Negative Social Exchanges in Later Life: Do Causal Attributions Make a Difference? Presented at the Undergraduate Research Symposium by Mary O’Callaghan May 15, 2004

Acknowledgements Mentors: Professor Karen Rook, Ph.D. Professor Valerie Jenness, Ph.D. Funding Source: Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at the University of California, Irvine

America is Aging The population age 65+ is 35.6 million, an increase of 10.2% in the past decade. Currently 12.3% of the population is age 65+. By 2030, the older population will more than double to 71.5 million. People age 65 have an average remaining life expectancy of 18.1 years (age 83).

Interrelated Components of Later Life Lifestyle – retirement and living arrangements Administrative – financial and legal issues Health – increasing physical demands Emotional – personal feelings

The Rationale for Attention to Negative Social Exchanges Positive exchanges occur more often than do negative exchanges but... Negative exchanges have potent effects on health and well-being.

Negative Exchanges are Potent Table 1: Positive vs. Negative Social Exchanges as Predictors of Emotional Health* Negative AffectDepression B ßtBßt Positive < < -1 Negative *** ** *Study conducted by Rook et al. **p <.01 ***p<.001

Several Important Points Not all older adults are affected equally by negative social exchanges. Older adults may differ in the causal attributions they give for negative social exchanges. Why did my…. daughter not visit me during the holidays? son criticize the way I handle my money? friend fail to return my phone call?

Major Dimensions of Causal Attributions Internal vs. External – the event was caused by things about the person vs. the event was caused by external sources. Stable vs. Unstable – the event will not change over time vs. the event will change over time. Intentional vs. Unintentional – the event happened intentionally vs. the event happened unintentionally.

Hypotheses Internal, stable, and intentional attributions for negative social exchanges were expected to: H 1 : Occur more frequently H 2 : Arouse more emotional distress H 3 : Lower relationship satisfaction

Study Overview Data were derived from a larger longitudinal study of 916 older adults (representative national sample). Current Study Subset of the sample (N = 113) who were asked an open-ended attribution question (about why a negative exchange occurred).

Sample Characteristics Age: yrs. M = 75 yrs. Gender: Male 38% Female 62% Marital Status: Married 52% Divorced/separated 13% Widowed 33% Never married 2% Ethnicity: Caucasian 83% Hispanic 5% African-American 11% Other 1%

Methodology Interviews assessed negative exchanges, attributions, emotional distress, and relationship satisfaction. Attribution question probed a recent negative exchange: Situations like this can happen for many reasons Why do you think this happened? Does this person generally act that way? Or do you think something about the person’s circumstances made them act that way? The responses were coded according to the major dimensions of general attributions: internal vs. external, stable vs. unstable, intentional vs. unintentional

Examples of Narrative Accounts of Attributions “Generally, he acts that way. He wanted the patio outside of my apartment to be concreted. He took all my plants and flowers away without notifying me. He wanted everything to look like a barracks. He is not a pleasant man.” internal, stable, intentional “It’s his work. He’s a doctor and very busy.” external, unstable, unintentional

Data Analyses Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether the attribution dimensions differed in their association with: Emotional Distress Anger Sadness Anxiety Upset Relationship Satisfaction

Results n = 113IESUIU Responses Percent58.3%39.8%66.7%28.7%82.4%13.9% Table 2 – Number of I/E, S/U and I/U responses (Inter-rater reliability: 85%)

Results (continued) Table 3 –Emotional Distress as a Function of Internal vs. External Attribution

Results (continued) Table 4 –Emotional Distress as a Function of Stable vs. Unstable Attribution

Results (continued) *p <.01 Table 5 – Relationship Satisfaction as a Function of Internal vs. External and Stable vs. Unstable Attributions. *

Findings Attributions Internal, stable, and intentional attributions for negative social exchanges occurred more frequently. Emotional Distress Internal and stable attributions to negative social exchanges aroused more emotional distress. Relationship Satisfaction Internal and stable attributions for negative social exchanges were related to significantly less relationship satisfaction.

Summary Limitations The sample size was small. A long history of prior negative exchanges with the same person may diminish the distress reported. Conclusions Causal attributions are pervasive in daily life, how people explain events have implications for their well-being. Negative social exchanges cause distress and low relationship satisfaction, but these effects are reduced if people attribute them to external and unstable attributions. This may be a way for older adults to preserve their close relationships, drawing upon coping skills acquired throughout life.

Relationships Matter in Later Life and Causal Attributions Make a Difference

For more information contact me at: Mary O’Callaghan Dept. of Psychology & Social Behavior University of California, Irvine