Abstract
Few studies have examined older adults’ behavior and attitudes within the context of intergenerational shared site (IGSS) environments, where children and older adults receive services at the same facility and typically share space and resources on an ongoing basis. This natural study examined the behaviors of older adults participating in two senior center programs that were co-located with child care facilities. Data collection involved participant observation and in-depth interviews with staff members at each IGSS. The data were systematically coded and analyzed for themes. Although positive informal intergenerational interactions occurred at both centers, many older adults demonstrated negative behaviors and attitudes when their programs shared space and/or relinquished resources to children’s programs. Implications for research and practice are provided.
Environmental Gerontology
Over the past four decades, there has been increased research within the field of environmental gerontology (Wahl & Weisman, 2003), a discipline that is “devoted to understanding the behavioral and psychological implications of encounters between elders and their environments” (Scheidt & Wendley, 2006, p. 105). Studies within environmental gerontology have examined the behaviors and attitudes of older adults within a variety of environmental contexts, including older adults’ home environments (Oswald, Wahl, Naumann, Mollenkopf, & Hieber, 2006; Sereny, 2011; Wahl, Oswald, & Zimprich, 1999), long-term care facilities (Barnes, 2006; Parker et al., 2004), changes in living environments (Carp & Carp, 1980; Lawton, 1985), and community-based service environments, such as adult day care and senior centers (Carp, 1970; Eaton & Salari, 2005; Salari, Brown, & Eaton, 2006).
To date, few studies have explored the behaviors and attitudes of older adults within the context of intergenerational shared sites (IGSS), where older adults and children receive ongoing services within the same facility, with regular interactions occurring between the generations (Generations United, 2006a). Examples of IGSS include a nursing home with an on-sight day care or an elementary school that hosts a local senior center. To add to the current understanding of environmental gerontology, this study aimed at describing older adults’ behaviors within the context of IGSS environments. The findings represented here are part of a larger study of a nonprofit human service agency that operates two IGSS.
IGSS Environments
IGSS environments are not a new concept and have informally been created across cultures through multigenerational households (Hoffman, 2004; Silverstein, Cong, & Li, 2006). Intergenerational environments have more recently become popular in formal human service settings (Generations United, 2006a) within a variety of fields, including education (Stanton & Tench, 2003), health (de Souza, 2004), caregiving (Salari, 2002), and HIV/AIDS (Cook & White, 2006). IGSS is one of many approaches to intergenerational services where older adults and children must share physical space and resources on an ongoing basis.
Research on intergenerational programs has primarily focused on the interaction between children and older adults, with many studies concluding that these interactions have positive outcomes such as increasing older adults’ sense of generativity (Herrmann, Sipsas-Herrmann, Stafford, & Herrmann, 2005), increasing older adults’ levels of emotional well-being (Larkin, Sadler, & Mahler, 2005; Weintraub & Killian, 2007), improving older adults’ attitudes toward youth (Meshel & McGlynn, 2004; Pinquart, Wenzel, & Sorensen, 2000), and improving children’s attitudes toward older adults (Bales, Eklund, & Siffin, 2000; Lynott & Merola, 2007). Intergenerational interactions have also been viewed as vital to preserving cultural traditions, values, and beliefs across societies (Adjaye & Aborampah, 2004; Heine, 2002).
A small number of studies have also examined how environments may influence intergenerational interactions. Epstein and Boisvert (2006) found that by creating environments that had areas of interest to both children and older adults, more intergenerational activity occurred. In Jarrott and Bruno’s (2007) study, older intergenerational program participants reported that they disliked aspects of the physical and social environment, including the noise, impoliteness, and commotion of child participants. Finally, Salari (2002) found that older adults were subjected to infantilization when the physical environment had décor that was oriented toward children and the program staff treated older adults and children as status equals.
