Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES
1998, Vol. 53B, No. 5, S287-S298
Copyright 1998 by The Gerontological Society of America
Informal Exchanges With Non-kin Among Retired
Sunbelt Migrants: A Case Study
of a Finnish American Retirement Community
Eleanor Palo Stoller
Department of Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Objectives. This study examined informal exchanges with non-kin among retired Sunbelt migrants, with special emphasis on the impact of ethnic enclaves in generating exchanges of instrumental assistance and emotional support
among elderly European Americans.
Methods. Data were collected through interviews with four samples of elders: Finnish Americans who migrated to
an ethnic retirement community in Florida; European Americans who migrated to the same community but are not part
of an ethnic enclave; Finnish Americans living in an age-integrated setting in Minnesota; and retired European Americans living in the same Minnesota community.
Results. Migrants were less likely than elders aging-in-place to report informal exchanges with non-kin. Finnish
American migrants were less likely than other European American migrants to provide instrumental assistance to nonkin but were more likely to anticipate relying on informal long-term care support, regardless of proximity to kin. There
were no differences in the two migrant samples in exchanges of emotional support.
Discussion. Evidence regarding substitution of non-kin for geographically distant kin is mixed. Results are consistent with a strategy of "banking" support, at the community level among the Finnish American migrants and at the network level among other European American migrants.
T
HE centrality of kin in the networks of frail elderly
people raises questions concerning the support resources available to older people who migrate to Sunbelt
retirement communities. Although some older people, particularly those without close kin, rely on friends or neighbors for assistance (Allan, 1986; MacRae, 1992; Roberto &
Scott, 1986), most investigators report that these helpers
rarely assist with routine household or personal care tasks
(Stoller & Pugliesi, 1988). This article examines exchanges
in the informal networks of retired Sunbelt migrants, with
special emphasis on the impact of ethnic enclaves in generating exchanges of instrumental and emotional support
among elderly European Americans.
Support Resources of Retired Migrants
Elderly people who move to Sunbelt retirement communities are generally younger, more affluent, and in better
health than the general population of older people (Atchley,
1995). Retired migrants experiencing health problems,
widowhood, or financial difficulties sometimes consider a
second move, either a return to their community of origin
or to an adult child's current location (Bradsher, Longino,
Jackson, & Zimmerman, 1992; Litwak & Longino, 1987).
Return migration provides frail elderly migrants with improved access to the primary groups best suited to providing long-term assistance (Longino, 1990).
Return migration is not the only response to poor health
(Longino & Serow, 1992). Elderly migrants can instead
seek to activate informal support systems in the retirement
community. Several characteristics of retirement communities appear to generate these patterns of mutual assistance
among retired migrants. Chain migration, in which the
presence of earlier migrants attracts new migrants from the
same community of origin, contributes to similarity of migrant backgrounds in retirement communities (Cuba, 1989).
This type of network recruitment can create clusters of migrants linked together by long-term relationships in their
community of origin (Longino, 1990).
Cultural and social homogeneity of incoming retirees
also encourages attachment to the new community. One potentially important dimension of homogeneity within retirement communities is ethnicity. Shared ethnicity implies a
shared history and similar culture; often it implies organizational ties, religious preference, and language patterns. In
their studies of second- and third-generation European
Americans, Alba (1990) and Waters (1990) found a sense
of affinity among people of similar ethnic background,
which they described as a feeling of communality or even
kinship.
Shared ethnicity, particularly when reinforced by similarities in age, lifestyle, and residence, can also contribute
to a sense of community for retirees migrating to Sunbelt
communities. Living within an area of ethnic residential
concentration increases the likelihood that social contacts
will place older people in contact with those of similar ethnicity. Incorporating new migrants into such communities
S287
S288
STOLLER
is facilitated by an ideology of common descent and a national network of ethnic organizations (Chrisman, 1981).
Furthermore:
Areas of ethnic concentration support other ethnic social
structures and provide more intense ethnic cultural experiences (Alba, 1990). Alba describes this ethnic infrastructure
as the "supply side of ethnicity." By highlighting the visibility of an ethnic group, supply side features of ethnic communities can enhance the attraction of an ethnic identity and
foster a sense of loyalty and attachment to the group.
(1990) caution, "the almost exclusive focus on disadvantaged ethnic groups has taught us a great deal about disadvantage at the expense of understanding how cultural factors influence behavior" (p. 112). Failure to distinguish
between ethnicity and social class means that behavior described as cultural may actually be situational responses to
poverty and discrimination (Holzberg, 1982). Studying European American ethnic groups provides insights into the
meaning of ethnicity in the lives of people for whom ethnicity is "an option rather than an ascribed characteristic"
(Waters, 1990, p. 12). Many European ethnic groups have
maintained cultural distinctiveness despite acculturation
into the dominant society, but little is known about the
ways in which this distinctiveness affects the experience
of aging, particularly among second-generation elderly
(Markides & Mindel, 1987).
Perspectives on European American Ethnicity
Scholars studying ethnicity among European Americans
confront a paradoxical divergence between "the long-run
and seemingly irreversible decline of objective ethnic difference and the continuing subjective importance of ethnic
origins" (Alba, 1990, p. xiii). On the one hand, the older,
structural bases for ethnic differentiation (e.g., labor market
niches, residential segregation, endogamous marriage patterns) have declined across generations, leveling many social distinctions based on European ancestry (Alba, 1990;
Lieberson & Waters, 1986; Neidert & Farley, 1985). Nevertheless, other studies document continuing ethnic identification among European Americans (Alba, 1990; Bakalian,
1993; Kivisto, 1989; Waters, 1990). Rischin (1990) reports
that 83% of Americans responding to the 1980 U.S. Census
reported an ethnic ancestry. Alba's (1990) study of European American ethnicity found that, among people who
claimed an ethnic ancestry, 25% said their ethnic background was very important, and another 40% said it was
somewhat important. Alba's research also challenged the
view that ethnic identity no longer influences behavior by
demonstrating that most European American respondents
retain at least one ethnic friend and engage in at least some
behaviors they define as ethnic (e.g., cooking ethnic foods,
retaining ethnic holiday customs).
The image of ethnicity emerging in recent research on
U.S.-born European Americans places less emphasis on ancestry as a mechanism of either social allocation or social
organization and more emphasis on subjective orientations
and ethnicity (Nagel, 1994). Researchers increasingly stress
the malleability of both collective and individual conceptions of ethnic identity (Gelfand & Barresi, 1987). This approach contrasts with earlier conceptions of ethnicity as
grounded in traditional ethnic culture (e.g., Guttman, 1986).
Rather than viewing ethnicity as a transplanted sense of
nationality, these scholars interpret the emergence of a particular group's ethnic identity as a cultural construction
grounded within specific historical contexts and responding
to changes in the lives of both individuals and the group
(Blanck, 1989; Conzen, Gerber, Morawska, Pozzetta, &
Vecoli, 1990; Kivisto, 1989).
