondents. Similarly, Thomas and Wister (1984) reported higher rates of coresidence with relatives among previously married older French than British, as well as Italian than Jewish, Canadian women. These findings are relatively consistent with arguments concerning the greater potential for support from the family to older members of particular south or east European (than north or west European) ethnic groups. However, they are also tempered by other research findings that indicate, despite extensive contact, Polish Americans tend to feel that no one is available to assist them when needed (Trela and Sokolovsky 1979) and that they are less likely than Italian Americans to assert the importance of the family as a primary source of care and support in old age (Fandetti and Gelfand 1976). Findings such as these suggest that patterns of ethnic variability in informal social supports may be more complex than can be explained on the basis of distinctions drawn between “traditional,” extended or lineal kinship structures on the one hand and more “modem,” nuclear or collateral structures on the other. Concepts like “support” and “integration*’ imply a multidimensional focus (Bengtson and Schrader 1982). Yet, there are limitations on the ability of available research instruments to adequately reflect this character (Mindel 1983). As a result, much of the evidence cited as support for these conceptual distinctions focuses on issues of proximity and frequency of interaction between older parents and their adult children. However, differences among ethnic groups in terms of particular types or aspects of support may not be evident when other types and dimensions are considered. The following analyses address these concerns through a comparative investigation of the availability of informal social supports (from family, friends, neighbors, etc.), interaction with those available, satisfaction with these relationships, exchange of
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
149
assistance, and confidant relationships among ethnic groups typically conceptualized as reflecting either traditional or modem cultural orientations.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data for these analyses are drawn from a study of peer and intergenerational support networks among elderly recipients and nonrecipients of home care services living in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. A stratified (by age, sex, and region) random sample consisting of 400 recipients and 400 nonrecipients of home care, aged 65 and over, were interviewed during the spring, summer and fall of 1980. Interpreters were made available for all of the major language groups (see Chappell [ 19831 for a more complete discussion concerning sampling). The analyses reported here are based on a weighted sample. Whereas 50% of the original sample consisted of recipients of home care, the actual proportion of the elderly population of Winnipeg that has been estimated to use this service is between 10% and 15% (Chappell 1983). A weight factor was therefore introduced to make the proportion of users equivalent to their estimated representation within the population. This weight factor was then readjusted to ensure the accuracy of tests of statistical significance (i.e., the sum of the weights was made equal to the unweighted sample size, N = 800) (see Norusis 1985). Over half of the resulting sample is female (54%) and a similar proportion is age 75 and over (53%). In terms of education, 22% have less than 7 years of schooling, 60% have from 7 to 12 years, and 18% have more than a high school education. Relatively few report professional or high level management occupations. Just over half (52%) are married while approximately one-third are widowed (37%). The majority are Canadian-born (53%) and cite English as the language in which they communicate best (76%). The problems associated with developing suitable conceptual and operational definitions of ethnicity have been well documented. One of the major issues concerns whether ethnicity should be defined primarily (or even exclusively) in terms of either objective or subjective criteria. According to some authors, ethnicity is largely objective and reflects the distinctive elements associated with ethnic culture. Mindel and Habenstein (1976, p. 4), for example, defined an ethnic group as one that consists of individuals “who share a unique social and cultural heritage” which is transmitted from one generation to the next. To date, the majority of research has relied on relatively objective criteria for making ethnic comparisons. However, the importance of ethnic@ has also been defined in social-psychological terms as referring to the significance of a sense of ethnic identity or feeling of belonging to a particular ethnic group. According to Gordon’s (1964) classic definition, ethnic groups are composed of those who share a sense of peoplehood as a consequence of race, religion, or national origin. Similarly, Tavuchis (1979, p. 116) asserts the relevance of the concept to “those who conceive of themselves, and are so viewed by others, as sharing a distinctive social and cultural heritage that is passed from generation to generation.” For purposes of the present study, ethnic@ is defined subjectively and refers to individuals’ perceptions concerning the distinctiveness of ethnic culture as expressed
150
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
through ethnic self-identification. It is operationalized on the basis of questions asking respondents whether or not they consider themselves to be members of a particular ethnic group and, if so, of which group. The single largest response category consists of those who express no ethnic identification. In fact, 3 12 (or 39%) of the respondents indicate that they do not consider themselves members of any particular group. In addition, 18 1 (or 23%) identify themselves as Canadian. Together, those indicating either no ethnic identification or an identification as Canadian comprise 62% of the sample.2 Of the remainder, the most prominent groups include: British (N = 63; 8%), German (N = 39; 5%), French (N = 29; 4%), Ukrainian/Russian (N = 81; lo%), and Jewish (N = 36; 5%). It is these latter groups that comprise the major ethnic categories considered to represent those age 65 and over in the province of Manitoba according to Canadian census figures (Statistics Canada 1984). The fact that the majority of respondents do not consider themselves to be members of a particular group or view themselves primarily as Canadian introduce a number of problems. Not only does the literature have little to say about either of these groups but both are likely to include respondents who, on the basis of alternative criteria (e.g., place of birth, language, lineage), would be considered members of diverse groups. The analyses that follow are based on comparisons among the five smaller ethnic groups only, i.e., British, French, German, Ukrainian/Russian, and Jewish.3 Whereas the British and German ethnic groups are among those typically defined as Anglo, as modem in type, and as lacking in highly supportive familial networks, French, Ukrainian and Jewish ethnic groups are more often characterized as traditional in orientation and as having highly supportive extended kin networks. Comparisons are made with respect to such dimensions of support as the availability of family, friends and neighbors, interaction, satisfaction, confidant relationships, and the giving and receiving of assistance and support. The respondents were asked to provide information regarding all members of their families (including parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, second cousins, and in-laws) as well as their friends, neighbors, and people seen for specific purposes (including shopkeepers, etc.). For most relationships, they were also asked where the person lived, how often they saw them, how often they communicated either over the phone or through letters, and how satisfied they were with these relationships. Composite measures were constructed to facilitate comparisons involving primary relatives (both those living in as well as outside the household), more distant relations (e.g., in-laws, second cousins, etc.), friends, neighbours, and those seen for particular reasons. Both the composite measures and, where possible, the component items are examined in this article. Confidant relationships were measured by asking respondents, “Including your spouse, is there anyone in particular you confide in or talk to about yourself or your problems?” Those who indicated having a confidant were then asked how many they had as well as the nature of the relationships (i.e., as spouse, friend, etc.). Finally, exchange of support and assistance was assessed on the basis of answers to questions concerning whether the respondents indicated ever (currently and/or in the past) receiving or giving assistance in the following areas: when ill, child care, advice,
151
Ethnicity and informal Supports Among Older Adults
financial, transportation, providing a home, household tasks, emergency assistance, and shopping. Bivariate cross-tabular and one-way analysis of variance procedures were employed in order to assess the significance of patterns of ethnic variability. Control variables were not introduced because of the small size of several of the groups.
FINDINGS Selected sample characteristics are provided in Table 1. No significant differences are found among the ethnic groups in terms of sex, age, marital status, and the use of home care services. However, differences do emerge with respect to each of the other sociodemographic characteristics examined. French, Ukrainian and, to a lesser extent, German respondents, tend to have lower levels of formal educational attainment than do both British and Jewish respondents. They are also more likely to report semiskilled, unskilled or farm occupations. Predictably, in terms of religion, most British and German respondents are Protestant whereas French and Ukrainian respondents are catholic. The vast majority of those identifying themselves as French are Canadianborn. This is less true of those claiming British identification. One-half of this latter group are Canadian-born. In contrast, the majority of German, Ukrainian, and Jewish respondents were born in countries other than Canada. Finally, whereas most British and Jewish respondents cite English as their major language, the majority of those in each of the other groups report greater proficiency with another language. Even in terms of these demographic characteristics, it is clear that the traditionalmodem dichotomy drawn earlier is not straightforward. The Jews, usually considered
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics of Selected Ethnic Groups (in percent)
French
German
Ukrainian/ Russian
Jewish
66.7
49.4 50.6
48.0 52.0
55.6 44.4
34.0 66.0
Age 65-74 75+ x2 - 6.90; df - 4; p - n.s.
29.6 70.4
54.5 45.5
43.5 56.5
41.3 52.7
39.5 60.5
Marital Status Married Widowed Single/Divorced/Separated x2 - 2.3 1; df - 4; p - n.s.