Theoretical Framework
Lawton and Nahemow’s (1973) Competence-Press Model provides a framework for understanding older adults’ behavior within IGSS environments. According to this model, behavior is a function of an individual’s competence and environmental press. Competence includes an individual’s abilities (Lawton, 1989a), while environmental press relates to stimuli in the environment that may generate a behavioral or psychological response from an individual (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973). Positive affect and behavior result from situations where an individual’s level of competence matches the amount of press within the environment or when there are small mismatches between competence and press, such as in cases where an individual is learning a new skill or partaking in a relaxing activity. Considerable incongruity between an individual’s competence and environmental press may result in negative affect and behavior.
Since its initial conceptualization, Lawton (1982) further expanded the concept of environment, asserting that it may be both objective and subjective, taking into account how an individual’s interpretation of the environment may influence behavior. He also identified and described three functions of the environment that may influence the behaviors of older people (Lawton, 1989b). They are: (a) maintenance, which involves the predictability in the environment; (b) stimulation, which includes stimulation that departs from the daily norm; and (c) support, which involves an environment’s ability to adapt to the changing needs of the individual.
Rationale for Study
Little remains known about how the socio-physical environments occurring within an IGSS facility may affect the behavior of older adults. Using Lawton and Nahemow’s (1973) Competence-Press Model as a guiding framework, this study examined older adults’ behavior within the context of an IGSS environment. More specifically, it qualitatively examined possible sources and level of press and older adults’ behavioral responses within an environment where older adults and children share a physical and social environment on an ongoing basis.
Method
Study Setting
Data collection for this study took place within two community centers operated by Families First (a pseudonym), a large, nonprofit human service organization located in a Mid-Atlantic metropolitan area. The agency’s original aim was to combat juvenile crime in the 1930s and has since expanded its focus to serve local families and older adults. The organization’s mission statement reflects its original focus as a youth-serving agency, stating that Families First “empowers children” by providing “their families and their elders” with services.
Both community centers operated by Families First house co-residing senior center and child care programs for pre-school- and school-age children, qualifying them as IGSS. The senior center programs offer an array of activities that are designed to address older adults’ social, physical/mental, and nutritional needs, including congregate meals, arts and crafts, trips, educational seminars on health and social concerns, referral services, and health screenings. Program activities are generally scheduled from 8 a.m. until noon on weekdays and are coordinated by a staff member designated to the senior center program at each center. The majority of senior center participants were ages 65 and older. All participants were non-institutionalized, living in the community either alone or with others, and would arrive to the centers through private transportation (car or taxi), public transit, or on foot. Although participants would not be considered physically frail or nursing home eligible, some experienced mild physical and/or cognitive impairments.
Children’s programs at the center include pre-school programs for children ages 6 weeks through 5 years, and after-school and summer camp programs for children ages 5 through 13 years. The pre-school and summer camp (June through August) programs operate from around 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. and the after-school program operates from around 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. These programs offer a variety of structured, daily activities, including educational activities, arts and crafts, swimming, music, and cultural activities. The centers also offer programs for teens, where they engage in health and life skills activities, recreation, and personal development.
The formal responsibility of each staff member is with his or her individually designated program, with no formal expectations for staff to collaborate across programs. Almost all staff members had previous educational and/or employment backgrounds involving children. Only one staff member had previously worked with older adults. Some program resources, such as the swimming pools, art supplies, and recreational equipment, were shared across programs.
Center A
Center A serves a community consisting of an older adult population that is primarily White and middle-class and a population of young families that is diverse in race and socioeconomic status. The senior center and child care programs at Center A are well-attended, with an average of 100 daily senior center participants and more than 160 pre-school and after-school program enrollees. The child care programs swell to almost 250 during the summer, when summer camp operates.
The physical environment
One of the more prominent physical characteristics of Center A is that there is no space at the center that is dedicated only to older adults. The facility consists of a large auditorium, which is typically used for senior center programming, smaller multi-purpose rooms that are used for senior center and school-age child care programming, and separate rooms dedicated to the pre-school child care programming. In addition, there is a large indoor swimming pool and a gymnasium located within the building. The use of individual rooms by generational-specific programs changes on a daily basis, based on the dynamic schedule created by the individual program coordinators.