When gerontologists study ethnicity, they most often
focus on minority elders. As Markides, Liang, and Jackson
Ethnic Identity in Later Life
Several researchers suggest that ethnicity becomes more
important in later life. For example, Climo (1990), Gelfand
and Barresi (1987), and Myerhoff (1978) explain that elderly people invoke ethnicity to provide order, meaning, and
continuity to their life experiences. Using a life-course perspective, Luborsky and Rubenstein (1987) suggest that ethnicity as an organizing principle emerges at key moments
when a person is consolidating a new identity, whether it be
as an immigrant to America, a retiree, or a widower. Simic
(1985) and Weibel-Orlando (1988) model the relationship
between life stage and degree of ethnic identification as a
parabola. During one's youth, the influences of family,
church or synagogue, and neighborhood "immerse the individual in an encultural matrix that fosters deep identification
with the ethnic group" (Weibel-Orlando, 1988, p. 351). During adulthood, the demands of public involvement (e.g., education, work, and bureaucratic concerns) minimize the importance of ethnicity. However, with old age and retirement,
the values and obligations of the public sphere recede in importance, and the need for self-esteem and social ties "may
be realized through revitalization of the ethnic culture of
one's youth" (Simic, 1985, p. 68). This parabolic model of
ethnic attachment across the life course is particularly relevant to the now elderly second-generation adult children of
immigrants composing the 1880-1920 wave of immigration
from southern and eastern Europe.
Some scholars argue that this new form of "symbolic"
(Gans, 1979) or "emergent" (Yancey, Ericksen, & Juliani,
1976) ethnicity is also characterized by its lack of demands
on other areas of life. Gans (1979) argues that later generation ethnics "look for easy ways of expressing their identity, for ways that do not conflict with other areas of life
Ethnicity takes on an expressive rather than an instrumental
function in people's lives, becoming more of a leisure-time
activity" (pp. 12-13). Symbolic ethnicity is selective or intermittent in nature, making few demands on the individual
and more closely resembling a leisure pursuit (Kivisto &
Nefzger, 1993).
The view of ethnicity adopted in this study argues that
symbolic ethnicity can form the basis for informal ties
among elderly retirees who migrate to the Sunbelt. Although no longer as firmly anchored in ethnic social struc-
... people who move and find themselves living in communities of strangers tend to look for commonalities that make
strangers into neighbors, and shared ethnicity may provide
mobile people with an excuse to get together. (Gans, 1976,
p. 16)
NON-KIN AND RETIRED SUNBELT MIGRANTS
tures, ethnic identity can still serve as a basis for generating
solidarity and support among older people (Rempusheski,
1988). Fellow ethnics are in certain ways "known in advance," and, because of an expectation of shared orientation, a greater potential for friendship exists (Rempusheski,
1988; Stoller, 1996). Simic (1985) argues that "in many
ways, ethnicity can be viewed as kinship writ large, that is,
an extension and abstraction of those loyalties which bind
individuals into families, clan and the like" (p. 67). Ethnic
communities become large primary groups that facilitate
both the exchange of information and development of trust
between individuals who are otherwise strangers to each
other. To examine this hypothesized impact of ethnicity on
informal relationships, I undertook a case study of a Finnish American retirement enclave in an East Coast Florida
community. Exchanges of instrumental assistance and emotional support among these elderly European Americans
were explored, with special attention to the impact of proximity to an ethnic retirement enclave on informal exchanges with non-kin.
METHODS
Data Collection Techniques
To gather data on informal networks, the research team
interviewed a sample of elderly Finnish Americans who
migrated to an ethnically homogeneous but residentially dispersed retirement community in southeast Florida after they
retired. We also interviewed three comparison samples: (a)
European American migrants who retired to the same Florida
community but who are not part of an ethnic enclave; (b)
retired Finnish Americans who continue to live in an ageintegrated setting in Minnesota; and (c) retired European
Americans who continue to live in the same age-integrated
community. This four-group design enabled the analysis to
disentangle the effects of ethnicity and migrant status.
We chose to focus on Finnish American retirees for two
reasons. First, the Finnish American retirement enclave (see
description below) provided an appropriate setting to examine the impact of shared ethnicity on informal exchanges.
Second, two of the three investigators on the project are
third-generation Finnish Americans. Acceptance into the
community was facilitated because we could present ourselves not only as researchers interested in ethnicity and
aging, but also as grandchildren of Finnish immigrants interested in learning more about our own heritage, an approach employed by Myerhoff (1978). It is important to
stress that the Finnish American retirement enclave represents a case study, and our selection of this target community does not imply that Finnish Americans are unique. Future research, focused on other European American ethnic
groups, will be necessary to determine the generalizability
of our findings.
Geographic Area
The Florida community.—The Finnish American community in southeast Florida is not a planned retirement settlement. Members are scattered residentially throughout a
S289
large standard metropolitan statistical area but are linked
through informal networks and ethnic organizations. Martinelli (1985) describes this residential pattern as a nonecological ethnic community. Florida is not a site of traditional
Finnish American settlement, and there are no elderly
Finnish Americans in the area who aged-in-place. The community began in the 1940s, when retired Finnish immigrants moved south from New England and the upper Midwest. Today, the retirement enclave includes both secondgeneration Finnish Americans (i.e., the elderly children of
immigrants arriving in the U.S. before 1920) and Finlandborn Finns who lived in the United States before retiring.
Most of this latter group immigrated after World War II.
Local chapters of national ethnic organizations provide
entry points for new retirees. Two "Finn Halls" maintain
buildings and sponsor active cultural and social programs.
Two local churches conduct weekly services in Finnish, and
a Finnish-language newspaper is published in the area. The
concentration of elderly Finns has attracted younger Finns,
who provide goods and services to the retirees. Some are
second- and third-generation Finnish Americans, and others
have moved directly from Finland. The Finnish American
Business Center publishes a directory listing 123 Finnish
merchants and service providers. The Finnish American Rest
Home, which includes a skilled nursing facility, was established in 1970.
The Minnesota comparison community.—The Minnesota
city selected as the comparison community has long been
regarded as a center of Finnish American population. Although the community has not experienced a large influx of
first-generation immigrants, the children and grandchildren
of the original Finnish immigrants still maintain a viable
ethnic subculture, at least in abbreviated form. Local chapters of several national organizations are still active, and
one Lutheran congregation conducts weekly services in
Finnish. A Finnish-language newspaper is published
weekly, and a monthly English-language supplement was
added in 1988.
The Sample
Finnish American samples.—The relatively small proportion of Finnish Americans within the target communities
made random digit dialing a prohibitively expensive, inefficient strategy for identifying respondents. Several techniques were used to devise adequate sampling frames for
the two Finnish American samples. First, three people familiar with the structure of Finnish names independently reviewed telephone directories from the two communities.
Using telephone directories misses unlisted or new numbers,
and the reliability of surnames as ethnic markers is undermined by name changes and intermarriage (Waters, 1990).
Given high rates of endogamy among first-generation Finns
(Stoller & Kami, 1994), intermarriage will not result in significant underidentification of that generation or of secondgeneration men or never married second-generation women.