41.6 43.0 15.4
51.2 31.0 17.9
48.7 41.1 10.3
54.1 40.3 5.6
50.6 48.0 1.4
British
SEX Male Female x2 = 9.28; df - 4; p - n.s.
33.3
(continued
on page 152)
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
152
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
TABLE 1 (Continued)
German
Ukrainian1 Russian
Jewish
19.6 36.6 43.8
4.5 18.5 44.9 32.1
6.8 27.5 41.8 23.9
20.0 23.6 12.5 43.9
9.5 30.6 59.9
39.3 31.5 29.2
24.6 29.5 46.0
56.1 17.0 26.8
27.2
18.1 54.7
90.8 2.5 2.8 3.6
0.0 94.0 0.0 6.0
87.1 2.7 0.0 10.3
4.6 82.7 .3 12.4
0.0 0.0 95.2 4.8
50.7 49.3
91.4 8.6
5.1 94.9
27.8 72.2
18.1 31.9
100.0 0.0
25.6 74.4
30.1 69.9
26.6 73.4
70.8 29.2
Recipient Nonrecipient x2 = 2.09; df - 4; p = n.s.
17.4 82.6
10.7 89.3
10.7 89.3
11.6 88.4
18.1 81.9
N
63.0
29.0
39.0
81.0
36.0
British
French
28.9 21.9 17.1 32.1
Major Occupation
Professional/High Level Management Low Level Management/Skilled Semiskilled/Unskilled/Farm Housewife x2 = 26.43; df - 8; p < .OOl Education O-6 7-9
lO+ x2-41.28;df--8;p. Similar differences are not, however, evident in the case of daughters (x2 = 5.2; df = 4; p = n.s.). The differences apparent among the ethnic groups in the number of relatives living outside of the household do not extend to more distant relations such as in-laws and
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
154
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
second cousins, etc. Also significant differences do not emerge in the mean number of friends or neighbors reported by those in the different groups (see Table 2). A minority of the respondents have no close friends and no significant differences are evident among the groups in the proportion reporting no close friends as opposed to those reporting one or more (x2 = 1.1; df = 4; p = n.s.>.Over 80% of those in each group have at least one friend. However, closer examination indicates both French and German respondents to be somewhat more likely than those in the other ethnic groups to report having only one friend. Specifically, while 28% of German and 44% of French respondents report having just one close friend, this is the case for 13% of British and 10% of both Jewish and Ukrainian respondents (x2 = 25.0; df = 8;p < .Ol>. In contrast, those reporting two or more close friends account for 7 1% of British, 73% of Ukrainian, 80% of Jewish as opposed to 55% of German and 39% of French respondents. French respondents also report seeing fewer people for specific purposes than do those within the other groups. In terms of availability of informal supports, the French and German tend to emerge as having more kin available. The Germans are most likely to reside with children, to report having many relatives outside the household and the French report many relatives and are the most likely to have children and grandchildren. Both the German and the French are also most likely to report only one close friend and least likely to report having two or more friends.
INTERACTION AND SATISFACTION The average amounts of interaction with available members of their social networks are shown in Table 3. Those living in the same household as the respondent are excluded and it is assumed that interaction occurs on a daily basis. Interaction refers to both face-to-face contact and such things as letter writing or talking on the telephone because they are highly correlated among the respondents.
TABLE 3
Frequency of Interaction by Ethnicity
Group
Relatives Outside Home x
x
British French Geman
4.28 3.82 4.39
4.15 4.67 5.30
Ukrainian Jewish F
4.48 4.64 2.89*
4.84 4.60 I .56
Total df
242
104
Notes:
*p < .05 **p < .Ol ***p < .OOl
In-laws, Second Cousins
Close Friends x 3.60 2.43 3.77 3.88 3.87 6.36*** 198
Neighbors x 5.08 4.10 4.60 5.19 5.39 3.57** 195
Ethnicity and InformalSupportsAmong Older Adults
155
A number of differences are evident among the groups. While French respondents report the greatest number of relatives outside the home, they also report somewhat less frequent interaction with these relatives than do those in other ethnic groups (Table 3). Once specific types of relationships are isolated, however, it appears that this lesser frequency of interaction reflects contact with relatives other than siblings or children. Among those respondents with one or more brothers, 36% of those across ethnic groups report seeing them at least once a month while 48% report contact either over the phone or in writing. Although in both cases ethnic group differences do not reach significance, French respondents are among those reporting the most frequent interaction. Fifty-four percent report having both personal and other forms of interaction. The least frequent contact is reported by German respondents (17% report personal contact and 40% report contact over the phone or in writing) and likely reflects their lesser proximity to such kin. There are also few differences in terms of the frequency of interaction with sisters. Overall, 45% of those with a living sister report personal interaction on a monthly basis (x2 = 5.3; df = 4; p = n.s.> and 62% report communication either over the phone or in person (x2 = 5.4; df = 4; p = n.s.>. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of those with one or more children report seeing at least one of these children at least once a week and, once again, differences among the ethnic groups are insignificant (x2 = 3.0, df = 4; p = n.s.>. Nor are there significant differences in the frequency of contact either over the phone or through letters (x2 = 2.7; df = 4;~ = n.s.). Just under 80% of all respondents report such contact on a weekly basis. Ukrainian respondents are the most likely of all ethnic groups to report frequent contact with sons. Within this group, 63% of those with a son (but no sons living in the same residence) see one or more of these sons on a weekly basis. This is the case for fewer of those within the other groups. In comparison with the 44% of British and 43% of French respondents who report weekly interaction, this is the case for 33% of those in the German group and 28% of Jewish respondents (x2 = 11.0; df = 4; p < .05). The significance of these differences disappears once other forms of communication are examined (x2 = 3.0; df = 4;~ = n.s.). From 48% (British) to 67% (Ukrainian) of the respondents report contact either over the phone or through letters. The insignificance of these differences suggests that whatever variations are evident in the frequency of personal interaction are likely the result of differences in proximity to sons among members of the different ethnic groups. For the sample as a whole, 46% of those with one or more sons report having personal interaction on a weekly basis. In contrast, this is the case for 60% of those having one or more daughters. This pattern of more frequent personal interaction with daughters than sons characterizes four of the five ethnic groups. Among British respondents, 53% state that they interact with at least one of their daughters every week. This is the case for 62% of French, 84% of German, and 86% of Jewish respondents. However, among Ukrainian respondents, fewer (45%) report weekly interaction with a daughter(s) and, for this group, there is more frequent interaction with sons (63%). The apparent differences among the ethnic groups in terms of the frequency of face-to-face interaction with daughters are significant (x2 = 16.7; df = 4;~ < .O1). Once again, however, they diminish when other types of interaction are considered. The
156
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
majority of respondents (ranging from 62% among Ukrainian to 95% among Jewish respondents) in all ethnic groups report weekly contact with daughters either on the telephone or through letters and, in this instance, ethnic group differences do not reach significance (x2 = 8.9; df = 4; p = n.s.>. Despite some differences in the amount of interaction that members of the different ethnic groups report having with specific relatives, similar differences are not apparent in terms of the satisfaction derived from these relationships (not shown here). Most respondents in all groups express relatively high levels of satisfaction. Interaction with more distant relatives (e.g., second cousins) was examined separately. Of those who have such relationships (42% of the sample as a whole), the mean frequency of interaction is similar across ethnic groups (Table 3). Once again, the majority are satisfied with these relationships and no significant ethnic differences are found. Among those who have friends as well as neighbors, French respondents report the least frequent interaction of all five ethnic groups (Table 3). The vast majority of respondents across all ethnic groups (86% of those with friends) see their friend(s) once a month or more and 6 1% report personal contact on a weekly basis. Monthly contact is reported by 87% to 9 1% of British, German, Ukrainian, and Jewish respondents. Yet this is the case for 63% of French respondents (x2 = 13.3; df = 4; p < .Ol>. However, despite such differences in the frequency of contact with friends and neighbors, similar differences are not evident in terms of the amount of satisfaction derived from these relationships. Once again the French emerge as somewhat distinctive. They interact less with relatives outside the home (excluding children or siblings), even though they have more of them. Consistent with having fewer close friends, they report the least interaction with friends or neighbors. Ukrainians are the most likely to interact with their sons and the least likely to do so with their daughters.
SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE Consistent with previous findings (see Cantor 1975; Strain and Chappell 1982; Tigges et al. 1980), most of the respondents (81%) stated that they have a confidant-i.e., someone with whom they could talk to about themselves and their problems. The average number of confidant relationships reported was 2.0 and no significant variations were found by ethnicity (F = 1.3; df = 247;~ = n.s.). Overall, 38% of those with a confidant and 62% of those who were married named their spouse as someone in whom they confided. Among married British respondents, 89% regarded their spouse as a confidant. Similarly, 78% of German and 93% of Ukrainian respondents stated that they confided in their spouse. Inadequate cases were available within the other two groups to enable ethnic comparisons. Almost one-half (49%) of those with a confidant (i.e., 59% of those with a confidant who also have living children) acknowledge confiding in their child(ren). Ethnic group differences are evident such that 62% of British, 80% of French, 57% of German, 54% of Ukrainian, and 47% of Jewish respondents report confiding in a child. However, these ethnic group differences do not reach significance (x2 = 5.3; df = 4; p = n.s.). Twenty-one percent of those with a confidant report confiding in peer family members (i.e., siblings, siblings-in-law, cousins, aunts, and uncles). Differences are
Etbnicity and lntormal Supports Among Older Adults
157
evident among the groups such that while 37% of British respondents reporting confiding in these kin, this is somewhat less frequent among French (24%), Jewish (22%), German (20%), and Ukrainian (8%) respondents (x2 = 13.5; df = 4;p < .Ol). In contrast, other relatives (including grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and second cousins), considered to be confidants by 25% of those reporting a confidant, are not differentially important among the ethnic groups (x 2 = 3.5; df = 4; p = n.s.). Nor are there significant differences in the proportion citing friends as confidants. Twenty percent of the sample as a whole report confiding in friends (x2 = 5.6, df = 4; p = n.s.). Ethnic group comparisons involving more concrete forms of interpersonal assistance and support reveal minor differences. No significant differences emerge in the proportion reporting that they either have (currently and/or in the past) or have not received assistance when ill, with household tasks, with shopping, in emergencies, or in providing a home. Jewish respondents are the most likely to indicate receiving advice from others-38% of those in this ethnic group said that they have received such advice in comparison with 24% of German respondents, and approximately 15% of British, French, and Ukrainian respondents (x 2 = 9.9; df = 4; p < .05>. They are also more likely to indicate receiving financial assistance (50% as opposed to from 20% to 30% of those in the other groups) (x2 = 13.6; df = 5; p < .Ol>. Finally, French respondents are significantly more likely than others to indicate receiving assistance with transportation (x2 = 12.7; df = 4; p < .05). In terms of assistance given by the respondents to others, ethnic variations are limited to two areas. British (52%) and Ukrainian (53%) respondents are somewhat less likely than French (69%), Jewish (70%), or German (79%) respondents to indicate that they had or were currently providing assistance with grandchildren or other young relatives. Among Jewish respondents, 72% indicated providing financial assistance to others. In contrast, 42% of British, French, and German respondents as well as 2 1% of Ukrainian respondents indicated helping others financially (x2 = 27.6; df = 4; p < .OOl>.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This article has examined ethnic variations in the nature, extent, and use of the informal social networks available to older adults. The analyses revealed evidence of similarities as well as differences among the groups. Differences emerged with respect to the availability of particular types of support, the extent of interaction, and patterns of assistance both given as well as received. Some evidence indicated greater access to familial social supports among French and German as opposed to British, Ukrainian, or Jewish ethnic groups. French and German respondents reported having the greatest number of relatives living outside of the household as well as the greatest number of children and grandchildren. While French respondents were among those most likely to be living in close proximity to sons, German respondents were those most likely to be living with their children. However, no significant differences were found in relation to the number of people living in the household or in proximity to siblings or to children in general. The average numbers of friends and neighbors were found to be similar across ethnic groups. However, once again, French (and to some degree German) respondents emerged as distinctive and were more likely than others to report having only one
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
158
friend. French
respondents
also reported
the least frequent
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
contact
with friends, neigh-
bors, and people seen for specific purposes of all the ethnic groups. Findings of this nature point to the lesser integration of Gertnan and particularly, French respondents, within extrafamilial than familial networks. However, additional findings indicate less frequent interaction with relatives in general among French than other respondents as well as no differences by ethnic@ in the amount of interaction reported with brothers, sisters, or children. Finally, despite evidence to indicate their less frequent contact with friends and neighbors, no differences were found between these and the other groups in terms of the levels of satisfaction reported with these
relationships. Overall, these findings offer little support for the conceptual distinctions noted in the literature. The differentiation of the traditional French, Ukrainian/Russian, and Jewish ethnic groups from the modem British and German ethnic groups on the basis of their cultural orientations (i.e., by their greater reliance on lineal authority patterns and extended patterns of familism), was not supported empirically in terms of informal supports. Rather, the “traditional” Jewish group is one of the most highly educated and has high socioeconomic status. .The “traditional” French group and “modem” German group emerge as very similar to one another especially in terms of kin interaction. The findings could be due to incorrect assumptions about the ethnic groups studied here. Without direct measures of authority structures and family forms, one cannot say whether the groups have been wrongly classified as “traditional” and “modem” or whether the relationship between these concepts and patterns of social interaction have been ill conceived. Nevertheless, the findings do support Driedger and Chappell’s (1986) argument that ethnic groups in Canada do not dichotomize simply into “traditional” versus “modem” and further that the process of change and evolution among groups is complex and multidimensional. Ethnic groups can modernize in some aspects but not others (the Jews are a prime example here). The analyses presented here add further support to the urgency of research on individual ethnic groups (in comparison with others), which examines some of the commonly accepted assumptions in the ethnic literature. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Data for this study were collected through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#492-79-0057) to Chappell. Partial support was also received through a Health Research Scholar award (#6607-1340-48) from NHRDP of Health and Welfare Canada to Chappell.
NOTES 1. However, some exceptions are also noted. German families, although typed as lineal in structure, are said to generate less intergenerational support than is the case among others (such as Jewish) characterized by more collateral authority structures (see Woehrer 1978, 1982). 2. The majority of respondents in both groups were born in Canada. Among those having no ethnic identity, 70.3% were Canadian-born and 17.2% were born in another English-speaking country. Most (93.5%) of the respondents in this group cited English as the language that they spoke best and most (70.8%) spoke English only. Most were Protestant (66.4%) although a significant minority were Catholic (22.3%). Among those identifying themselves as Canadian, somewhat fewer were Canadian-born (58.5%). However, a somewhat greater proportion were
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
159
born in other English-speaking countries (23.7%). As a result, the majority reported English as the language that they spoke the best (90.5%) and spoke no language other than English (67.0%). In terms of religion, 74.0% were Protestant and 14.6% were Catholic. 3. Although coded together, most of those in the combined Ukrainian/Russian category are likely to be Ukrainian rather than Russian. Therefore, this category is referred to as Ukrainian throughout the remainder of this article.