The social environment
Children and older adults are both visible throughout Center A before 2 p.m., which is when most senior center participants have typically departed. Oftentimes, there were informal interactions observed in the areas commonly shared by the child care and senior center programming, such as hallways, stairwells, lobbies, and restrooms. For instance, on a daily basis, children could be seen walking past the open doorways of rooms that were being utilized by senior center programming.
Staff members at Center A expressed that the individual programs at the center are interconnected and that each program contributes equally to the mission of the larger community center. These feelings were evident through numerous observations of cross-program collaborations by staff members. In the event that older adults vocalize opposition to sharing space and/or resources with children’s program at the center, staff members report that they remind the older adults that it is “a community center, not a senior center.”
Center B
Center B serves a low-income community that has experienced considerable disinvestment, resulting in the relocation of local residents and inconsistent community participation in center programming. At the time of data collection, the center enrolled around 130 children in the pre-school and after-school programs during the school year and about 250 children in the summer. The average daily participation of older adults is between 5 and 10. Residents in the local community are primarily African American families who are poor to working class.
The physical environment
Center B provides dedicated space for both the senior center and pre-school child care programs. The senior center area consists of two connected rooms that are small in size. There are also a set of small multi-purpose rooms used for school-age care programs, a cafeteria, an indoor swimming pool, and a large gymnasium that is adjacent to the room dedicated to the senior center.
The social environment
The social environment at Center B is more age-segregated than Center A, with fewer informal interactions occurring between older adults and children. Typically, older adults will remain in their designated program space while attending the center, with occasional use of the cafeteria and pool during scheduled times. There is minimal collaboration of staff members across programs. While there are occasional disputes among staff members over use of space and resources at both centers, these disputes are more frequent at Center B.
Data Collection
Data collection for this study involved participant observation and semi-structured interviews with staff. A consent form, detailing the design, purpose, and risks of the study, was signed by the CEO of Families First and interview participants. Staff members and program participants at each center were also given a letter that provided a full description of the purpose and design of the study, potential risks of the study, and participants’ right to refuse impromptu interactions with the researcher. The research design, method, and protocols for data collection were all approved by the institutional review board at the University of Delaware.
Participant observation was chosen as the primary data collection method for this study, because it allows the researcher to collect rich descriptive data on the day-to-day processes of a group as they occur and provides the perspective of the “insider” (Muller, 1995). It also allows the researcher to observe the actual behaviors of participants, rather than rely on the participants’ interpretation or recollection of a behavior (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), which is useful to identify behaviors and events that participants are unaware of, participants may inaccurately recall, or may be subjected to socially desirable response bias (Padgett, 2008).
Eight observation visits were conducted at each center between May and August of 2007, each lasting 2 to 5 hours at a time for a total of 55 hours. Observation visits varied in time of day and day of week to gain full perspective of the activities occurring at each center, with most visits occurring between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the greatest number of older adults and children occupied the buildings simultaneously. Observations took place in both formal and informal organizational settings, including program activity rooms, lobbies, hallways, cafeterias, outdoor areas, and meal preparation areas. Field notes included descriptions of nonverbal and verbal communications, diagrams of the environment, descriptions of the physical environment, activities, interactions between individuals, and individuals’ reactions. The researcher also recorded her own impressions, feelings, and concerns separately to help identify potential bias in data collection (Padgett, 2008). Data collected through participant observation guided the development of interview questions.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted between August and October of 2007 with 12 staff members from Families First. These staff members were selected based on their management and planning roles with the child care and senior center programming. Five staff members worked at Center A, four worked at Center B, and three worked for the organization’s central office that guides the agency’s operations. Interview participants from Center A and the central office were all White, were more likely than participants from Center B to be over the age of 50, and were more likely to have worked for Families First for 5 or more years. Interview participants at Center B were all African American, tended to be younger, and typically worked at the organization for less than 5 years. Data collected from interviews were triangulated with field notes to confirm the validity of data collected through participant observation (Padgett, 2008).
