For older adults, having more or closer family members in one's social network decreases his or her likelihood of death, but having a larger or closer group of friends does not, finds a new study that will be presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).
"We found that older individuals who had more family in their network, as well as older people who were closer with their family were less likely to die," said James Iveniuk, the lead author of the study and a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "No such associations were observed for number of or closeness to friends."
[...] In the first wave, these older adults were asked to list up to five of their closest confidants, describe in detail the nature of each relationship, and indicate how close they felt to each person. Excluding spouses, the average number of close confidants named was 2.91, and most older adults perceived high levels of support from their social contacts. Additionally, most respondents were married, in good physical health, and reported not being very lonely.
Iveniuk and co-author L. Philip Schumm, a senior biostatistician at the University of Chicago, found that older adults who reported feeling "extremely close" on average to the non-spousal family members they listed as among their closest confidants had about a six percent risk of mortality within the next five years, compared to approximately a 14 percent risk of mortality among those who reported feeling "not very close" to the family members they listed.
Furthermore, the study found that respondents who listed more non-spousal family members in their network—irrespective of closeness—had lower odds of death compared to those who listed fewer family members. "Regardless of the emotional content of a connection, simply having a social relationship with another person may have benefits for longevity," Iveniuk said.
Iveniuk said he was surprised that feeling closer to one's family members and having more relatives as confidants decreased the risk of death for older adults, but that the same was not true of relationships with friends.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:31PM
Iveniuk said he was surprised that feeling closer to one's family members and having more relatives as confidants decreased the risk of death for older adults, but that the same was not true of relationships with friends.
Sounds like a good reason for independent verification of his results.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @06:45PM
I would have expected that feeling further away, preferably very far away from family members would decrease the risk of death for older adults.
Definitely sounds to me like a reason for independent verification of the results.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by slinches on Monday August 22 2016, @07:33PM
There's a rather obvious causal chain here. In general, close family will help you as your health is failing in a way that close friends will not. It's built into the social constructs of friends vs family.
This is why those who choose to forgo building a family of their own should be much more careful about planning for retirement and end-of-life care. They won't have family to fall back on if they eventually need help they can't afford to get otherwise. (not that anyone should intentionally plan to need much more than emotional support from their family)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 22 2016, @07:51PM
Hmm perhaps living a life constrained by knowing you won't get help kills you quicker than living a life of relying on others.
I donno about that. My MiL lives by herself in a giant house and needs a lot of help to keep living there (houses are high maintenance) She's broken a leg tripping over a garden hose, all kinds of stuff like that on a much smaller scale. Its certainly more stressful when the roof leaks and its her problem not the apartment owner's headache.
On the other hand my childless UncleInLaw lives in a seniors apartment where at some expense he doesn't even have to cook and they help him a bit even with mere tidying up the place. Supposedly that'll kill him quicker than owning a headache house?
Maybe the only argument I can come up with is the exercise benefits of being a home owning peasant outweigh the acute danger of falling off ladders or WTF? You'd think that living in an apartment and exercising would result in the lowest fatality rate. Still, I wouldn't think aerobic ladder climbing and gutter cleaning would be the ideal form of senior citizen exercise...
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:52AM
(Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:48AM
What relationship are these close family members? If they are generally siblings, I would assume that is way different then lets say children. I would think having living siblings would mean that your life expectancy probably hasn't been reached. As in having good genes shared between you all. As your siblings die, that means you are most likely closer to death. I know that age ranges between siblings can very a lot, but I think the logic holds. It could still be true for even for your children. I'm calling this all genetically related, especially since they removed spouses from the family network.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday August 23 2016, @06:41AM
There may be a significant genetic component, yes. And I don't have the data to sift through to tease out the relative correlation values. But the titular question from the OP is about what you can do with the information this study provides and we can change our attitudes toward family structures and value. We can't change our genes.
(Score: 2) by IndigoFreak on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:21AM
My point was, if genes are the actual cause of the longevity then strengthening family relationships won't do anything. This study needs more data.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:35PM
If you wait until after menopause to think about having children, you're not going to have any family members in your social circle when you get older. And you're going to die alone because you chased money like a cold heartless greedy bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:37PM
Today's gem of female wisdom: "I was engaged, but I dumped him. Money is my boyfriend now."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:54AM
As is today un-spoken gem of female wisdom: "I was emotionally engaged, but I emotionally dumped him. His money is my partner now."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:52AM
Men aren't wage earners like they used to be. Women are getting the high-paying jobs for themselves. Women do not need men, or your anachronistic made-up quote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @11:08AM
Men used to marry female children before nu-cuckianity (1850s on) and feminism.