REFERENCES Bengtson, V.L., and S.S. Schrader. 1982. “Parent-child Relations.” Pp. 115-185 in Research Instruments in Social Gerontology. Volume 2: Social Roles and Social Participation, edited by D.J. Mangen and W.A. Peterson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Blau, Z.S., G.T. Oser, and R.C. Stephens. 1979. “Aging, Social Class, and Ethnicity, A Comparison of Anglo, Black, and Mexican-American Texans.” Pacific Sociological Review 22(4): 501-525. Cantor, M.H. 1975. “Life Space and the Social Support System of the Inner City Elderly of New York.” lXe Gerontolo&t 15: 23-27. 1979. “The Informal Support System of New York’s Inner City Elderly: Is Ethnicity a Factbr?” Pp. 153-173 in Ethnic@ and Aging: lleory, Research and Policy, edited by D.E. Gelfand and A.J. K&k. New York: Springer. Chappell, N.L. 1983. “Informal Support Networks Among the Elderly.” Research on Aging 5( 1): 77-99. Cohler, BJ. 1979. “Stress or Support: Relations Between Older Women from Three European and Aging, edited by D.E. Ethnic Groups and Their Relatives.” Pp. 115- 120 in EtGelfand and AJ. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Cohler, B.J., and M.A. Lieberman. 1980. “Social Relations and Mental Health: Middle-aged and Older Men and Women from Three European Ethnic Groups.*’ Research on Aging 2(4): 445-469. Dowd, J.J., and V.L. Bengtson. 1978. “Aging in Minority Populations: An Examination of the Double Jeopardy Hypothesis.” Journal of Gerontology 33(3): 427-436. Driedger, L., and N.L. Chappell. 1986. Aging and Ethnic@, Toward an Interface. Toronto: Butterworths. Fandetti, D.V., and D.E. Gelfand. 1976. “Care of the Aged: Attitudes of White Ethnic Families.” The Gerontologist 16(6) 544-549. French, L. 1976. “The Franc0 American Working Class Family.” Pp. 323-346 in Ethnic Familk in America, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Gordon, M.M. 1964. As&i&ion in American Lijk New York: Oxford University Press. Greeley, A. 197 1. Why Can ‘tThey Be Like Us? America S White Ethnic Groups. New York: Elsevier. Guttman, D. 1979. “Use of Informal and Formal Support by White Ethnic Aged.” Pp. 246-262 in Ethnicity and Aging, edited by D.E. Gelfand and AJ. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Hanson, S.L., W.J. Sauer, and W.C. Seelbach. 1983. “Racial and Cohort Variations in Filial Responsibility Norms.” The Gerontologist 23(6): 626-63 1. Holzberg, C.S. 1982. “Ethnicity and Aging: Anthropological Perspectives on More Than Just the Minority Elderly.” The Gerontologist 22(3): 249-257. Korte, A.O. 198 1. “Theoretical Perspectives in Mental Health and the Mexican Elders.” Pp. l-37 in Chicano Aging and Mental Health, edited by M. Miranda. DHHS Publication No. (adm) 8 l-952. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Larson, R. 1978. “Thirty Years of Research on the Subjective Well-being of Older Americans.” Journal of Gerontology 33: 109-125.
160
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 967
Mindel, C.H. 1983. “The Elderly in Minority Families.” Pp. 193-208 in Family Relations in Later Life, edited by T.H. Brubaker. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Mindel, C.H., and R.W. Habenstein. 1976. “Family Life Styles of America’s Ethnic Minorities: An Introduction.” Pp. 1- 12 in Ethnic Families in America Patterns and Vatiutions, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Mitchell, J., and J.C. Register. 1984. “An Exploration of Family Interaction With the Elderly by Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Residence.” The Gerontologist 24(l): 48-54. Norusis, M.J. 1985. SPSSX: Advanced Stanktics Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenthal, C.J. 1983. “Aging, Ethnicity and the Family: Beyond the Modernization Thesis.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 15(3): 1- 16. Staples, R. 1976. “The Black American Family.” Pp. 221-241 in Ethnic Families in America, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Statistics Canada. 1984. Population Language, Ethnic Origin, Religion, Place of Birth, Schooling, 1981 Census. (CS93-931, Table 3, pp. 3-3 to 3-5.) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Strain, L.A., and N.L. Chappell. 1982. “Confidants: Do They Make a Difference in Quality of Life?” Research on Aging 4(4): 419-502. Tavuchis, N. 1979. “Ethnic Perspectives.” Pp. 115 - 133 in Coumhip, Marriage and the Family in Cana&, edited by G.N. Ramu. Toronto: Gage. Thomas, K., and A. Wister. 1984. “Living Arrangements of Older Women: The Ethnic Dimension.” Joumal of Marriage and the Family 46: 30 l-3 11. Tigges, L., D. Cowgill, and R. Habenstein. 1980. “Confidant Relations of the Aged.” Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego, November. Trela, J.K., and J.H. Sokolovsky. 1979. “Culture, Ethnicity, and Policy for the Aged.” Pp. 117-136 in Ethnic@ and Aging, edited by D.E. Gelfand and A.J. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Woehrer, C.E. 1978. “Cultural Pluralism in American Families: The Influence of Ethnicity on Social Aspects of Aging.” The Family Coordinator 27: 329-339. . 1982. “The Influence of Ethnic Families on Intergenerational Relationships and Later Life Transitions.” Annals, American Academy of Polirical and Social Science 464: 65-78. Wolf, J.H. et al. 1983. “Distance and Contacts: Interaction of Black Urban Elderly Adults With Family and Friends.” Journal of Gerontology 38(4): 465-47 1.
ABSTRACT: This article examines patterns of ethnic variabilityin informalfamilial and extrafamilialsources of social support. Data &rived from a stratifiedrandom sample of people age 65 and over residingin Winnipeg,Manitoba, Canada are used to compare&e dijjerent ethnic groups in termsof variousaspectsof support (incltding availability,interactions,satisjkction,exchanges of assistanceand support, and confidant rekionships). The analysesrevealsimilaritiesas wellas diflerences among the groups. The implicationsof the jkdings are discussed in terms of attempts to conceptualize patterns of ethnic variabilityin informal networks on the basis of distinctionsbetween “traditional” txtendedfamily and linealauthoritystructures,and more “mo&m” nuclear family and colkteral authoritystructures.
Much of the literature relevant to ethnicity and aging points to the importance of cultural factors for an understanding of the nature, extent, and use of informal social supports among older individuals. Yet, there is relatively little empirical evidence that indicates how primary relationships are differentiated by ethnicity. Although literature has recently begun to focus on ethnic variations in relation to patterns of interaction and support visible within the context of the family, much of it concentrates on intergenerational or parent-child relationships (Mindel 1983). Considerably less is known about relationships with peers including spouse and siblings as well as friends, neighbors, and confidants. This is particularly the case for ethnic groups subsumed within “Anglo” or “White” ethnic categories (Guttman 1979; Holzberg 1982; Rosenthal 1983; Woehrer 1978). This article addresses some of the deficits apparent in our knowledge regarding patterns of ethnic variation in informal familial and nonfamilial sources of social support. Literature that examines ethnic group variations in terms of informal net*Direct all communications to: Maqamt J. Penning, Centre on Manitoba R3T 2N2, Can&a
Aging, University
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES, Volume 1, Number 2, pages 145-M. Copyright Q 1987 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 08904065.
of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
146
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
works is discussed and the results of comparisons among respondents representing a number of different ethnic groups are presented.
BACKGROUND IN THEORY AND RESEARCH A great deal of literature attests to the importance of familial relationships in later life. Generally regarded as being the primary source of support and interaction available to older adults, relationships with kin have been noted as taking priority over other types of relationships (Guttman 1979). The maintenance of close ties with family members is said to facilitate adjustment, increase well-being, and act as a buffer modifying the impact of life stress (Cohler and Lieberman 1980; Larson 1978). There is extensive reference, as well, to the significance of ethnic factors for defining these relationships. Woehrer (1978, 1982), for example, contends that close relationships exist among ethnic family structures, associated socialization practices, and the nature of intergenerational patterns of interaction and support that occur in later life. As a result of culturally defined expectations, ethnic families are said to vary “in the residential proximity of kin, in their frequency of interaction, in the amount and kinds of help they exchange, and in their norms and expectations regarding the individual’s place within the context of the wider family” (Woehrer 1978, p. 332). Among the structural characteristics believed to differentiate ethnic family types are authority relations and patterns of familism (Mindel 1983). According to Woehrer (1982), intergenerational relationships take their character largely from the organization of roles and relationships into either lineal or collateral family authority structures. She notes that, in general, lineal structures generate greater involvement and support for older family members. This is because expectations regarding interpersonal assistance and support tend to be less clearly defined within familial networks founded on more egalitarian or collateral relations. More often, attention tends to be focused around the importance of differences between nuclear and extended family forms. Literature that employs this distinction draws attention to the depth and breadth of the support system available to older family members in particular ethnic groups as a consequence of their greater integration within extended kin networks. Cohler (1979, p. 115), for example, articulates this view and notes that, in terms of intergenerational relationships, closeness tends to be greater among families “from traditional peasant societies such as those of eastern and southern Europe” because these families continue an historical tradition of reliance upon extended family ties. Similarly, French (1976) found that among French Canadian and French American families extended kinship ties remain prominent. Unlike the majority of those in western societies, he noted that French families tend to have a wide range of priority kin and, within this context, preserve the status and integration of older family members. Similar distinctions are often made in terms of racial comparisons. Staples (1976) noted that black kinship networks were generally considered to be more cohesive and extensive than those appropriate to whites. Along similar lines, Cantor (1979, p. 154) predicted that because of the “cultural patterns of the Black and Hispanic communities, particularly the extended or augmented family structure and value system,” older adults within these groups will enjoy greater access to informal avenues of social support than will older whites.