Telephone listings will, however, underidentify secondgeneration women who married men of other ethnic backgrounds. To minimize these sources of bias, we incorporated
S290
STOLLER
multiple frames (membership lists of ethnic organizations;
subscription lists for Finnish newspapers and magazines;
registration lists for ethnic festivals) and supplemented
available frames with snowball sampling designed to identify retired elders with non-Finnish names who claim Finnish ancestry (Kalton & Anderson, 1989). This procedure
yielded listings of 1,232 households in the Minnesota community and 1,646 households in the Florida community.
We identified eligible households through telephone
screening and selected potential respondents through a systematic sample with a random start of eligible listings. Eligible respondents were at least 60 years of age, retired from
paid work, and of Finnish ancestry. Finnish ancestry was
operationalized as a positive (i.e., Finnish) response to any
of the following questions: (a) The U.S. Census asks people
to identify their ancestry. How would you answer this question? (b) When people ask you what your ethnic background
is, what do you answer? (c) From what countries or parts of
the world did your ancestors come? Finnish American
households identified during the telephone screening for the
European American samples (described below) were also
added to our sampling frame. Elders who lived in the
Florida community prior to retirement were excluded because they do not satisfy the criteria of retired Sunbelt migrants. Temporary ("snowbird") residents who spend less
than 6 months in Florida were also eliminated. Respondents
moving to the northern comparison community after retirement were also eliminated, as they did not satisfy the
criteria for a comparison group of elderly people who are
aging-in-place. In households with more than one eligible
respondent, a selection grid modified from a technique developed by Groves and Kahn (1979) was used to identify
the potential respondent.
Based on power calculations of necessary sample size
and estimated response rates, we selected 162 eligible
households in Minnesota and 477 eligible households in
Florida. We selected a larger sample in Florida, because we
anticipated a follow-up study on return migration decisions
among these Sunbelt migrants. In the Minnesota sample,
125 Finnish American elders completed the interview (35
refused and 2 could not be located), producing a response
rate of 77.2%. In Florida, 394 Finnish American elders
completed the interviews (63 refused and 20 could not be
located), producing a response rate of 82.6%.
Other European American samples.—The comparison
samples of other (i.e., excluding Finnish) European American retirees were selected through a telephone screening,
using listings from telephone directories for the Minnesota
and Florida communities. Telephone directories were used
rather than random digit dialing, because prefix codes in the
Florida calling zone do not differentiate among all incorporated towns and cities. Using telephone directories can miss
unlisted, new, or temporary numbers, but increased efficiency outweighed these problems, particularly because the
sample was limited to permanent residents. Based on target
sample sizes and census estimates on demographic characteristics of the population, we screened a systematic sample
(with a random start) of 2,087 households in Minnesota and
4,863 households in Florida, using a technique modified
from Dillman (1978). Eligibility requirements based on residence and ethnicity paralleled those developed for the
Finnish American samples. Sample screening yielded 160
eligible other European American respondents in Minnesota and 280 in Florida. The participation rate in Minnesota was 81.3% (27 refused and 3 could not be located);
the participation rate in Florida was 71.7% (67 refused and
14 could not be located).
Because we are interested in the extent to which shared
ethnicity influences the structure of informal networks
among community-dwelling retirees, we excluded respondents who had moved to assisted living environments. Our
analysis is based on 788 respondents: 344 Finnish Americans in Florida, 198 other European Americans in Florida,
121 Finnish Americans in Minnesota, and 125 other European Americans in Minnesota.
Sample characteristics.—The mean age of these 788 respondents was 76.3 years with a standard deviation of 7.5
years; 6.9% were below 65 years of age, 13.9% were between 65 and 69 years, 20.0% were between 70 and 74
years, 24.1% were between 75 and 79 years, 21.0% were
between 80 and 84 years, and 14.1% were 85 years and
older. The majority (56.9%) were women. Because our
sample design called for selecting only one older person
per household, the percentage of married respondents is
lower than the percentage of married elders in the population; 51.7% of our respondents were married, 1.8% were
living with a partner, 38.4% were widowed, 5.3% were divorced or separated, and 3.5% had never married.
The median level of education was 12 years; 16.3% had
an 8th grade education or less, 10.7% reported some high
school, 35.1% were high school graduates, 20.7% reported
some postsecondary education, and 17.2% had baccalaureate
degrees. Respondents were asked to classify their total
household income into one of 13 categories; 115 respondents
did not report income. Among elders reporting income, the
median category was $20,000 to $24,000. One quarter reported incomes in the $10,000 to $14,000 category or lower,
and one quarter reported incomes of $50,000 or higher.
There were some differences among the four subsamples
on these sample characteristics. Other European American
respondents in Florida reported the highest levels of education, and Finnish American respondents in Florida reported
the lowest. Consistent with their higher levels of education,
other European Americans in Florida also exhibited higher
incomes than the other three subsamples. Finnish Americans
in Florida were significantly older than respondents in the
other samples. There were no other significant differences
among the four samples on these demographic indicators.
The majority of respondents were able to manage instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) without assistance.
The task areas where assistance was most needed were
housework or yard work (25%), getting to places out of
walking distance (15%), or shopping (14%). Fewer than 10%
needed help with cooking, and fewer than 5% needed help
with financial management, dressing, bathing or using the
toilet, and getting around their house or apartment. Minnesota respondents were more likely than Florida respondents to need assistance with shopping, but there were no
S291
NON-KIN AND RETIRED SUNBELT MIGRANTS
sample differences for other task areas. The mean score
on the Duke-UNC functional rating scale (Fillenbaum,
1988) was 25.6, with a standard deviation of 8.1 and a
range of 17-68; there were no significant sample differences in scores on this measure. Self-assessments of health
were consistent with these relatively low levels of functional impairment: 15.6% rated their health as excellent,
27.8% as very good, 32.3% as good, 18.9% as fair, and
only 5.4% as poor; differences among the four samples
were not significant.
Measurement
Informal networks.—To elicit information about potential social ties, respondents were asked to report the number
of proximate (i.e., living within an hour's travel time) adult
children, siblings, other close relatives, and close friends.
Minnesota respondents were more likely to report proximate children than Florida respondents (59.8% vs 18.5%),
but there were no significant differences between samples
within locations. Minnesota respondents were also more
likely than Florida respondents to report proximate siblings
(47.8% vs 19.4%) and other proximate close relatives
(43.4% vs 22.6%). Other Europeans in Florida were more
likely than Finnish Americans in Florida to report proximate siblings (35.2% vs 19.4%) and other proximate close
relatives (32.6% vs 17.2%). The mean numbers of proximate children, siblings, and other relatives across the four
subsamples are presented in Table 1. Pooling children, siblings, and other close relatives, the percentages of respondents in the four subsamples without any geographically
proximate kin were 12.0% for Minnesota Finnish Americans, 13.8% for Minnesota other European Americans,
61.3% for Florida Finnish Americans, and 37.5% for
Florida other European Americans (p < .001).
We also gathered information on the content of actual exchanges between elderly respondents and members of their
informal networks. Respondents were asked to report the
first name and last initial of people on whom they most
often rely or with whom they most frequently engage in
four types of activities: provision or receipt of instrumental
assistance and provision or receipt of emotional support.