Women were never seen as good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:40PM
Why does that only apply to women? Not everyone wants children, and I don't see the problem with that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:45PM
Do they not teach you in school about where children come from?
Dilbert: "My dog slipped me a fertility drug. How soon before I give birth?"
Doctor: "Um... It's impossible to have babies unless a woman is involved in some way."
Dilbert: "Ooh, right, for the diapers."
Doctor: "I'm going to give you a prescription for painful shots."
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Monday August 22 2016, @07:20PM
You must not live in certain US states.
In those states, if innocent children had any idea of the actual truth of where children come from, they would be out fornicating like rabbits!
It is best to withhold this information from them until they are a little bit older.
Like, maybe, 30.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:38PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age#Risk_of_birth_defects [wikipedia.org]
[Quoted because likelihood of following a link is zero:]
Risk of birth defects
A woman's risk of having a baby with chromosomal abnormalities increases with her age. Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal birth defect, and a woman's risk of having a baby with Down syndrome is:
At age 20, 1 in 1,441
At age 25, 1 in 1,383
At age 30, 1 in 959
At age 35, 1 in 338
At age 40, 1 in 84
At age 45, 1 in 32
At age 50, 1 in 44
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:13PM
Hmm, that's not a monotonically increasing function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @08:57PM
I looked that up...
"The prevalence does not continue increasing at an increasing rate with age above age 45 as has been previously assumed. Above this age the rate of increase declines with increasing age. The overall age pattern is sigmoidal. A new logit logistic model is proposed which fits the data well. The risk of a Down's syndrome live birth is given by: risk=1/(1+exp(7.330-4.211/(1+exp(-0.282x(age-37.23)))))."
Interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:31PM
Oh, that's from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943789 [nih.gov], one of the citations on that Wikipedia page.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @11:11AM
Notice the CUNTnation doesn't list for lower than 20.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:51PM
The problem with not wanting children is: as you get older, who is going to change your diaper?
I'm sure you'd prefer not to think about such things. Because being young lasts forever. And bad things that happen to some other people could never happen to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:56PM
The solution: shoot up someplace before arthritis sets in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:29PM
With lead, or heroin?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @07:37PM
The problem with not wanting children is: as you get older, who is going to change your diaper?
If necessary, you could hire someone to do so. Having children is also no guarantee that they will take care of you. Additionally if someone doesn't really want children but just has some so they'll be taken care of when they're older, do you actually believe they would be good parents? Have you even thought this through?
This line of thinking is also selfish, which is an accusation often directed at people who choose not to have children.
I'm sure you'd prefer not to think about such things. Because being young lasts forever.
Sounds like a position absolutely no one holds. Nice try, but I know from experience that that isn't true.
And bad things that happen to some other people could never happen to you.
On the other hand, just because bad things happen to other people doesn't mean they'll happen to you. It's a gamble, and if you have children, you experience the drawbacks of having children for sure (especially people who don't even want them), and there's no guarantee they'll take care of you in your old age.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:59PM
Uhhh, do you have any idea how expensive that would be? I'm not going to post any links for that as I can almost guarantee that you will crap your pants when you find out. Yeah, you could stay in a relatively "inexpensive" nursing facility, but you would be well advised that you get what you pay for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:19PM
Uhhh, do you have any idea how expensive that would be? I'm not going to post any links for that as I can almost guarantee that you will crap your pants when you find out.
It's an option for people with money, not everyone.
Yeah, you could stay in a relatively "inexpensive" nursing facility, but you would be well advised that you get what you pay for.
You could say the same thing about children, since many will send you to a nursing home, do nothing for you, or do a very poor job of taking care of you. These things are more likely to happen if you have kids just so someone might take care of you when you're older, since such people didn't really want kids and are therefore more likely to be bad parents, so the kids will be less willing to take care of you in the first place. That's part of why it's an incredibly dumb plan; it's a gamble that probably won't pay off, and it comes with the countless drawbacks that having kids has.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday August 23 2016, @03:26PM
Uhhh, do you have any idea how expensive that would be?