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
147
Distinctions among ethnic family types on the basis of authority patterns and familism generate very similar expectations regarding the nature of ethnic diversity in informal familial social supports. Thus, in accordance with the previous authors, Woehrer (1978, 1982) contended that it is within families of central, south, and east European, as well as Mexican and Asian, backgrounds that lineal structures tended to be preserved and interdependence among kin emphasized. In contrast, more collateral relations and thus greater independence among kin are considered as being characteristic of most north and west European groups.’ Often implicit within this literature is the view that relationships with those outside of the family assume lesser importance among those ethnic groups having strong familial orientations. While the family is considered the focal point of ethnic groups such as Italian, Polish, Mexican and Jewish Americans, this is said to be less true of Scandinavian, Irish, German and other families for whom extrafamilial relationships are said to assume relatively greater importance. Given the prominence of these distinctions within the literature, it is important to determine the extent to which they reflect major differences between groups rather than oversimplified or perhaps stereotypical views concerning ethnic diversity and, in particular, the place of the older family member “in the ethnic scheme of things” (Holzberg 1982, p. 253). According to Rosenthal (1983), they may reflect assumptions associated with modernization theory and the consequent tendency to examine ethnic differences on the basis of a traditional versus modem ethnic typology. Consistent with this perspective, ethnic families that are seen as products of traditional cultures are said to have respect for older members, to place a high level of importance on family ties, and to be characterized by extensive intergenerational solidarity. In contrast, such factors are assumed less prevalent within families conforming to the modem type. This characterization not only serves to idealize particular ethnic groups in terms of their treatment of the aged but also minimizes the differences apparent among those represented within each type (Driedger and Chappell 1986). To some extent, research findings lend support to the characterizations evident within the literature and indicate relatively high levels of interaction, assistance and support among family members within so-called traditional groups. However, evidence showing that, by comparison, families representing ethnic groups depicted as modem in type are lacking in extended kinship ties or place less emphasis on intergenerational interdependence is less consistent. Cantor (1979) reported that the Hispanic elderly in her inner city sample had more functional children, saw them more often, received more help from them, and reported greater closeness to them than did white elderly. However, similar differences were not found in comparisons involving black elderly. Black elderly were more involved in giving assistance to children than older whites, but no differences emerged with respect to the other measures examined. Also, despite greater involvement with their children, Hispanic elderly were less involved with siblings than were either whites or blacks. No differences emerged with respect to contact with other relatives. Dowd and Bengtson (1978) reported somewhat similar findings. In their comparison of middle-aged and older black, white and Mexican American respondents, the greatest frequency of contact with children and grandchildren was found among Mexican
148
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
Americans and the least among whites. Once again, however, no differences emerged with respect to contact with other relatives. These findings point to differences between Hispanic and Anglo elderly but relatively few differences between black and white elderly in relation to patterns of intrafamilial or, more specifically, intergenerational familial supports. Other research findings support this general pattern (see, for example, Blau et al. 1979; Mindel 1983; Nunez as cited in Korte 198 1, p. 19; Wolf et al. 1983). However, contradictory findings are also evident. Mitchell and Register (1984) reported somewhat more frequent contact with both children and grandchildren among older whites than blacks while Hanson et al. (1983) reported greater support for filial responsibility norms among white than black individuals of all ages. Finally, research by Gallego (as cited in Mindel, 1983, p. 195) indicated few differences between Mexican American and Anglo elderly in relation to both familial and friendship networks. Comparisons among black, white and Mexican American ethnic groups obscure whatever differences might be evident within each group. This is particularly problematic when it comes to the white or Anglo group, which can include respondents representing English, Irish, and German families, as well as Italians, Poles, etc. As Driedger and Chappell(l986) note, these latter groups predominate within the Canadian context. However, systematic empirical comparisons among them remain rare. Greeley (197 1) reported greater proximity among kin and more frequent interaction between parents and children among Italian, Polish, and French American respondents than among Irish or English American respondents. Similarly, Thomas and Wister (1984) reported higher rates of coresidence with relatives among previously married older French than British, as well as Italian than Jewish, Canadian women. These findings are relatively consistent with arguments concerning the greater potential for support from the family to older members of particular south or east European (than north or west European) ethnic groups. However, they are also tempered by other research findings that indicate, despite extensive contact, Polish Americans tend to feel that no one is available to assist them when needed (Trela and Sokolovsky 1979) and that they are less likely than Italian Americans to assert the importance of the family as a primary source of care and support in old age (Fandetti and Gelfand 1976). Findings such as these suggest that patterns of ethnic variability in informal social supports may be more complex than can be explained on the basis of distinctions drawn between “traditional,” extended or lineal kinship structures on the one hand and more “modem,” nuclear or collateral structures on the other. Concepts like “support” and “integration*’ imply a multidimensional focus (Bengtson and Schrader 1982). Yet, there are limitations on the ability of available research instruments to adequately reflect this character (Mindel 1983). As a result, much of the evidence cited as support for these conceptual distinctions focuses on issues of proximity and frequency of interaction between older parents and their adult children. However, differences among ethnic groups in terms of particular types or aspects of support may not be evident when other types and dimensions are considered. The following analyses address these concerns through a comparative investigation of the availability of informal social supports (from family, friends, neighbors, etc.), interaction with those available, satisfaction with these relationships, exchange of
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
149
assistance, and confidant relationships among ethnic groups typically conceptualized as reflecting either traditional or modem cultural orientations.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY Data for these analyses are drawn from a study of peer and intergenerational support networks among elderly recipients and nonrecipients of home care services living in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. A stratified (by age, sex, and region) random sample consisting of 400 recipients and 400 nonrecipients of home care, aged 65 and over, were interviewed during the spring, summer and fall of 1980. Interpreters were made available for all of the major language groups (see Chappell [ 19831 for a more complete discussion concerning sampling). The analyses reported here are based on a weighted sample. Whereas 50% of the original sample consisted of recipients of home care, the actual proportion of the elderly population of Winnipeg that has been estimated to use this service is between 10% and 15% (Chappell 1983). A weight factor was therefore introduced to make the proportion of users equivalent to their estimated representation within the population. This weight factor was then readjusted to ensure the accuracy of tests of statistical significance (i.e., the sum of the weights was made equal to the unweighted sample size, N = 800) (see Norusis 1985). Over half of the resulting sample is female (54%) and a similar proportion is age 75 and over (53%). In terms of education, 22% have less than 7 years of schooling, 60% have from 7 to 12 years, and 18% have more than a high school education. Relatively few report professional or high level management occupations. Just over half (52%) are married while approximately one-third are widowed (37%). The majority are Canadian-born (53%) and cite English as the language in which they communicate best (76%). The problems associated with developing suitable conceptual and operational definitions of ethnicity have been well documented. One of the major issues concerns whether ethnicity should be defined primarily (or even exclusively) in terms of either objective or subjective criteria. According to some authors, ethnicity is largely objective and reflects the distinctive elements associated with ethnic culture. Mindel and Habenstein (1976, p. 4), for example, defined an ethnic group as one that consists of individuals “who share a unique social and cultural heritage” which is transmitted from one generation to the next. To date, the majority of research has relied on relatively objective criteria for making ethnic comparisons. However, the importance of ethnic@ has also been defined in social-psychological terms as referring to the significance of a sense of ethnic identity or feeling of belonging to a particular ethnic group. According to Gordon’s (1964) classic definition, ethnic groups are composed of those who share a sense of peoplehood as a consequence of race, religion, or national origin. Similarly, Tavuchis (1979, p. 116) asserts the relevance of the concept to “those who conceive of themselves, and are so viewed by others, as sharing a distinctive social and cultural heritage that is passed from generation to generation.” For purposes of the present study, ethnic@ is defined subjectively and refers to individuals’ perceptions concerning the distinctiveness of ethnic culture as expressed