Questions regarding help to the elder with IADLs were repeated for the following activities: housework or yard work,
traveling to places outside of walking distance, shopping,
financial management, meal preparation, dressing, transferring, and bathing. Questions regarding the provision of help
to others also encompassed "doing favors" for other people.
Favors were defined as "things like running errands, giving
someone a ride, watching their house when they go out of
town, babysitting for their children or grandchildren, or fixing things that break." It is important to note that items tapping provision and receipt of assistance are not parallel. Assistance with instrumental and personal care activities
implies some degree of functional impairment and would
be less likely to occur among nonimpaired elders. We also
asked three questions regarding exchange of emotional support, following the protocol developed by Sarason, Levine,
Bashan, and Sarason (1983): someone to distract you from
your worries when you feel stressed; someone to accept
you totally, whom you can count on to care about you; and
someone to make you feel better when you are feeling
"down in the dumps."
This information was used to calculate four dichotomous
variables for exchanges within informal networks: provision of instrumental help to the elder; provision of instrumental help to the network member; provision of emotional
support to the elder; and provision of emotional support to
the network member. In this report, we limit our attention
to informal exchanges with non-kin, as our focus is on the
extent to which friends, neighbors, and other informal relationships substitute for family among sunbelt migrants without proximate kin. These exchanges do not necessarily represent dyadic relationships; the persons receiving help from
the older person are not necessarily the same persons who
provide assistance. The percentage of elderly respondents
across the four samples who are involved in these exchanges with friends is also summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables by Location and Ethnicity (Mean ± SD or %)
Minnesota
Health status: self-report
Functional capacity
Married
Geog. proximate children, n
Geog. proximate siblings, n
Geog. proximate close relatives, n
Age
Sex (women)
Education
Informal instrumental help —» elder
Anticipate informal long-term care
Informal instrumental help -> non-kin
Informal emotional support -» elder
Informal emotional support —> non-kin
(AO
Florida
Finnish
Other European
Finnish
Other European
2.9 (0.9)
25.6 (7.6)
52.8%
1.1(1.2)
1.0(1.3)
1.6(3.4)
74.8 (7.5)
46.4%
12.2 (3.3)
9.6%
13.6%
55.2%
52.0%
44.0%
(121)
2.7(1.1)
27.2(8.1)
44.6%
1.5(1.5)
0.8(1.3)
1.3 (2.2)
75.0 (7.8)
70.0%
13.0 (2.7)
10.0%
14.6%
63.1%
63.1%
46.9%
(125)
2.7(1.1)
26.0 (8.9)
45.4%
0.2 (0.6)
0.2 (0.5)
0.3 (0.8)
78.7 (7.9)
63.6%
11.0(3.4)
10.9%
19.6%
39.4%
47.8%
33.1%
(344)
2.7(1.1)
25.3 (7.8)
57.3%***
0.3 (0.6)***
0.3 (0.6)***
0.8(2.1)***
76.0(7.3)***
47.5%*
13.4(2.6)***
4.0%*
11.5%+
57.0%***
48.0%**
35.0%**
(198)
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 for one-way analysis of variance across four groups.
S292
STOLLER
The relatively small number of respondents needing assistance with IADLs or personal care tasks constrained our
analysis of the role of friends as providers of instrumental
assistance. Additional insights can be gained by examining
respondents' plans for long-term care. Although anticipated
behavior cannot be equated with actual behavior, projections of strategies for meeting long-term care needs enables
us to consider preferences for more salient exchanges, i.e.,
exchanges involving a greater need for services provided
by those exchanges. Respondents were asked what they
would do if they (and their spouse/partner) became ill and
needed constant care. Slightly over one sixth (17.4%) indicated that they planned to remain in their homes and
receive help from family and friends. This anticipated longterm care strategy was most likely among Finnish American migrants (22.4%); percentages for the other samples
were 13.3% for the Minnesota Finnish Americans, 15.0%
for the Minnesota other European Americans, and 12.5%
for the Florida other European Americans (p < .001).
Ethnic identity and ethnic involvement.—We incorporated
a number of indicators of ethnicity. Respondents were asked
to respond to nine questions regarding the importance of
their ethnic heritage. These items were generated from a
synthesis of items used by previous researchers (Alba, 1990;
Bakalian, 1993; Waters, 1990) and analysis of transcripts of
semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of
Finnish Americans (Stoller, 1996). Elders who identified
themselves as Jewish when asked about religion could re-
spond to these questions in terms of national origin and/or
religious heritage. Factor analysis of these nine items yielded
two factors with eigenvalues greater than one (see Table 2).
We used these factors to create two summary ratings:
salience of ethnic identity and involvement in an ethnic infrastructure. Means and standard deviations for the four
samples are also presented in Table 2. As indicated by the
statistics in the bottom third of the table, both salience of
ethnic identity and involvement in an ethnic infrastructure
differentiate among the four subsamples. Respondents were
also asked to rank the importance of their ethnic identity
using a Cantril (1965) ladder. Finnish Americans in both locations attached greater importance to their ethnic heritage
than other European Americans. The percentages of respondents who selected the highest (most important) rung on the
ladder were 45.8% for Minnesota Finnish Americans, 24.8%
for Minnesota other European Americans, 52.5% for Florida
Finnish Americans, and 46.8% for Florida other European
Americans. Percentages of respondents who selected the
lowest rung (least important) were 2.5% for Minnesota
Finnish Americans, 12.8% for Minnesota other European
Americans, .5% for Florida Finnish Americans, and 33.7%
for Florida other European Americans. Means (and standard
deviations) for Finnish Americans were 8.1 (2.4) in Minnesota and 8.3 (2.2) in Florida but only 5.9 (3.4) for other
European Americans in Minnesota and 4.9 (4.2) for other
European Americans in Florida.
Although the analysis reported in this article does not report on the number of ethnic matches within specific elder-
Table 2. Factor Analysis of Indicators of Ethnicity: Salience of Ethnic Identity and Involvement in an Ethnic Infrastructure
Ethnicity Items
I am always aware of the fact that I am a(n)
—it's always there in the back of my mind."
I feel a special bond when I meet another person of
descent—almost as if they were known to me in advance."
When I think about the people with whom I spend my leisure time, a great number of them are
"
How often did you attend events sponsored by
or
American organizations during the past year?b
I can usually recognize another person of
heritage—sometimes by the name or sometimes by a combination
of features, coloring, mannerisms, or accent."
. background, I try to let them know that I'm
When I meet someone I think might have a
either by
. American.'
telling them directly or by giving them some hint that would be recognized by another.
If I had to make a list of the most important things about myself, my
heritage would be at the top."
My
heritage makes me a more interesting person. It makes me feel unique and special—not just "plain
vanilla" like everyone else."
.American organizations did you pay dues or make some other financial contribution
In how many
or
during the past year?b
Group Means (SD) on Factor-Based Summary Indices
Minnesota Finnish Americans
Minnesota Other European Americans
Florida Finnish Americans
Florida Other European Americans
F
p value
Bivariate Correlations (Summary Indices and Subsamples) (all significant at .001 level)
Minnesota Finnish Americans
Minnesota Other European Americans
Florida Finnish Americans
Florida Other European Americans
Identity
Infrastructure
.82
.76
.36
.14
.17
.35
.68
.77
.80
.11
.84
.82
.09
.22
.71
.21
.08
.82
18.8(3.9)
13.0(5.0)
18.7(4.0)
9.2 (4.3)
261.7
(<.0001)
5.0(1.9)
3.9(1.4)
7.2 (2.5)
4.3(1.8)
135.6
(<.0001)
.22
-.11
-.30
-.19
.49
.56
-.60
-.31
"Response categories were: strongly agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, strongly disagree.