The semi-structured interviews covered a variety of topics related to the organization’s experience with intergenerational programming. Older adult behavior in the context of the IGSS facilities were explored through more general questions pertaining to the centers’ programs and activities: (a) In what ways does serving two generations at the same site benefit the seniors and children at each community center? (b) Can you describe the activities/events that Families First offers that incorporate both senior services and child care services? (c) What do you feel are the biggest challenges of providing services to seniors and children at the same site? (d) In what ways could Families First or the centers change to improve the accommodation of both generations? Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.
Data Analysis
Raw text from the interview transcriptions and field notes were entered into an electronic database where they were coded and analyzed. Initially, the researcher utilized an open coding process where codes were freely assigned to segments of data representing themes (Strauss, 1987) while keeping the research concern of environmental press and older adults’ behavior in mind (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Then, a constant comparison method was used to assess similarities and differences across data segments (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
When coding was near completion, thematic codes that were conceptually similar were linked together in larger integrated categories (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; Corbin & Strauss, 2008) that represented “theoretical completeness—accounting for as much variation in a pattern of behavior with as few concepts as possible, thereby maximizing parsimony and scope” (Strauss, 1987, p. 35). In the end stages of data analysis, the researcher engaged in “member checking” to determine the accuracy of data findings (Padgett, 2008). Through this process, the researcher conducted subsequent face-to-face interviews with all of the interview participants where they were asked to comment on the validity of the themes generated through data analysis.
Two central themes emerged from the data. The first theme was Sharing Space and Resources With Children, which related to children being viewed as an agency priority, older adults’ defeated/avoiding behavior, and older adults’ territorial behavior. The second emerging theme was The Intergenerational Environment, which was associated with two subthemes, positive informal interactions with children and sound as an environmental stressor.
Results
Sharing Space and Resources With Children
Children are viewed as an agency priority
One of the more significant themes emerging from the data was that, at both centers, the social environment reflected an agency culture that prioritized the child care programs. During observation visits and interviews, it became evident that physical space was a scarce resource at both centers, which at times created conflicts in scheduling and programming. Resolving such conflicts often resulted in the senior center programs conceding space and resources to the children’s programs. During occasions where the child care programs were prioritized, older adults were observed exhibiting negative behaviors. Staff members explained that on occasions where older adult programming would be cancelled to accommodate children’s programs, the older adults would often express resentment toward the children’s programs over the relinquished space and resources. One staff member at Center B stated:
That’s what I’m learning. The kids will come first here. It’s like, if we need the gym room tomorrow and the schedule is ready for the kids, they’ll get it from us. Because it’s for [the children]. It’s not like a togetherness. It’s like the children come first. If we need this, the children come first. And I think that’s where our seniors get to be standoffish from the children. Because it’s like [according to the older adults], “If it wasn’t for y’all we could do this, if it wasn’t for y’all we could do that.” (Center B Staff Interview, October 9, 2007)
Defeated/avoiding behavior of older adults
Although not all older adults appeared negatively affected by the loss of program space and resources, those who were affected would frequently exhibit frustration, aggravation, and stress. Staff members explained that during events when individual senior center programs were cancelled, the older adult participants would leave and/or avoid the center rather than attend other senior center programs that were not cancelled on that day. During observation visits, when space and scheduling conflicts occurred, older adults could be observed exhibiting defeated and avoiding behavior in regards to their participation in center activities. For instance, many would leave the senior center, sometimes angrily or with slumped shoulders. During one observation visit at Center A, the senior center program was not able to utilize the large auditorium because it was needed for children’s programming. In the center lobby, one older female program participant pointed to a small multi-purpose room and stated to an older male participant, “Why don’t you join up in the room?” He replied, “No, it’s too crowded in there. It gets on my nerves.” A third older male participant who was sitting near them stated aloud and frustratingly, “Sometimes things are so hectic around here!” (Center A Observation, March 30, 2007).
Having designated space for senior center programming at Center B appeared to create an environment where older adults were more likely to engage in defeated and avoiding behaviors, because there were limited opportunities for older adults to engage in other activities when the senior center lost space and/or resources to other programs. For instance, when a greater number of children were in the building due to school closings or summer break, the older adults at Center B were more likely to avoid coming to the senior center or shut their program room door so that contact with the rest of the building was minimal. On one occasion, a staff member at Center B stated, “[T]he children were out of school yesterday and some of the seniors said when we left on Friday, ‘Oh boy. The kids will be out. I may not come Monday. There’s too much noise, and no space’” (Center B Staff Interview, October 9, 2007).