150
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
through ethnic self-identification. It is operationalized on the basis of questions asking respondents whether or not they consider themselves to be members of a particular ethnic group and, if so, of which group. The single largest response category consists of those who express no ethnic identification. In fact, 3 12 (or 39%) of the respondents indicate that they do not consider themselves members of any particular group. In addition, 18 1 (or 23%) identify themselves as Canadian. Together, those indicating either no ethnic identification or an identification as Canadian comprise 62% of the sample.2 Of the remainder, the most prominent groups include: British (N = 63; 8%), German (N = 39; 5%), French (N = 29; 4%), Ukrainian/Russian (N = 81; lo%), and Jewish (N = 36; 5%). It is these latter groups that comprise the major ethnic categories considered to represent those age 65 and over in the province of Manitoba according to Canadian census figures (Statistics Canada 1984). The fact that the majority of respondents do not consider themselves to be members of a particular group or view themselves primarily as Canadian introduce a number of problems. Not only does the literature have little to say about either of these groups but both are likely to include respondents who, on the basis of alternative criteria (e.g., place of birth, language, lineage), would be considered members of diverse groups. The analyses that follow are based on comparisons among the five smaller ethnic groups only, i.e., British, French, German, Ukrainian/Russian, and Jewish.3 Whereas the British and German ethnic groups are among those typically defined as Anglo, as modem in type, and as lacking in highly supportive familial networks, French, Ukrainian and Jewish ethnic groups are more often characterized as traditional in orientation and as having highly supportive extended kin networks. Comparisons are made with respect to such dimensions of support as the availability of family, friends and neighbors, interaction, satisfaction, confidant relationships, and the giving and receiving of assistance and support. The respondents were asked to provide information regarding all members of their families (including parents, siblings, children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, second cousins, and in-laws) as well as their friends, neighbors, and people seen for specific purposes (including shopkeepers, etc.). For most relationships, they were also asked where the person lived, how often they saw them, how often they communicated either over the phone or through letters, and how satisfied they were with these relationships. Composite measures were constructed to facilitate comparisons involving primary relatives (both those living in as well as outside the household), more distant relations (e.g., in-laws, second cousins, etc.), friends, neighbours, and those seen for particular reasons. Both the composite measures and, where possible, the component items are examined in this article. Confidant relationships were measured by asking respondents, “Including your spouse, is there anyone in particular you confide in or talk to about yourself or your problems?” Those who indicated having a confidant were then asked how many they had as well as the nature of the relationships (i.e., as spouse, friend, etc.). Finally, exchange of support and assistance was assessed on the basis of answers to questions concerning whether the respondents indicated ever (currently and/or in the past) receiving or giving assistance in the following areas: when ill, child care, advice,
151
Ethnicity and informal Supports Among Older Adults
financial, transportation, providing a home, household tasks, emergency assistance, and shopping. Bivariate cross-tabular and one-way analysis of variance procedures were employed in order to assess the significance of patterns of ethnic variability. Control variables were not introduced because of the small size of several of the groups.
FINDINGS Selected sample characteristics are provided in Table 1. No significant differences are found among the ethnic groups in terms of sex, age, marital status, and the use of home care services. However, differences do emerge with respect to each of the other sociodemographic characteristics examined. French, Ukrainian and, to a lesser extent, German respondents, tend to have lower levels of formal educational attainment than do both British and Jewish respondents. They are also more likely to report semiskilled, unskilled or farm occupations. Predictably, in terms of religion, most British and German respondents are Protestant whereas French and Ukrainian respondents are catholic. The vast majority of those identifying themselves as French are Canadianborn. This is less true of those claiming British identification. One-half of this latter group are Canadian-born. In contrast, the majority of German, Ukrainian, and Jewish respondents were born in countries other than Canada. Finally, whereas most British and Jewish respondents cite English as their major language, the majority of those in each of the other groups report greater proficiency with another language. Even in terms of these demographic characteristics, it is clear that the traditionalmodem dichotomy drawn earlier is not straightforward. The Jews, usually considered
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics of Selected Ethnic Groups (in percent)
French
German
Ukrainian/ Russian
Jewish
66.7
49.4 50.6
48.0 52.0
55.6 44.4
34.0 66.0
Age 65-74 75+ x2 - 6.90; df - 4; p - n.s.
29.6 70.4
54.5 45.5
43.5 56.5
41.3 52.7
39.5 60.5
Marital Status Married Widowed Single/Divorced/Separated x2 - 2.3 1; df - 4; p - n.s.
41.6 43.0 15.4
51.2 31.0 17.9
48.7 41.1 10.3
54.1 40.3 5.6
50.6 48.0 1.4
British
SEX Male Female x2 = 9.28; df - 4; p - n.s.
33.3
(continued
on page 152)
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
152
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
TABLE 1 (Continued)
German
Ukrainian1 Russian
Jewish
19.6 36.6 43.8
4.5 18.5 44.9 32.1
6.8 27.5 41.8 23.9
20.0 23.6 12.5 43.9
9.5 30.6 59.9
39.3 31.5 29.2
24.6 29.5 46.0
56.1 17.0 26.8
27.2
18.1 54.7
90.8 2.5 2.8 3.6
0.0 94.0 0.0 6.0
87.1 2.7 0.0 10.3
4.6 82.7 .3 12.4
0.0 0.0 95.2 4.8
50.7 49.3
91.4 8.6
5.1 94.9
27.8 72.2
18.1 31.9
100.0 0.0
25.6 74.4
30.1 69.9
26.6 73.4
70.8 29.2
Recipient Nonrecipient x2 = 2.09; df - 4; p = n.s.
17.4 82.6
10.7 89.3
10.7 89.3
11.6 88.4
18.1 81.9
N
63.0
29.0
39.0
81.0
36.0
British
French
28.9 21.9 17.1 32.1
Major Occupation
Professional/High Level Management Low Level Management/Skilled Semiskilled/Unskilled/Farm Housewife x2 = 26.43; df - 8; p < .OOl Education O-6 7-9
lO+ x2-41.28;df--8;p. Similar differences are not, however, evident in the case of daughters (x2 = 5.2; df = 4; p = n.s.). The differences apparent among the ethnic groups in the number of relatives living outside of the household do not extend to more distant relations such as in-laws and
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
154
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
second cousins, etc. Also significant differences do not emerge in the mean number of friends or neighbors reported by those in the different groups (see Table 2). A minority of the respondents have no close friends and no significant differences are evident among the groups in the proportion reporting no close friends as opposed to those reporting one or more (x2 = 1.1; df = 4; p = n.s.>.Over 80% of those in each group have at least one friend. However, closer examination indicates both French and German respondents to be somewhat more likely than those in the other ethnic groups to report having only one friend. Specifically, while 28% of German and 44% of French respondents report having just one close friend, this is the case for 13% of British and 10% of both Jewish and Ukrainian respondents (x2 = 25.0; df = 8;p < .Ol>. In contrast, those reporting two or more close friends account for 7 1% of British, 73% of Ukrainian, 80% of Jewish as opposed to 55% of German and 39% of French respondents. French respondents also report seeing fewer people for specific purposes than do those within the other groups. In terms of availability of informal supports, the French and German tend to emerge as having more kin available. The Germans are most likely to reside with children, to report having many relatives outside the household and the French report many relatives and are the most likely to have children and grandchildren. Both the German and the French are also most likely to report only one close friend and least likely to report having two or more friends.
INTERACTION AND SATISFACTION The average amounts of interaction with available members of their social networks are shown in Table 3. Those living in the same household as the respondent are excluded and it is assumed that interaction occurs on a daily basis. Interaction refers to both face-to-face contact and such things as letter writing or talking on the telephone because they are highly correlated among the respondents.