•"Response categories were: never, several times a year, more than several times a year but less than once a month, once a month or more frequently.
S293
NON-KIN AND RETIRED SUNBELT MIGRANTS
scriptive statistics across the four subsamples are summarized in Table 1.
friend dyads, we do have data on the prevalence of friends
with the same ethnicity as the elder within each of the four
subsamples. Ethnic matches were determined on the basis
of both single and multiple ancestry (e.g., a friend who was
identified as of German and Irish heritage was considered
an ethnic match with an elder who was identified as of German and French heritage). If an elder did not know the ethnic heritage of a friend, that friend was coded as a nonmatch. Jewish elders identifying Jewish friends were coded
as a match regardless of country of origin. Of the 4,454
friends identified by elders in the four subsamples, 40.2%
constituted ethnic matches. The percent of ethnic matches
differed significantly {p < .001) across the four subsamples:
24.3% for Minnesota Finnish Americans, 11.8% for Minnesota other European Americans, 66.0% for Florida
Finnish Americans, and 30.9% for Florida other European
Americans.
These results indicate that, while there is evidence of ethnic attachment among significant proportions of all four
subsamples, the salience of ethnic identity, involvement in
an ethnic infrastructure, and incorporation of coethnics in
non-kin informal networks are strongest among the Finnish
American migrants in Florida. Because of collinearity
among subsample identifiers and these indicators of ethnicity (see correlations in Table 2), it is not possible to include
both sets of indicators in the multivariate analyses described herein. Therefore, we cannot differentiate the effects of individual indicators of ethnicity and proximity to
an ethnic enclave in the analyses reported in this article.
Analytic Strategy
To explore the role of friends in the helping networks of
Sunbelt migrants, we examined four task-specific subsets of
our respondents' informal ties with non-kin: (1) people providing assistance with IADL or ADL tasks to respondents
experiencing difficulty; (2) people providing emotional
support to the older person; (3) people who were recipients
of instrumental help ("favors") provided by the older person; and (4) people who were recipients of emotional support provided by the older person. Because of the small
numbers of respondents receiving instrumental assistance,
we also examined anticipated reliance on informal sources
of long-term care. We did not anticipate the direction of any
differences in reliance on friends between elders aging-inplace (Minnesota samples) and retired migrants (Florida
samples), because previous research suggests two contradictory forces. On the one hand, relocation encourages migrants to substitute friends, neighbors, and acquaintances
for geographically distant kin in helping networks, particularly for tasks requiring proximity. On the other hand, these
informal relationships in the new location lack the longevity that would characterize reliable helping relationships.
We did, however, expect Finnish American migrants to incorporate coethnic non-kin to a greater extent than the other
European American migrants, who are not part of an ethnically homogeneous retirement community. This expectation
reflects arguments of anthropologists that shared ethnicity
generates feelings of affinity that emulate a sense of kinship.
To explore these expected patterns, we estimated the impact of ethnicity and migrant status (i.e., of membership in
particular samples) on informal exchanges with non-kin,
controlling for health status, proximity of potential family
resources, and demographic variables. We began by exploring the impact of migrant status on these informal exchanges in the pooled sample (Table 3). Because we anticipated that ethnicity would have a greater impact on the
Other variables.—We incorporated two indicators of
health status, because health and functional capacity affect
an individual's need for support and his/her ability to provide support to others. Global health status was measured
using the five-category self-assessment described above.
Functional status was measured using the Duke-UNC functional rating scale. Descriptive statistics for health status indicators and sociodemographic background for the entire
sample were provided in the description of the sample; de-
Table 3. Logistic Regression of Informal Exchanges With Non-kin on Migrant Status
Instrumental Help
to Elder
Health status
Functional capacity
Married
Geog. proximate children
Geog. proximate siblings
Geog. proximate close relatives
Age
Sex (women)
Education
Migrant
-2 log likelihood
df
p value
Anticipated Informal
Long-Term Care
Instrumental Help
From Elder
Emotional Support
to Elder
Emotional Support
From Elder
b
Exp(b)
b
Exp(fe)
b
Exp(fe)
b
Exp(fe)
b
Exp(fc)
.34**
.08***
-1.43***
-.38*
-.25
-.15
.04+
.72+
-.03
-.85*
1.41
1.09
.24
.68
.77
.86
1.04
2.06
.97
.43
-.14
.03**
.55*
.22*
-.05
.13**
-.03**
-.50*
-.06+
.63**
.87
1.03
1.74
1.24
.95
1.14
.97
.60
.95
1.88
-.04
-.02+
.42**
-.14+
.05
.01
-.03**
.11
.06**
-.59**
.96
.98
1.53
.87
1.05
1.01
.97
1.12
1.06
.55
.08
.00
.74+
_ 29***
-.33***
-.04
-.01
-.01
1.10***
-1.02***
1.09
1.00
2.10
.75
-.72
.96
.99
.99
3.01
.36
.03
.01
.83***
-.28**
-.16+
-.03
-.04**
1.03
1.01
.44
.76
.85
.98
.96
2.18
1.07
.42
328.1
10
.0001
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
654.9
10
.0001
1020.*I
10
.0001
996.1
10
.0001
.07**
-.86***
939.6
10
.0001
Exchanges of instrumental support: Help from the elder.
—The Florida migrants were less likely to do favors for
friends, neighbors, and acquaintances than were elders who
are aging-in-place. Neither self-assessed health nor functional impairment significantly influenced the likelihood
that elders provided this support. Married elders were more
likely to do favors for these people, but the proximity of
family members had no impact. Education was positively
Z
x:
1
E
X
1.09
1.03
.37
.75
.87
1.07
.96
1.80
1.06
•ft
85
?
-.03
.70*
.14^
-.43
-.40s
s
P
1
S-
ta
Nonmig
c
.B"
2
'o
-.02
-.29
oo o
oo
ON
X
S
ON
OO
00
cn
00
ON
o
ON
o
CN
ON
O
-o
UJ
ON
vd O
c
-H
—
*
cn
o
+ #
.—i ir>
io
<i-i TJ-
OO ON
vq p
5"
r-;
u
T3
53
I
xp(
r r
5b UJ
'2
c
o -Q
Z
<u
c2
—i
•o
bb
<2
ON
OO
%
C/5
<o2
-.02
1.16
.92
.29
.76
.67
.97
.97
2.01
1.14
.65
<N
*
*
.38
.03
-.59+
1
60
c
o
c
o
f
UJ
c
c
4.36
1.04
1.02
-.14
-.05*
-.65+
-.32**
-.19+
-.11+
-.04+
1.47***
S-
on
O
.15
-.09*
-1.25s1
Nonm
igra
rttoEl
E
o
ucx
2
5b
e
-.53**
o
53
c
f
-.05
'S
5
<u
•a
CN
UJ
UJ
<
#
*
00
-.25*
§
>>
'o
1
X
00
00
1.56
.96
1.03
1.08
.97
1.06
1.04
.59
2
bfl
**
*
•£>
-.01
-.01
.44*
-.04
.03
.07
-.03*
.06
c
X
UJ
w
c
Nor
C/3
P
S
1.08
1.02
.30
.57
.78
.98
.97
2.43
.98
.75
1
is
S
.03
-.98
.29+
-.14
.07
.04**
.59**
.06+
-.14
-ft
.08
.02*
-1.19***
-.56**
-.24
-.02
-.03*
Emot ional
O
alHe
c
o
Z
o
ex
a.
