Religiosity and mental health in southern, community-dwelling older adults.

This study considers potential interaction effects of three measures of religiosity, organized (OR), non-organized (NOR), and intrinsic religiosity (IR), on depression and general mental health, controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and mobility. In-home interviews were conducted among a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from five central Alabama counties (the University of Alabama at Birmingham Study of Aging). Those who were high on all three dimensions of religiosity reported having fewer symptoms of depression and better mental health than did those who were low on all three dimensions of religiosity. Subjects who scored high on OR reported lower levels of depression (F (1,981) = 3.97, p<0.05). Neither IR nor NOR had salutary effects on the measure of depression nor on the general measure of mental health.The interpretation of the relationships of religiosity with the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the general mental health (Mental Component Score of the SF-12; MCS) measures was complicated by the presence of three way interactions (F (1,981) = 9.02, p<0.01 and F (1, 981) = 5.46, p<0.05, for GDS and MCS respectively). The presence of interaction effects between the different dimensions of religiosity and mental health affirms the importance of remaining sensitive to the multidimensional nature of religiousness and its relationships with measures of mental health.

Fear of personal aging and subjective well-being in later life.

This study examined the relationships among situational factors, fear of personal aging, and subjective well-being in a probability sample of 595 Alabamians, aged 55 and older, using regression analysis. Of the variables employed, fear of aging was found to be the best predictor of subjective well-being.

Dimensions and crystallization of family-size norms.

PIP: A structured interview schedule was administered to a nationwide sample of 9232 ever-married Philippine women between the ages of 15-49 to examine the relationships among maximum acceptable, ideal, and minimum acceptable family size to determine whether couples conceive of family size in terms of a range of acceptable sizes; to ascertain how selected demographic characteristics relate to these dimension of family size; and to determine how the relationships of actual family size to maximum acceptable, ideal, and minimum acceptable family size affect use of contraceptives. Questions concered current number of children, the ideal number of children for a family in the barrio, how many children the female would consider to be "too many;" and how many children the female would consider to be "too few." As expected, maximum acceptable family size (median = 6.53) was larger than ideal family size (median = 4.34) which was larger than minimum acceptable family size (median = 3.03). In only 9.7% of the cases were these 3 numbers equal. The median difference between maximum acceptable and minimum acceptable family size was 3.07 children and in 30.7% of the cases this difference was 5 or larger. Thus, family size norms did not appear to be crystallized, and norms concerning appropriate family size appeared to incorporate tolerance limits of some form. 76.6% of the respondents reported a maximum acceptable family size larger than ideal family size. Over 40% of the families had 5 or more children; 19.5% had 7 or more children. Age and length of marriage were positively correlated with maximum acceptable, ideal, and minumum acceptable family size. Those who were older had less crystallized family size norms and a larger insurance effect than those who were younger and who had been married for a shorter time. Level of educational attainment was negatively correlated with actual, maximum acceptable family size. Those who reported higher maximum acceptable, ideal, and minimum acceptable family size were less likely to use contraception than those who reported lower scores on these measures, but the relationships were quite small. Those who had more children were more likely to use contraception than were those who had fewer children. Contraceptive use increased as actual family size approached either maximum acceptable or ideal family size. The data supported the assumption that couples conceived of family size in terms of a range of acceptable alternatives rather than single number. Thus, the range of acceptable alternatives might be quite large. The tasks for those who want to reduce the rate of population growth might be reconceptualized in terms of encouraging couples to have what they conceive of as a "minimum acceptable" family in terms of size.^ieng