TABLE 3
Frequency of Interaction by Ethnicity
Group
Relatives Outside Home x
x
British French Geman
4.28 3.82 4.39
4.15 4.67 5.30
Ukrainian Jewish F
4.48 4.64 2.89*
4.84 4.60 I .56
Total df
242
104
Notes:
*p < .05 **p < .Ol ***p < .OOl
In-laws, Second Cousins
Close Friends x 3.60 2.43 3.77 3.88 3.87 6.36*** 198
Neighbors x 5.08 4.10 4.60 5.19 5.39 3.57** 195
Ethnicity and InformalSupportsAmong Older Adults
155
A number of differences are evident among the groups. While French respondents report the greatest number of relatives outside the home, they also report somewhat less frequent interaction with these relatives than do those in other ethnic groups (Table 3). Once specific types of relationships are isolated, however, it appears that this lesser frequency of interaction reflects contact with relatives other than siblings or children. Among those respondents with one or more brothers, 36% of those across ethnic groups report seeing them at least once a month while 48% report contact either over the phone or in writing. Although in both cases ethnic group differences do not reach significance, French respondents are among those reporting the most frequent interaction. Fifty-four percent report having both personal and other forms of interaction. The least frequent contact is reported by German respondents (17% report personal contact and 40% report contact over the phone or in writing) and likely reflects their lesser proximity to such kin. There are also few differences in terms of the frequency of interaction with sisters. Overall, 45% of those with a living sister report personal interaction on a monthly basis (x2 = 5.3; df = 4; p = n.s.> and 62% report communication either over the phone or in person (x2 = 5.4; df = 4; p = n.s.>. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of those with one or more children report seeing at least one of these children at least once a week and, once again, differences among the ethnic groups are insignificant (x2 = 3.0, df = 4; p = n.s.>. Nor are there significant differences in the frequency of contact either over the phone or through letters (x2 = 2.7; df = 4;~ = n.s.). Just under 80% of all respondents report such contact on a weekly basis. Ukrainian respondents are the most likely of all ethnic groups to report frequent contact with sons. Within this group, 63% of those with a son (but no sons living in the same residence) see one or more of these sons on a weekly basis. This is the case for fewer of those within the other groups. In comparison with the 44% of British and 43% of French respondents who report weekly interaction, this is the case for 33% of those in the German group and 28% of Jewish respondents (x2 = 11.0; df = 4; p < .05). The significance of these differences disappears once other forms of communication are examined (x2 = 3.0; df = 4;~ = n.s.). From 48% (British) to 67% (Ukrainian) of the respondents report contact either over the phone or through letters. The insignificance of these differences suggests that whatever variations are evident in the frequency of personal interaction are likely the result of differences in proximity to sons among members of the different ethnic groups. For the sample as a whole, 46% of those with one or more sons report having personal interaction on a weekly basis. In contrast, this is the case for 60% of those having one or more daughters. This pattern of more frequent personal interaction with daughters than sons characterizes four of the five ethnic groups. Among British respondents, 53% state that they interact with at least one of their daughters every week. This is the case for 62% of French, 84% of German, and 86% of Jewish respondents. However, among Ukrainian respondents, fewer (45%) report weekly interaction with a daughter(s) and, for this group, there is more frequent interaction with sons (63%). The apparent differences among the ethnic groups in terms of the frequency of face-to-face interaction with daughters are significant (x2 = 16.7; df = 4;~ < .O1). Once again, however, they diminish when other types of interaction are considered. The
156
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
majority of respondents (ranging from 62% among Ukrainian to 95% among Jewish respondents) in all ethnic groups report weekly contact with daughters either on the telephone or through letters and, in this instance, ethnic group differences do not reach significance (x2 = 8.9; df = 4; p = n.s.>. Despite some differences in the amount of interaction that members of the different ethnic groups report having with specific relatives, similar differences are not apparent in terms of the satisfaction derived from these relationships (not shown here). Most respondents in all groups express relatively high levels of satisfaction. Interaction with more distant relatives (e.g., second cousins) was examined separately. Of those who have such relationships (42% of the sample as a whole), the mean frequency of interaction is similar across ethnic groups (Table 3). Once again, the majority are satisfied with these relationships and no significant ethnic differences are found. Among those who have friends as well as neighbors, French respondents report the least frequent interaction of all five ethnic groups (Table 3). The vast majority of respondents across all ethnic groups (86% of those with friends) see their friend(s) once a month or more and 6 1% report personal contact on a weekly basis. Monthly contact is reported by 87% to 9 1% of British, German, Ukrainian, and Jewish respondents. Yet this is the case for 63% of French respondents (x2 = 13.3; df = 4; p < .Ol>. However, despite such differences in the frequency of contact with friends and neighbors, similar differences are not evident in terms of the amount of satisfaction derived from these relationships. Once again the French emerge as somewhat distinctive. They interact less with relatives outside the home (excluding children or siblings), even though they have more of them. Consistent with having fewer close friends, they report the least interaction with friends or neighbors. Ukrainians are the most likely to interact with their sons and the least likely to do so with their daughters.
SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE Consistent with previous findings (see Cantor 1975; Strain and Chappell 1982; Tigges et al. 1980), most of the respondents (81%) stated that they have a confidant-i.e., someone with whom they could talk to about themselves and their problems. The average number of confidant relationships reported was 2.0 and no significant variations were found by ethnicity (F = 1.3; df = 247;~ = n.s.). Overall, 38% of those with a confidant and 62% of those who were married named their spouse as someone in whom they confided. Among married British respondents, 89% regarded their spouse as a confidant. Similarly, 78% of German and 93% of Ukrainian respondents stated that they confided in their spouse. Inadequate cases were available within the other two groups to enable ethnic comparisons. Almost one-half (49%) of those with a confidant (i.e., 59% of those with a confidant who also have living children) acknowledge confiding in their child(ren). Ethnic group differences are evident such that 62% of British, 80% of French, 57% of German, 54% of Ukrainian, and 47% of Jewish respondents report confiding in a child. However, these ethnic group differences do not reach significance (x2 = 5.3; df = 4; p = n.s.). Twenty-one percent of those with a confidant report confiding in peer family members (i.e., siblings, siblings-in-law, cousins, aunts, and uncles). Differences are
Etbnicity and lntormal Supports Among Older Adults
157
evident among the groups such that while 37% of British respondents reporting confiding in these kin, this is somewhat less frequent among French (24%), Jewish (22%), German (20%), and Ukrainian (8%) respondents (x2 = 13.5; df = 4;p < .Ol). In contrast, other relatives (including grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and second cousins), considered to be confidants by 25% of those reporting a confidant, are not differentially important among the ethnic groups (x 2 = 3.5; df = 4; p = n.s.). Nor are there significant differences in the proportion citing friends as confidants. Twenty percent of the sample as a whole report confiding in friends (x2 = 5.6, df = 4; p = n.s.). Ethnic group comparisons involving more concrete forms of interpersonal assistance and support reveal minor differences. No significant differences emerge in the proportion reporting that they either have (currently and/or in the past) or have not received assistance when ill, with household tasks, with shopping, in emergencies, or in providing a home. Jewish respondents are the most likely to indicate receiving advice from others-38% of those in this ethnic group said that they have received such advice in comparison with 24% of German respondents, and approximately 15% of British, French, and Ukrainian respondents (x 2 = 9.9; df = 4; p < .05>. They are also more likely to indicate receiving financial assistance (50% as opposed to from 20% to 30% of those in the other groups) (x2 = 13.6; df = 5; p < .Ol>. Finally, French respondents are significantly more likely than others to indicate receiving assistance with transportation (x2 = 12.7; df = 4; p < .05). In terms of assistance given by the respondents to others, ethnic variations are limited to two areas. British (52%) and Ukrainian (53%) respondents are somewhat less likely than French (69%), Jewish (70%), or German (79%) respondents to indicate that they had or were currently providing assistance with grandchildren or other young relatives. Among Jewish respondents, 72% indicated providing financial assistance to others. In contrast, 42% of British, French, and German respondents as well as 2 1% of Ukrainian respondents indicated helping others financially (x2 = 27.6; df = 4; p < .OOl>.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This article has examined ethnic variations in the nature, extent, and use of the informal social networks available to older adults. The analyses revealed evidence of similarities as well as differences among the groups. Differences emerged with respect to the availability of particular types of support, the extent of interaction, and patterns of assistance both given as well as received. Some evidence indicated greater access to familial social supports among French and German as opposed to British, Ukrainian, or Jewish ethnic groups. French and German respondents reported having the greatest number of relatives living outside of the household as well as the greatest number of children and grandchildren. While French respondents were among those most likely to be living in close proximity to sons, German respondents were those most likely to be living with their children. However, no significant differences were found in relation to the number of people living in the household or in proximity to siblings or to children in general. The average numbers of friends and neighbors were found to be similar across ethnic groups. However, once again, French (and to some degree German) respondents emerged as distinctive and were more likely than others to report having only one
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
158
friend. French
respondents
also reported
the least frequent
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 987
contact
with friends, neigh-
bors, and people seen for specific purposes of all the ethnic groups. Findings of this nature point to the lesser integration of Gertnan and particularly, French respondents, within extrafamilial than familial networks. However, additional findings indicate less frequent interaction with relatives in general among French than other respondents as well as no differences by ethnic@ in the amount of interaction reported with brothers, sisters, or children. Finally, despite evidence to indicate their less frequent contact with friends and neighbors, no differences were found between these and the other groups in terms of the levels of satisfaction reported with these
relationships. Overall, these findings offer little support for the conceptual distinctions noted in the literature. The differentiation of the traditional French, Ukrainian/Russian, and Jewish ethnic groups from the modem British and German ethnic groups on the basis of their cultural orientations (i.e., by their greater reliance on lineal authority patterns and extended patterns of familism), was not supported empirically in terms of informal supports. Rather, the “traditional” Jewish group is one of the most highly educated and has high socioeconomic status. .The “traditional” French group and “modem” German group emerge as very similar to one another especially in terms of kin interaction. The findings could be due to incorrect assumptions about the ethnic groups studied here. Without direct measures of authority structures and family forms, one cannot say whether the groups have been wrongly classified as “traditional” and “modem” or whether the relationship between these concepts and patterns of social interaction have been ill conceived. Nevertheless, the findings do support Driedger and Chappell’s (1986) argument that ethnic groups in Canada do not dichotomize simply into “traditional” versus “modem” and further that the process of change and evolution among groups is complex and multidimensional. Ethnic groups can modernize in some aspects but not others (the Jews are a prime example here). The analyses presented here add further support to the urgency of research on individual ethnic groups (in comparison with others), which examines some of the commonly accepted assumptions in the ethnic literature. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Data for this study were collected through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#492-79-0057) to Chappell. Partial support was also received through a Health Research Scholar award (#6607-1340-48) from NHRDP of Health and Welfare Canada to Chappell.