One administrator at the Central Office explained how the physical arrangement of Center B’s programs inhibits older adults’ interactions with staff and children outside of the senior center’s designated area. He stated, “They’re a smaller group [than the senior program at Center A], and they’re kind of enclosed in their space. And I know that I’m not talking about the characteristics of the people, it’s just that they’re more insolate, because they’re contained” (Central Office Staff Interview, September 27, 2007).
One staff member at Center B believed that the older adults are quick to abandon the senior center when their program loses space or resources because of their personal experiences and histories of living in a disinvested community. She explained:
[Y]ou have a group of people, and to them it doesn’t seem like they’re offered much. The one thing they have—when you take that away— I can see them totally just being turned off to the idea of coming here anymore. Not that it’s true, but to phrase their words, “You’ve taken everything away and we already get as little as we get and now the one thing we enjoy we don’t have access to, then forget you.” (Center B Staff Interview, October 2, 2007)
Territorial behavior of older adults
In addition to defeating/avoiding behavior, older adults in each community center exhibited territorial behavior toward others who were viewed as invading their claimed space. Many times there was confrontation between older adults over the use of program space, equipment, or resources during various activities. On one occasion, a male older volunteer at Center A was observed complaining to the program director that a group of older men were playing cards at a table designated for lunch while he was trying to set the table. The men were not able to play cards in their usual game room locale, because other center programs were occupying the room during this particular day and the men refused to move their card game to another table. The older volunteer explained to the director that one of the card players shouted at him, “We’re tired of this [referring to room changes]! Why can’t you set that table over there?” (Center A Observation, August 6, 207).
Territorial behaviors of senior center participants toward other older adults were primarily observed at Center A, where older adults did not have designated space, had a greater variety of activities, and often used other areas of the building for programming. It was also noted that older adults at Center A were territorial toward new older adults wanting to attend their programs. For example, when the pool heater broke at Center B, Families First tried to encourage senior center members from Center B to use the pool at Center A. However, staff members at both centers and the older adults at Center B all agreed that the senior center participants at Center A did not make their temporary guests feel welcome.
In addition to exhibiting territorial behavior toward other older adults, senior center program participants also exhibited territorial behavior toward the children and the child care programs. During one observation visit to Center A, an older female participating in an art class expressed to the researcher, “Seniors should have more dedicated space in the building” (Center A Observation, May 21, 2007). Staff members are aware of older adults’ territorial behavior, with one Center A staff member stating that some of the older adults are “protective of their territory. They look at teens as disrupting their card games” (Center A Observation, July 17, 2007).
Although older adults at both centers were described as being territorial and wanting more program space and resources, it became evident that older adults at Center A were more tolerant of sharing resources with children and the child care programs than those at Center B. Staff members at Center A indicated that this may be due to the fact that they create an environment where older adults do not have a choice in sharing the facility with children’s programs. This was highlighted during an event at Center A, when talking with two staff members. One explained:
[The older adults] know that we are a community center, and if they keep bringing that up [that they do not want to share with the children] we remind them that we are a community center and that we do have children in the building. If they really want something that is just for seniors, then they might prefer a senior center as opposed to a community center.