3
oo
73
o
X
UJ
z
ant
rants
bfl
iformal LT
Exchanges of instrumental support: Help to the elder.—
Sunbelt migrants were less likely than Minnesota elders
aging-in-place to report informal instrumental assistance
from non-kin. As expected, reliance on instrumental assistance from non-kin was more likely among elders who reported poorer levels of health and higher levels of functional impairment. Respondents who were married were
less likely to receive informal instrumental assistance from
friends, neighbors, and acquaintances than were unmarried
elders. The number of geographically proximate adult children also significantly reduced the likelihood of this type of
help, but the number of geographically proximate siblings
or of geographically proximate other relatives was not significant. None of the three control variables (sex, age, and
education) was significant.
A somewhat different picture emerged regarding anticipated reliance on home care from family and friends. Retired migrants were more likely to anticipate informal
sources of long-term care than were elders aging-in-place.
This pattern remained when migrant status was differentiated between migrants who definitely plan to remain in the
Florida community and migrants who might consider return
migration (results available from the author).
Not surprisingly, the availability of proximate kin (spouse,
children, and other relatives) significantly increases the anticipated likelihood of receiving home-based informal care.
Functional status but not self-assessed health was significantly related to anticipating this long-term care strategy.
Of the three demographic variables, only sex was significant; men were more likely than women to anticipate relying on home care from family or friends.
C
OJ)
2
-kin onE
types of exchanges (instrumental help to elder, instrumental
help from elder, emotional help to elder, emotional help
from elder) are discussed separately. Results are summarized in Table 3.
S
I
nal Exch
graphic characteristics (age, education, and sex). The four
•g
o
a.
ex
3
oo
Log
Predicting Informal Exchanges With Non-kin:
Migrants vs Nonmigrants
Because we are interested in reliance on persons other
than kin among Sunbelt migrants, we estimated logistic regression equations predicting the impact of migrant status
on informal exchanges with non-kin (friends, neighbors,
and acquaintances), controlling for need (health and functional status), geographic proximity of kin, and sociodemo-
E
•e
RESULTS
C
es
.87
.95
1.50
.78
1.04
.95
.98
1.46
1.03
.55
53
-.14
-.05*
o
"O
Expi
configuration of task-specific informal networks among migrants, we estimated separate predictions equations for the
two locations (Table 4).
.87
.95
.53
.73
.82
.90
STOLLER
Ipto
S294
^-v
73
c
w
1
- -
-
—i
N — '
p i o c N c n p p i o p
O*l
X
c
O N C N O > O O
+
O O
r r \ \ ' '\
X
D
cn
+
V O
-H"
UJ
^J* ^D ^D
•
'
CJs 0s)
^f
—•
CN
•
r*"*"
8
-: o
is
V
a.
I
QJ
2 ^
60
>-
.S «
S o
QJ
ea
V
ft.
•g
ill
'x 'x 'x
S "S S S 2
•5 ••
a. a. a.
C3
p
O
II
°,
73
NON-KIN AND RETIRED SUNBELT MIGRANTS
related to the probability of informal instrumental contributions to non-kin. Older respondents were less likely to do
these favors than were younger respondents.
Exchanges of emotional support: Help to the elder.—
Sunbelt migrant samples were significantly less likely than
elders aging-in-place to cite non-kin as a source of informal
emotional support. The presence of geographically proximate children and geographically proximate siblings also
reduces the likelihood of relying on non-kin. Health status
does not influence this source of emotional support. Of the
demographic variables, only education was significant, with
higher levels of education associated with a higher probability of receiving emotional support from friends, neighbors, or acquaintances.
Exchanges of emotional support: Help from the elder.—
Sunbelt migrants were also less likely than elders aging-inplace to provide emotional support to friends, neighbors,
and acquaintances. Similar to the equation predicting receipt of emotional support, neither self-assessed health nor
functional impairment significantly influenced the likelihood that elders provided emotional support to these people. Being married and having proximate children both decrease the likelihood of providing this type of support, but
neither the presence of geographically proximate siblings
nor of other close relatives was significant. Age was negatively related and education was positively related to the
probability of providing informal emotional support to nonkin. Women were more likely to provide this emotional
support than were men.
Predicting Informal Exchanges With Non-kin: The Impact
of Ethnicity Among Migrants and Nonmigrants
Table 4 presents the logistic regression analyses examining the impact of proximity to an ethnic enclave on informal
exchanges with non-kin. Because we expected that this aspect of ethnicity would operate differently among Sunbelt
migrants than among elders aging-in-place, we estimated
separate equations for the two locations. Our discussion of
these analyses will emphasize the impact of ethnicity on the
likelihood of informal exchanges with non-kin in the two
locations.
We use membership in the Finnish American migrant
sample as a proxy for proximity to an ethnic retirement enclave. Both our preliminary fieldwork and individual-level
indicators of ethnic identity and participation in an ethnic
community support the assumption that the Finnish American subsamples exhibit greater involvement in ethnicity.
Unfortunately, collinearity, among subsample identifiers
and individual-level measures of ethnicity precludes incorporating both sets of variables into the equations.
Exchanges of instrumental support.—Finnish Americans
are no more likely than other European Americans to receive instrumental support from friends; this result is consistent across the two geographic locations. A different pattern, however, emerges with respect to anticipated receipt
of informal long-term care support. Finnish American respondents in Florida are more likely than other European
S295
Americans to anticipate receiving this support. This difference was not replicated in the Minnesota sample.
Because the question on anticipated informal long-term
care combined assistance from family and friends, it is important to replicate this analysis differentiating elders with
proximate kin from elders without proximate kin. We reestimated the equations separately for these two groups of
migrants, deleting counts of geographically proximate children, siblings, and other relatives. Regardless of whether or
not Florida migrants reported any proximate kin, Finnish
Americans were more likely than European Americans to
anticipate receiving informal home care. Among respondents without any proximate kin, Finnish Americans were
more likely to anticipate informal home care; among respondents with one or more proximate kin, Finnish Americans were more likely to anticipate informal home care.