NOTES 1. However, some exceptions are also noted. German families, although typed as lineal in structure, are said to generate less intergenerational support than is the case among others (such as Jewish) characterized by more collateral authority structures (see Woehrer 1978, 1982). 2. The majority of respondents in both groups were born in Canada. Among those having no ethnic identity, 70.3% were Canadian-born and 17.2% were born in another English-speaking country. Most (93.5%) of the respondents in this group cited English as the language that they spoke best and most (70.8%) spoke English only. Most were Protestant (66.4%) although a significant minority were Catholic (22.3%). Among those identifying themselves as Canadian, somewhat fewer were Canadian-born (58.5%). However, a somewhat greater proportion were
Ethnicity and Informal Supports Among Older Adults
159
born in other English-speaking countries (23.7%). As a result, the majority reported English as the language that they spoke the best (90.5%) and spoke no language other than English (67.0%). In terms of religion, 74.0% were Protestant and 14.6% were Catholic. 3. Although coded together, most of those in the combined Ukrainian/Russian category are likely to be Ukrainian rather than Russian. Therefore, this category is referred to as Ukrainian throughout the remainder of this article.
REFERENCES Bengtson, V.L., and S.S. Schrader. 1982. “Parent-child Relations.” Pp. 115-185 in Research Instruments in Social Gerontology. Volume 2: Social Roles and Social Participation, edited by D.J. Mangen and W.A. Peterson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Blau, Z.S., G.T. Oser, and R.C. Stephens. 1979. “Aging, Social Class, and Ethnicity, A Comparison of Anglo, Black, and Mexican-American Texans.” Pacific Sociological Review 22(4): 501-525. Cantor, M.H. 1975. “Life Space and the Social Support System of the Inner City Elderly of New York.” lXe Gerontolo&t 15: 23-27. 1979. “The Informal Support System of New York’s Inner City Elderly: Is Ethnicity a Factbr?” Pp. 153-173 in Ethnic@ and Aging: lleory, Research and Policy, edited by D.E. Gelfand and A.J. K&k. New York: Springer. Chappell, N.L. 1983. “Informal Support Networks Among the Elderly.” Research on Aging 5( 1): 77-99. Cohler, BJ. 1979. “Stress or Support: Relations Between Older Women from Three European and Aging, edited by D.E. Ethnic Groups and Their Relatives.” Pp. 115- 120 in EtGelfand and AJ. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Cohler, B.J., and M.A. Lieberman. 1980. “Social Relations and Mental Health: Middle-aged and Older Men and Women from Three European Ethnic Groups.*’ Research on Aging 2(4): 445-469. Dowd, J.J., and V.L. Bengtson. 1978. “Aging in Minority Populations: An Examination of the Double Jeopardy Hypothesis.” Journal of Gerontology 33(3): 427-436. Driedger, L., and N.L. Chappell. 1986. Aging and Ethnic@, Toward an Interface. Toronto: Butterworths. Fandetti, D.V., and D.E. Gelfand. 1976. “Care of the Aged: Attitudes of White Ethnic Families.” The Gerontologist 16(6) 544-549. French, L. 1976. “The Franc0 American Working Class Family.” Pp. 323-346 in Ethnic Familk in America, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Gordon, M.M. 1964. As&i&ion in American Lijk New York: Oxford University Press. Greeley, A. 197 1. Why Can ‘tThey Be Like Us? America S White Ethnic Groups. New York: Elsevier. Guttman, D. 1979. “Use of Informal and Formal Support by White Ethnic Aged.” Pp. 246-262 in Ethnicity and Aging, edited by D.E. Gelfand and AJ. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Hanson, S.L., W.J. Sauer, and W.C. Seelbach. 1983. “Racial and Cohort Variations in Filial Responsibility Norms.” The Gerontologist 23(6): 626-63 1. Holzberg, C.S. 1982. “Ethnicity and Aging: Anthropological Perspectives on More Than Just the Minority Elderly.” The Gerontologist 22(3): 249-257. Korte, A.O. 198 1. “Theoretical Perspectives in Mental Health and the Mexican Elders.” Pp. l-37 in Chicano Aging and Mental Health, edited by M. Miranda. DHHS Publication No. (adm) 8 l-952. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Larson, R. 1978. “Thirty Years of Research on the Subjective Well-being of Older Americans.” Journal of Gerontology 33: 109-125.
160
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 2/l 967
Mindel, C.H. 1983. “The Elderly in Minority Families.” Pp. 193-208 in Family Relations in Later Life, edited by T.H. Brubaker. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Mindel, C.H., and R.W. Habenstein. 1976. “Family Life Styles of America’s Ethnic Minorities: An Introduction.” Pp. 1- 12 in Ethnic Families in America Patterns and Vatiutions, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Mitchell, J., and J.C. Register. 1984. “An Exploration of Family Interaction With the Elderly by Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Residence.” The Gerontologist 24(l): 48-54. Norusis, M.J. 1985. SPSSX: Advanced Stanktics Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosenthal, C.J. 1983. “Aging, Ethnicity and the Family: Beyond the Modernization Thesis.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 15(3): 1- 16. Staples, R. 1976. “The Black American Family.” Pp. 221-241 in Ethnic Families in America, edited by C.H. Mindel and R.W. Habenstein. New York: Elsevier. Statistics Canada. 1984. Population Language, Ethnic Origin, Religion, Place of Birth, Schooling, 1981 Census. (CS93-931, Table 3, pp. 3-3 to 3-5.) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Strain, L.A., and N.L. Chappell. 1982. “Confidants: Do They Make a Difference in Quality of Life?” Research on Aging 4(4): 419-502. Tavuchis, N. 1979. “Ethnic Perspectives.” Pp. 115 - 133 in Coumhip, Marriage and the Family in Cana&, edited by G.N. Ramu. Toronto: Gage. Thomas, K., and A. Wister. 1984. “Living Arrangements of Older Women: The Ethnic Dimension.” Joumal of Marriage and the Family 46: 30 l-3 11. Tigges, L., D. Cowgill, and R. Habenstein. 1980. “Confidant Relations of the Aged.” Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego, November. Trela, J.K., and J.H. Sokolovsky. 1979. “Culture, Ethnicity, and Policy for the Aged.” Pp. 117-136 in Ethnic@ and Aging, edited by D.E. Gelfand and A.J. Kutzik. New York: Springer. Woehrer, C.E. 1978. “Cultural Pluralism in American Families: The Influence of Ethnicity on Social Aspects of Aging.” The Family Coordinator 27: 329-339. . 1982. “The Influence of Ethnic Families on Intergenerational Relationships and Later Life Transitions.” Annals, American Academy of Polirical and Social Science 464: 65-78. Wolf, J.H. et al. 1983. “Distance and Contacts: Interaction of Black Urban Elderly Adults With Family and Friends.” Journal of Gerontology 38(4): 465-47 1.