Another staff member added:
I feel very strongly that it’s a healthy structure that you have various age populations all under one roof and does not segregate service-wise by age it’s beneficial because people have to periodically accommodate to each other, and I think this is how it works in the real world. People see that they have to share some space. It tends to sometimes cause some stresses and strains, but in a way it’s reality. It’s how life works. And within families there’s shared things in houses, shared space in houses. That’s the way it is in the center. (Center A Observation, July 18, 2007)
One example of this can be seen through the delegation of time for swimming across programs. At Center A, some older adults may prefer to have more designated pool time for the senior center, though many will continue to use the pool without complaint while child care programs are swimming. This was not the case at Center B, where the older adults get 1 hour to swim and then the pool closes for the rest of the day for the child care programs. One staff member stated:
I tried to have seniors and kids use the pool at the same time. I told the seniors that I could designate a lane for open swim all day, but they complained, because they say that they do not like the children in the pool when they are using it. They say that the children are too loud and they bother them. (Center B Observation, July 3, 2007)
The issues with use of the pool at Center B have continued to be a problem, with many older adults asserting their claim to pool usage by means of changing the thermostat. Center B staff members indicated that the older adults prefer the pool water to be at a higher temperature than what is legally required. However, the older adults continue to alter the thermostat for their 1-hour swim sessions, which ultimately lead to the pool heating system breaking.
Another finding relating to territorial behavior of older adults involves older adults’ use of non-program space. During observation visits, it became evident that older adults who were without dedicated program space exhibited more territorial behavior and “belongingness” in facility spaces that were not designated for programming. For instance, on occasions when older adults at Center A would lose program space to the child care programs (e.g., the auditorium would be used for a special event), older adults would occupy the lobby under no direction of center staff members, for sometimes hours at a time. These older adults would not receive programming in the lobby but felt “ownership” and “belongingness” over this facility space for their own unplanned social activities.
While the senior center at Center B had designated space for older adults, this space sometimes proved to be inadequate when a large number of older adults would attend the program on the same day or if the older adults attending had varying activities in which they wanted to participate. On many occasions, Center B was able to accommodate the senior center program by designating the cafeteria for older adults’ activities. Although the lobby at Center B was significantly larger than that of Center A, the older adults at Center B would not utilize non-program space for their personal use.
The Intergenerational Environment
Positive informal interactions with children
Despite conflicts over space and resources, there were many informal interactions observed between older adults and children that elicited positive behaviors from older adults participating in both senior center programs. During informal interactions between both generations, older adults exhibited behaviors that indicated pleasure in seeing the children during these events. One example included an event at Center A where an older female senior center participant was observed walking toward the community center kitchen as a child care program walked past her to reach the back door to exit the building. As the children passed her, they waved to her and shouted “Bye!” She smiled and touched them on their heads and shoulders affectionately as they passed (Center A Observation, May 10, 2007).
One interesting difference between the behavior of older adults at Centers A and B is that older adults at Center B often engaged in parental-like behavior with children during informal interactions, which was not a behavior observed at Center A. For example, during one observation visit at Center B, a child care worker was observed escorting a child care class through the hallway prior to lunch. As she walked past the kitchen, she opened and peered in the kitchen door to talk to the kitchen staff and collect the children’s lunches. During the time that she was looking away from the children, a male older adult from the senior center program (who is a frequent volunteer at the center) walked by the children and made an effort to keep them quiet and maintain their single-file line (Center B Observation, June 8, 2007).
Sound as an environmental stressor
While older adults were observed to have positive interactions with children at both centers, the sound coming from the child care programs would sometimes reach levels that appeared to be uncomfortable for older adults, creating an environmental stressor. Staff members indicated during observation visits and interviews that sharing space is at times difficult because of the sound levels from the children’s programs and that the issue with sound was the underlying cause for eliminating the older adults’ yoga program at Center B.
The effects of loudness from children’s programs on older adults were particularly a problem in shared environments that had poor acoustics, such as indoor pool areas and gymnasiums, which were designed with high ceilings and hard surfaces. At Center A, where the senior center and child care programs would share the pool facility during the day, the older adults would sometimes exhibit signs of stress, such as wincing when children were also occupying the pool. On one occasion, an older adult began swimming laps when a child care classroom entered the far side of the pool. At first, the older man continued to swim laps, but suddenly stopped and left the pool area. The researcher later approached the man and asked him about his experience sharing the pool. He explained that he left the pool area because he found the children to be too loud, stating, “I can’t lie, as you get older you lose patience for them” (Center A Observation, May 4, 2007).