Once again, this pattern was not replicated among the Minnesota respondents. In fact, none of the Minnesota Finnish
Americans without proximate kin said they would rely on
informal home care should they encounter a need for longterm care. (Results are available upon request from the author.) Thus, it is not simply Finnish heritage but the combination of Finnish heritage, migrant status, and geographic
proximity to an ethnic enclave that was associated with a
higher anticipated likelihood of community-based informal
long-term care. This result is especially striking in light of
the lower proximity of family members among the Sunbelt
migrants and the fact that controls for family resources
were incorporated into the prediction equation. Unfortunately, our case study design does not enable us to determine the extent to which this finding can be generalized to
retired Sunbelt migrants of other ethnic heritage.
Although the Florida Finnish Americans anticipated receiving informal long-term care, they were less likely than
other European American migrants to provide informal instrumental assistance to non-kin. Although the relationship
was also negative in the Minnesota sample, the coefficient
for Finnish American status was not significant among elders aging-in-place.
Exchanges of emotional support.—Ethnic status did not
have an impact on either receipt or provision of emotional
support in informal exchanges with non-kin. The lack of
significance of the coefficient identifying the Finnish American samples suggests that there are no significant differences between Finnish Americans and other European
Americans in these exchanges of emotional support.
DISCUSSION
A major question of this research concerns the extent to
which retired Sunbelt migrants report informal exchanges
with non-kin, particularly for instrumental assistance, which
is most often provided by family among elders aging-inplace. Our results provide mixed evidence. We did not find
that Sunbelt migrants relied more extensively on friends,
neighbors, and acquaintances for instrumental or emotional
assistance than did elders aging-in-place. On the contrary,
migrants were less likely than elders aging-in-place to report provision or receipt of either instrumental or emotional
support in informal exchanges with non-kin. Unmarried
S296
STOLLER
elders and elders without geographically proximate adult
children were more likely to incorporate non-kin into informal network exchanges, but this tendency was as likely
among elders aging-in-place as among migrants. Thus, we
did not find evidence that migrant status triggered substitution of non-kin for kin in actual exchanges within informal
networks. Perhaps this is not surprising, because local ties
among Sunbelt migrants are often relatively recently established. In contrast, older people who have experienced little
geographic mobility are more likely to have friendships in
late life that originated in their childhood and which exhibit
the long-term commitment and positive concern usually associated with kinship (Kivett, 1985).
Comparison between the two locations, however, masks
differences between the two migrant samples. Finnish
American retirees in Florida were significantly less likely
than other European American migrants to provide instrumental assistance to their friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. Nevertheless, they were significantly more likely to
anticipate relying on informal help from family and friends
should they encounter a need for long-term care in the future, despite their limited access to geographically proximate kin. This ethnic difference among the two migrant
samples persisted regardless of whether or not respondents
reported geographically proximate kin or planned to remain
in the Florida location. A parallel ethnic difference was not
replicated in the Minnesota sample, suggesting that it is
retiring to an ethnic enclave rather than identifying with a
particular ethnic background that generates expectations of
helping relationships among non-kin in the Sunbelt location.
Interpreting the same coefficient from the perspective of
the other subsample, other European American migrants
were more likely than Finnish American migrants to provide instrumental support for their friends, neighbors, and
acquaintances. Doing favors for others has been conceptualized as a way of banking support for the future (Antonucci, 1990). Consistent with this interpretation is the
finding that providing instrumental help to non-kin was
more common among unmarried migrants. Older people
without proximate kin sometimes attempt to ensure support
from friends by building up obligations through small favors as a form of social insurance (Francis, 1981).
"Banking" support for the future is consistent with the
behavior of other European American migrants. Despite the
likelihood of fewer long-term relationships in the new location, these migrants were more likely than Finnish American migrants to report doing favors for friends. Why was
this not equally the case for migrants to the Finnish American enclave? Perhaps shared ethnicity, plus norms for mutual support that emerge within an ethnic enclave, generate
expectations of support independent of balances in particular dyadic relationships. Contributions may be conceptualized at the group rather than the individual level. Individuals helping out with community projects or volunteering
through organizations may believe they are generating future support. Within the Finnish American retirement community, volunteer activities were most often centered on the
Finnish American Rest Home or ethnic organizations. Like
other churches (Van Willigen, 1989), the local Finnish
American congregation provided an array of support ser-
vices, including social visits to ill or infirm members, concrete assistance to people without proximate kin, and emotional reassurance to people facing emotional difficulties.
Belief in the continued viability of the ethnic community
can activate the norm of generalized reciprocity, because
older people currently providing help to those facing healthrelated problems will feel that they may also rely on assistance from the community in the face of future needs. Consistent with this explanation were the larger number of
Florida Finnish Americans who responded to the question
on doing favors for others with generalized responses such
as "volunteering at the Finnish American Rest Home" or
"helping people at church when they need it" rather than
providing the name of a particular recipient.
While the results reported in this article are consistent
with these interpretations, our reliance on aggregate measures of informal exchanges with non-kin limits the interpretations of our results. It is true that ethnic attachment is
stronger among the Finnish Americans than among the
other European American respondents. Finnish American
migrants also exhibited greater involvement in an ethnic
community and named a greater percentage of coethnics in
their informal networks than did either Finnish Americans
aging-in-place or other European Americans in either location. Yet, without dyad-level measures, we do not know
whether the friends, neighbors, and acquaintances involved
in specific exchanges are in fact coethnics.
Our case study design also limits our ability to disentangle the effects of Finnish heritage, migrant status, and proximity to an ethnic retirement enclave. We know that Finnish
heritage alone does not explain informal exchanges, because findings in the Florida subsample were not replicated
in the Minnesota subsample. The high salience of Finnish
American identity among the Florida migrants is not surprising, given their geographic proximity to an ethnic enclave. Even if they did not select their retirement destination because of the ethnic enclave, ethnic communities can
"serve as beacons for group members who reside in more
assimilated settings," promoting an awareness of ethnic
identity beyond their immediate networks (Alba, 1990, p.
254). Our focus on only one ethnic retirement enclave does
not enable us to eliminate the possibility that particular
characteristics of Finnish heritage (e.g., the relatively small
size of the Finnish American population in the United
States, the geographic concentration of that population in a
relatively small number of northern states) interacts with
migration patterns in reinforcing the salience of ethnic attachment in the retirement enclave. Furthermore, the Florida
Finnish American enclave is also distinguished by its historical development as a retirement community, so we cannot compare network exchanges of retired Finnish American migrants with Finnish American retirees who have
aged-in-place in the same community. Future research with
other European American retiree populations is needed to
disentangle these effects.
The difference between Finnish American and other European American migrants in anticipated informal long-term
care raises questions about the characteristics of ethnic enclaves that influence informal exchanges in Sunbelt retirement communities. To what extent do informal exchanges of
NON-KIN AND RETIRED SUNBELT MIGRANTS
assistance reflect a selection process, with people for whom
ethnic identity is already a salient dimension of identity opting for a retirement destination with a high concentration of
coethnics? To what extent do the features of ethnic communities which Alba (1990) describes as the supply side of ethnicity activate norms of generalized reciprocity among retired migrants? Did patterns of chain migration produce
networks of long-term friends within the ethnic enclave at a
prevalence not replicated among the other European American migrants? Are retirees in an ethnic enclave less adept or
comfortable than other retired migrants in initiating assistance from formal providers? Finding the answers to these
questions requires analysis of both the composition and content of individual networks and dyadic relations, particularly
with respect to ethnic background, migration history, preretirement relationships, and division of labor within helping
networks of retired migrants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Grant RO1 AG10791 from the National
Institute on Aging. The author thanks Christine Bono and Martha Gilbert,
Department of Health Policy and Epidemiology, University of Florida, for
data management support, and Lisa Dobransky and Wendy Schopenhauer,
Department of Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, for assistance
in preparation of the article.