Considerably less than raising a child.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @10:17PM
Are you sure about that? First, there is what people say and then there is what people do. If you look at people's actions then it would appear that quite a few believe they will live forever and in good health. For example, there are a shocking number of people who don't bother saving for retirement, despite incentives from the government and, in many cases, from their employers to do so. Also, how many people do you know who have long term care insurance? Eh, what's that? You never heard of such a thing? Yeah, I thought so. Just to cut you off at the pass, yes, you will need both. If memory serves, a shocking ~50% of people will not make it to full retirement age before they are forced out of the labour market. I don't even want to review for you here the shocking statistics regarding end of life health care costs ; suffice to say, they are scary. So, yes, it looks to me like a lot of people are living in denial about their mythical eternal youth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @11:24PM
Are you sure about that?
Pretty sure.
First, there is what people say and then there is what people do.
There's a difference between not knowing about negative consequences and failing to take action to stop them from happening.
But again, having kids would not necessarily pay off, especially if you had them for such a self-serving reason. People who don't want kids would most likely be miserable if they did have them, so they'd also have years of misery to look forward to. That stress can't be good for them. It's just not a good solution for the problems that come with being old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @01:56AM
Are you really claiming that people don't know that they will one day grow old and die? Seriously?!?
"I got mine. To hell with the rest of you!" ????
*Chuckle* It looks like the children of the baby boomers learned their lessons well. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 22 2016, @09:18PM
The problem with not wanting children is: as you get older, who is going to change your diaper?
The people working at your nursing home, that's who.
It's not fair to expect your adult children to both raise their own kids, and also somehow find time to take care of you, and also hold down full-time jobs. Most don't; they simply can't, and not all kids actually care that much about their parents anyway. There's absolutely no shortage of horror stories about selfish asshole kids fighting over the inheritance.
If you're worried about companionship and care-taking in your old age, a better idea is to forge relationships with people in your own age group and make some kind of group that will live together in retirement and look after each other. Expecting the younger generations to be at your beck and call is selfish and foolhardy.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday August 22 2016, @10:03PM
With what nursing home staff get paid, that daiper won't get changed more than once a day.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:38PM
Then spend more money on a better nursing home. Problem solved.
If you're worried that'll cost too much, no problem: don't have any kids, and save up the money you saved by not raising kids in a good retirement account. You'll probably do a lot better than relying on your kids to tend to you 24/7 in your old age.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 22 2016, @10:08PM
It's not fair to expect your adult children to both raise their own kids, and also somehow find time to take care of you, and also hold down full-time jobs.
I agree it's not fair to expect that, but one would hope that many if not most kids would try to help older family members when they can. That said, I agree with you that GP's argument about having kids just to have someone to take care of you when you're older is disturbing. That's not a good reason to have kids. I had a conversation a few years back with a close friend who had one kid -- but his wife wanted to have one more, primarily because she was concerned that the single child would be "more burdened" taking care of parents in old age and wanted to spread out that responsibility... which I found to be a truly bizarre reason to insist on raising another kid. (If nothing else, I'd recommend socking the money you'd spend on another kid away in an investment account, and you'll likely have money to have a much more luxurious retirement and care as you age, rather than burdening the unborn before they are even conceived.)
If you're worried about companionship and care-taking in your old age, a better idea is to forge relationships with people in your own age group and make some kind of group that will live together in retirement and look after each other. Expecting the younger generations to be at your beck and call is selfish and foolhardy.
While this is perhaps good advice about forming communal bonds, family bonds are often different. Expectations are stronger, and they generally should be. I personally wouldn't want to "overburden" the next generation if I'm unwanted, but I also think it's reasonable for children to try to support their parents as they age if possible. While I'm willing to go along with the idea that parents shouldn't have unreasonable expectations, I find your supposition that we should no longer consider parental support to be the norm even more depressing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @10:47PM
Perhaps they, collectively, should have thought about that when they were voting to cut education and programs meant to ensure young people had the same opportunities that they did. The Baby Boomers in particular have been selfish bastards that had the world pretty much given to them and were too selfish to pass on the benefits. We had the money necessary to properly compensate teachers and to ensure that no child went hungry, but they decided to spend it on tax breaks for the rich and bombing brown people.
There's plenty of money for all Americans to have a decent standard of living, we just let a group of psychopaths convince the fools into believing that if we just cut the tax rates a bit more then we can all get more of the pie. And the evidence has been the contrary, the lower the tax rates on the rich go, the worse everybody else does.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anotherblackhat on Monday August 22 2016, @06:40PM
Say it the other way;
People who live longer have more close relatives in their social network.
Or;
People who live longer have more living close relatives in their social network.
Doesn't seem very surprising when you say it that way.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 22 2016, @07:56PM
Say it the other way;
People who live longer have more close relatives in their social network.