The level of sound coming from the child care programs was a more significant issue at Center B, because the designated area for the senior center was located adjacent to the gymnasium. During observation visits, the sound of the children playing games would permeate through the wall, and basketballs were often heard bouncing off of the shared wall. When the sound level of the gym was high, the older adults would often exhibit signs of stress, such as putting their hands to their heads, furrowing their brows, and putting their heads down to rest.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand the current understanding of intergenerational environments by describing the behaviors of older adults within the context of an IGSS environment. The qualitative data from this study provide insight on the dynamics of human service environments where older adults and children share space and resources on an ongoing basis.
Overall, it was found that in IGSS environments where children’s programming was prioritized, older adults exhibited negative behaviors. This finding contrasts with previous studies reporting that temporary interactions between older adults and children generate positive outcomes for older adults, such as improved psychosocial outcomes (Herrmann et al., 2005), increased sense of generativity (Larkin et al., 2005), improved life satisfaction (Meshel & McGlynn, 2004), and improved attitudes toward children (Pinquart et al., 2000). Findings from the current study suggests that intergenerational interactions where older adults have the opportunity to engage in social and educational activities with children may not be viewed the same as intergenerational environments where older adults have to share the physical and social environment with children on an ongoing basis.
One contributing factor to older adults’ negative behavior may relate to older adults’ perception of the social environment (Lawton, 1982) as one characterized by intergenerational inequity and diminished autonomy. At both IGSS facilities, the organizational culture prioritized children’s programs over the older adult programs, resulting in perceived intergenerational inequity in regards to space and resource allocation. The issue of intergenerational inequity may especially relate to Families First’s history as a youth-serving agency that later “added on” the intergenerational component.
Just as age-inappropriate environments may have negative effects on older adults’ behavior (Salari, 2002), lack of parity across age-specific programs may also create an environment that negatively affects older adults. The data suggest that lack of parity or perceived parity affected the maintenance function of the environment (Lawton, 1989b), because it became unpredictable when older adults would experience program disruptions through relinquished space and resources to the children’s programs. This elevated environmental press. This inequity also affected the environmental function of support, given that older adults experienced limited assistance from staff with advocating for their space and resources and therefore elected to avoid the community centers. This finding parallels Salari’s (2002) findings where older adults withdrew from intergenerational activities when their levels of status and autonomy provided by program staff were equated with children’s. Older adults at the centers also elicited territorial behavior during these occasions, both toward other older adults and children, which was similar to previous research where senior center participants exhibited territorial behavior toward others who were viewed as violating their space (Carp, 1970; Salari et al., 2006). It should also be noted that these behaviors were observed in both cases where older adults were provided with dedicated space and where they were not provided dedicated space within the facility.
Findings from this research also have implications for the physical environments within IGSS. Similar to Jarrott and Bruno’s (2007) findings, this study suggests that older adults may become uncomfortable when sharing environments with children where the level of sound generated from children’s activities is high, particularly in environments with poor acoustics, such as indoor swimming pools and gymnasiums. While elevated sound levels created through the children’s programs may increase the amount of press in older adults’ environment (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973), naturally occurring hearing loss (Wingfield, McCoy, Peelle, Tun, & Cox, 2006) and decreased ability to inhibit competing noise (Gordon-Salant & Fitzgibbons, 2004) negatively affect cognitive processes as adults age, therefore reducing older adults’ capacity to maintain an “adaptation level.”
The issue of elevated sound was a more substantial problem at Center B, where sound from children’s activities permeated older adults’ designated space. However, some older adults continued to attend programming, despite observed discomfort. This raises questions regarding the extent to which designated space for older adults limits their agency to utilize other program space (thus reducing their competence) and the extent to which designated space may inhibit the environmental function of support (Lawton, 1989b), since the surroundings did not allow older adults to adapt to their environment.
One unexpected finding from the study was that within the IGSS environments studied, older adults at Center B were more likely than those at Center A to exhibit parental-like behavior with children they did not personally know during informal interactions. Since participants at Center B were mostly African American, one of the possible reasons for this difference may be due to a greater likelihood of providing support for childrearing to extended kin in African American culture (Sarkisian, 2005). These cultural dynamics may give African American older adults more comfort and experience than White older adults with assuming parental roles with children other than their own. The effects of race and culture on intergenerational programs and interactions have not been fully explored through research. However, this finding indicates that within intergenerational environments, there may be cultural differences in some older adults’ behaviors.
Implications for Practitioners
To address issues of intergenerational equity and staff acceptance toward an intergenerational environment, administrative staff within IGSS should examine how organizational culture may be affecting program participants. Staff members across the organization had limited experience and education in gerontology and intergenerational human service, which may inhibit an organizational culture that supports intergenerational interaction. Organizational culture also relates to staff cooperation within IGSS facilities. At Center A, where staff members were more cooperative across programs and emphasized the importance of sharing space, older adult participants were more accepting of sharing space. At Center B, staff members expressed a higher level of competition for resources and lower level of cooperation across age-specific programs. Older adults at Center B were less likely to accept shared space with children’s programs. This finding supports Generations United’s (2006b) assertion that territorial behaviors of staff members may be linked to older adults’ difficulty in sharing space within an IGSS. Practitioners should consider how the social environment created through organizational culture influences the behavior and attitudes of program participants.
To address organizational culture, IGSS practitioners should establish formal processes that involve: (a) evaluating how the behaviors, beliefs, values, and attitudes of program staff and participants may inhibit formal intergenerational integration; (b) implementing interventions aimed at changing identified cultural barriers to intergenerational integration; and (c) evaluating the outcomes of these interventions (Dawson, 2003). Interventions should include education and training, especially cross-training of staff members, which has been heavily cited as a strategy for maximizing intergenerational program outcomes (Bressler, Henkin, & Adler, 2005; Epstein & Boisvert, 2006; Jarrott & Bruno, 2007; VanderVen, 2004), because it may improve staff members’ understanding of intergenerational human service. Practitioners should also assess how the finances of IGSS may affect organizational culture, given previously reported findings that suggest that the nature of government grants and contracting tends to be age-segregated, leaving little incentive for collaboration and engagement across programs (Ruggiano, 2010).
Findings from this study have several implications to how IGSS programs are physically designed. Individuals designing IGSS facilities should be cognizant of the environmental stimuli that may be generated through the social and physical environments created through IGSS to minimize discomfort of older adult participants. For example, gymnasiums are usually designed with high ceilings and hard surfaces, which may negatively affect the sound comfort for older adults who are participating in an activity alongside a group of children. With sound comfort in mind, a designer may select building materials that are more sound absorbent.
Implications for Future Research
Although this study provides insight and knowledge on the topic of IGSS, further research is needed on the role of environment in intergenerational settings, taking into consideration both the social and physical environments that are established in intergenerational contexts. Several strategies were utilized to strengthen the validity of this research, including multiple data collection methods, the use of the constant comparison approach to analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1994), and member checking (Padgett, 2008). However, the exploratory nature of this study requires that caution be used when interpreting findings. Comparisons across IGSS in this study should also be interpreted with caution, due to the disparities in participation rates between the senior center programs at Centers A and B. Another limitation that should be mentioned is that this study did not involve interviews with older adults and therefore did not capture program participants’ attitudes or interpretations of their behavior. However, findings presented here provide a basis for a planned follow-up study on older adults’ perspectives and attitudes toward sharing space and resources within IGSS.
Several recommendations for future research may be made based on the current findings. First, research should further examine how sensory stimuli (both aural and visual) occurring within intergenerational environments may affect the behaviors of program participants. Second, research should further explore how designated and undesignated space may affect the behavior of program participants in a variety of IGSS settings. This research should go beyond examining the extent to which these environmental characteristics facilitates intergenerational interactions and further explore how they affect the social behaviors of program participants.
Finally, research should also further examine the role that race, ethnicity, and culture play in formal and informal interactions in intergenerational environments, exploring differences in the types and quality of interactions from different racial groups, as well as possible attitudinal differences toward intergenerational interactions and sharing program environments with children. Given that intergenerational households are commonplace in many cultures, research should also examine how space and resources are negotiated in intergenerational households, particularly within a cross-cultural context.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.