Address correspondence to Dr. Eleanor Palo Stoller, Department of Sociology, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-7124. E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of White identity.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Allan, G. (1986). Friendship and the care of elderly people. Ageing and
Society, 6, 1-12.
Antonucci, T. (1990). Social supports and social relationships. In R. Binstock and L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Atchley, R. (1995). Social forces in later life. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bakalian, A. (1993). Armenian-Americans: From being to feeling American. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Blanck, D. (1989). Constructing an ethnic identity: The case of the
Swedish-Americans. In P. Kivisto (Ed.), Ethnic enigma: The salience
of ethnicity for European-origin groups. Philadelphia: Balch Institute
Press.
Bradsher, J., Longino, C , Jackson, D., & Zimmerman, R. (1992). Health
and geographic mobility among the recently widowed. Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences, 47, S261-S269.
Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Chrisman, N. (1981). Ethnic persistence in an urban setting. Ethnicity, 8,
256-292.
Climo, J. (1990). Transmitting ethnic identity through oral narratives. Ethnic Croups, 8, 163-180.
Conzen, K., Gerber, D., Morawska, E., Pozzetta, G., & Vecoli, R. (1990).
The invention of ethnicity: A perspective from the USA. Altreitalie,
April, 37-62.
Cuba, L. (1989). From visitors to residents: Retiring to vacationland. Generations, 13, Spring, 63-67.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Fillenbaum, G. (1988). Multidimensional functional assessment of older
adults: The Duke older Americans resources and services procedures.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Francis, D. (1981). Adaptive strategies of the elderly in England and Ohio.
In C. Fry (Ed.), Dimensions: Aging, culture and health. Brooklyn, NY:
Praeger.
S297
Gans, H. (1979). Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2, 1-20.
Gelfand, D., & Barresi, C. (1987). Ethnic dimensions of aging. New York:
Springer.
Groves, R., & Kahn, R. (1979). Surveys by telephone. New York: Academic Press.
Guttman, D. (1986). A perspective on Euro-American elderly. In C. Hayes,
R. Kalish, & D. Guttman (Eds.), European-American elderly: A guide
for practice. New York: Springer.
Holzberg, C. (1982). Ethnicity and aging: Anthropological perspectives on
more than just the minority elderly. The Gerontologist, 22, 422-428.
Kalton, G., & Anderson, D. (1989). Sampling rare populations. In M. P.
Lawton and R. A. Herzog (Eds.), Special research methods for gerontology. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Kivett, V. (1985). Consanguinity and kin level: Their relative importance
to the helping networks of older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 40,
228-234.
Kivisto, P. (1989). The ethnic engima: The salience of ethnicity for European-origin groups. Philadelphia: Balch Institute Press.
Kivisto, P., & Nefzger, B. (1993). Symbolic ethnicity and American Jews:
The relationship of ethnic identity to behavior and group affiliation.
The Social Science Journal, 30, 1-12.
Lieberson, S., & Waters, M. (1986). Ethnic groups in flux: The changing
ethnic responses of American Whites. Annals of American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 487, 79-91.
Litwak, E., & Longino, C. (1987). Migration patterns among the elderly:
A developmental perspective. The Gerontologist, 27, 266-272.
Longino, C. (1990). Geographical distribution and migration. In R. Binstock and L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences
(3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Longino, C , & Serow, W. (1992). Regional differences in the characteristics of elderly return migrants. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 47, S38-S43.
Luborsky, M., & Rubenstein, R. (1987). Ethnicity and lifetimes: Self-concepts and situational contexts of ethnic identity in late life. In D.
Gelfand and C. Barresi (Eds.), Ethnic dimensions of aging. New York:
Springer.
MacRae, H. (1992). Fictive kin as a component of the social networks of
older people. Research on Aging, 14, 226-247.
Markides, K., Liang, J., & Jackson, J. (1990). Race, ethnicity, and aging:
Methodological considerations. In R. Binstock and L. George (Eds.),
Handbook of aging and the social sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Markides, K., & Mindel, C. (1987). Aging and ethnicity. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Martinelli, P. (1985). Exploring ethnicity in the Sunbelt: Italian Americans
in Scottsdale, AZ. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 12, 143-162.
Myerhoff, B. (1978). Number our days. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Nagel, J. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic
identity and culture. Social Problems, 41, 152-176.
Neidert, L., & Farley, R. (1985). Assimilation in the U.S.: An analysis of
ethnic and generation differences in status and achievement. American
Sociological Review, 50, 840-850.
Rempusheski, V. (1988). Caring for self and others: Second generation
Polish American elders in an ethnic club. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Gerontology, 3, 233-271.
Rischin, M. (1990). Just call me John: Ethnicity as mentality. In P. Kivisto
and D. Blanck (Eds.), American immigrants and their generations. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Roberto, K., & Scott, J. (1986). Equity considerations in the friendships of
older Adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 241-247.
Sarason, I., Levine, H., Bashan, R., & Sarason, B. (1983). Assessing social
support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 127-139.
Simic, A. (1985). Ethnicity as a resource for the aged: An anthropological
perspective. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 4, 6-17.
Stoller, E. (1996). Sauna, Sisu and Sibelius: Ethnic identity among Finnish
Americans. The Sociological Quarterly, 37, 145-175.
Stoller, E., & Kami, M. (1994). Where do Finns live? Geographic distribution of Finnish Americans. Superior, WI: The Finnish American Reporter, April, p. 8.
STOLLER
S298
Stoller, E., & Pugliesi, K. (1988). Informal networks of community based
elderly: Changes in composition over time. Research on Aging, 10,
499-516.
Van Willigen, J. (1989). Gettin' some age on me: Social organization of
older people in a rural American community. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
Waters, M. (1990). Ethnic options: Later generation ethnicity in America.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weibel-Orlando, J. (1988). Ethnicity as a resource in aging: You can go
home again. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 3, 323-348.
Yancey, W., Ericksen, E., & Juliani, R. (1976). Emergent ethnicity: A review and reformulation. American Sociological Review, 41, 391-403.
Received July 9, 1997
Accepted May 9, 1998
Just released!
The 1998 Membership Director/ of
The Gerontological Society of America
Features
/
Lists the 5,500 outstanding names in gerontology and geriatrics
• Cross-referenced alphabetically, geographically, and by GSA section
• Keyed by primary discipline/profession, institution, and function
/ Identifies GSA fellows and regular members
All GSA members will receive a complimentary copy. Members may order additional
copies for $ 10.00 each. Nonmembers may order copies for $30.00 each, postage paid.
Send check or credit card orders to
The Gerontological Society of America
P.O. Box 79151
Baltimore, MD 21279-0151
Inquiries: (202) 842-1275 or (202) 842-1150 (fax)