Or;
People who live longer have more living close relatives in their social network.
Really insightful. Normally I would reserve judgment about what factors were controlled for until I read the whole study, but the full study doesn't seem available yet?
Anyhow, we know longevity has a significant genetic component. Those with more living relatives to be close to are more likely to be in families with a stronger history of longevity. It would be interesting to see if the postulated relationship from the study correlates with closeness of genetic relationship among those named.
Of course, there's more than that -- families often have their own "cultures" that can determine a lot of environmental factors for long-term health, from particular relationships with food, diet, and exercise to psychological factors like general attitude and outlook on life (which we know can affect longevity). We're obviously not all exactly like our family members in these ways, but we're likely to be influenced by these cultural factors in all sorts of ways (often developed at very young ages).
So, if you have family members with better genes and a culture that acts in ways that promote longevity, you're more likely to still have family members around as you age to have close relationships with.
And of course there's the simple fact that family members are more likely to provide greater care as people age. Having lots of friends may be nice, but most of them aren't going to be with you on a daily basis helping to provide care as you age if you need it as a family member might.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:41PM
Brown people have lots and lots of children! There will be plenty of room for brown children in the formerly first world countries. Right after all the first world idiots who are not reproducing at replacement rates just mysteriously die off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @11:14AM
Women's rights is why whites are not reproducing.
And stormfaggots which are the "alternative" love women's rights and hate pedos.
Prior to women's rights men could have child brides.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 22 2016, @06:50PM
I know it's pedantic but the chance of death is 100% for everyone, regardless of anything they do or refrain from doing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 22 2016, @07:09PM
changed
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:52AM
It would be better still if the last bit were to read "is associated with greater five-year survival rate."
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday August 22 2016, @08:27PM
It is and the better questions are about how to maximize the time we have and to get to the end in the best possible shape.
I don't see any reason to live to be 150 if the last 100 years of that is sitting in bed all day with a nurse changing the bed pan and me drooling all over the place. Having a good quality 60 years would be vastly superior.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 22 2016, @08:34PM
Right there with ya. Which is exactly why I smoke, drink, eat what I like, and otherwise enjoy myself while I'm still able to. With any luck, I'll have a nicely timed heart attack and not ever have to have someone else wiping my wrinkly old ass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Monday August 22 2016, @10:45PM
I agree with you, having watched many relatives (grandparents, great aunts, etc.) live eighty- or ninety-something years, spending the last 10 or so unable to take care of themselves I have no great desire to get that old... My dear mother passed away a couple of years ago, at eighty-something, at the last 4 o 5 years she was basically in bed all the time, unable to move unless assisted, but sound of mind... Such a torture, for her and everyone else.
About the same time, I had to consult a cardiologist. First thing he says, stop smoking, reduce the drinking, exercise, take care of yourself... I'm about five months older than the doc, of course, he doesn't smoke, drink or party, but he looks ready to drop dead any minute and I can party all night... Take care of myself? to look like you doc? Shit! If you saw the two of us, you would think the doc is my father or at least my older brother...
So yeah, here's to drinking, smoking and having a good time, to hell with a long life!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 23 2016, @02:25AM
For now, I've got more interest in taking care of my body so that it lasts as long as possible. However, I do think that once I retire, I'll probably start indulging a lot more in the things that I'm personally interested in.
I think there's something to be said for hitting 70 or 80 and then just taking advantage of that stage of life to do all sorts of unhealthy things. I think that 70 relatively good years is more than what most people get. I rarely get sick these days and I don't obsess about stupid things like sanitizing the entire environment around me.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday August 22 2016, @11:50PM
I can absolutely see you saying that, handing me your beer, and then attempting to jump the Springfield gorge.... on a tri-cycle :)
In other words, I think you re-wrote the motto of the Rednecks Olympics.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:43AM
Yeah, utterly unrealistic. I would of course down my beer and hand you the empty bottle.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @04:51AM
Maybe for mere mortals, but AC is forever.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday August 22 2016, @10:09PM
family are *far* more likely to just sit with dementing relatives as they ramble, and get them dressed, take them out a few times a week, be around somthey *don't* try and get up ladders and fix things themselves.
Even turning on the tv or radio to a channel they like, opening the paper and suggesting they read, or making a cup of tea.
Nursing homes or aged care facilites are unlikely to even get you out of bed, let alone get you dressed. Friends won't turn up every day to check you took all your pills, didn't leave the stove on, etc etc.
"Feeling loved" is likely responsible for several years of additional life.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex