HOUSING CONCERNS OF ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS HOK LIN LEUNG Queen’sUniversity
ABSTRACT: This article examines the subjectiveperct~tions of low-income e&riy
homeownersabouttheirhousingsituatio~by using a nonstanakdizedandunobtrusive i~~~iew method and a thematiccontentanalysis Five housingareas were inve@ated shelterquality,neighborhood qua&y, acce.ssibw and mobility,be@ and burden of homeowner&p, and social support network The jimiings corrobomted the siudy by O’Blyanton the importanceof subjectivevariablesin explain@ housing satkfation Two themese-d questionablehousing %eeaY and ambiguityperceptions
INTRODUCTION Most studies about housing for the elderly focus on the match between need and environment: measuring housing satisfaction against an array of objective and observable characteristics. The dominant congruence theory argues that there is a strong interrelationship between individual characteristics and the sociocultural environment with respect to the attitudes and behavior of the aged (Gubrium 1973,1975). Kahana (1975) suggested that individuals change their environment or alter their needs via adaptive behavior in order to maximize the fit, or congruence, between their need and the specific environment. Where the congruence exists, the individual perceives a high level of satisfaction, and vice versa. Typically, researchers use the type of structure, number of rooms, age of housing, whether owned or rented, value of home, condition of structure, etc., as shelter characteristics (e.g., Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers 1976; CMHC 1983). In addition, aspects of the neighborhood and community are also taken into consideration (e.g., Campbell et al. 1976; Lawton 1978,198Oa; Struyk 1977). There is overwhelming evidence, however, that the elderly find their housing situation highly satisfactory, and prefer to remain in their own homes (Lawton 1980a), *Direct all communications to: Hok Lin Leung, School E(ingston. Ontario K7L 3N6.
of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University,
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES, Volume 1, Number 4, pages 379-391. Copyright 0 1987 by JAI F’ress,Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0890-4065.
380
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
apparently irrespective of physical conditions. O’Bryant (1983) observed that “a great amount of the housing satisfaction expressed by the elderly is independent from what has been defined as physical quality.” Lawton (1978) was able to account for only 22% of the variance in housing satisfaction, despite a large number of objective housing quality indicators. In another study by Campbell et al. (1976), objective housing characteristics explained only 12% of the variance in satisfaction. Several explanations have been advanced for the discrepancies between objective housing quality and housing satisfaction among the elderly: 1. Cognitive dissonance (Carp 1975): When an elderly person’s environment is inconsistent with his or her self-concept, and he or she is unable to improve the situation, one way to reduce feelings of inadequacy is to deny that the living situation is all that bad. 2. Positive adaptive mechanivm(Lawton 1978): An elderly person would try to persuade himself or herself that the situation is not so bad after all; in other words, the elderly are “unrealistic” about their circumstances, 3. Lacking busing aspiration (Campbell et al. 1976; Montgomery, Stubbs, and Day 1980): The elderly may have “lost hope and become resigned to their fate,” or that they have been socialized to “stay in their own place,” even to be “humble” and appreciative of the few good things they have experienced. In fact, Lawton (1980a) recognized that housing satisfaction seems independent of what we have succeeded in defining as physical quality, and that our research must look more carefully for factors in the person or in the environment. He further conceded that “the most appropriate personal characteristics for which environmental congruence should be sought are essentially unknown as yet” (198Oc, p. 35). Going beyond “the conventional wisdom of the housing professional [who] tends to see physical housing for the elderly as an end in itself, rather than a means to a different end-psychological well being.. .,” O’Bryant and Wolf (1980) set out to investigate the effect of four “subjective ‘*factors: status value of homeownership, traditional family orientation, cost versus comfort trade off, and competence in a familiar environment. Through a questionnaire survey, they examined how the three types of variablespersonal-demographic, housing characteristric, and subjective-function as a predictor of housing satisfaction. It was found that in the case of homeowners 10% of the variance in housing is explained by personal-demographic variables, 14% by housing characteristics, and 24% by the subjective variables (for renters they were 98, 25%, and 14% respectively) (O’Bryant and Wolf 1983). This article reports a study that sought to futher explore the subjective housing perceptions of the elderly.
METHOD O’Bryant’s variables were generated through an analysis (categorizing and tallying) of the open-ended responses to the question: “What was the one main reason for the elderly to want to stay in the present residence.” This was part of a large needs-
Housing Concernsof Efdedy Honmownm
361
survey previously performed. These variables were then included in a questionnaire survey instrument to test their explanatory significance. The problem with this is the ad hoc approach in the generation of the variables. They were deduced from responses to a question not specfically designed to solicit or generate them (Lzueau 1983). In the original needs-assessment survey the investigators necessarily defined the questions within the parameters of established presuppositions. This could have influenced the responses to the extent that their meaning and significance were obscured. The data gathered could have excluded matters of importance or interest, or masked significant distinctions (Krippendorff 1980). In our study we attempted to generate and analyze subjective variables about housing concerns by the elderly through a research instrument specifically designed for that purpose: a combination of “Elite” interview method and a thematic content analysis. This should comborate the findings by O’Bryant as well as initiate new lines of enquiry. “Elite” interview is basically a nonstandardized, nonobtrusive interview method pioneered by Lewis Dexter (1970). This method emphasizes the interviewee’s definition of the situation; encourages the interviewees to structure the account of the situation; and allows the interviewees to introduce, to a considerable extent, his or her notion of what he or she regards as relevant, instead of relying upon the investigator’s notion of revelance. Instead of detining the question and problem, we were willing, and indeed eager, to let the interviewee teach us what the problem, the question, and the situations were--to the limits, of course, of our ability to perceive relationships to our basic concerns, which were: shelter quality, neighborhood quality, accessibility and mobility, benefits and burden of homeownership, and social support network. The assumption was that together they embrace a whole range of common human needs related to housing, as identified by other researchers. The interview itself focused on the subjective experiences of the interviewee. We were interested not only in the present attitude but also in actual behavior, past and present, of the interviewee in coping with changes in the environment. We had designed some questions to prompt the interviewee to talk about the various areas of housing concern, for example: Where do you get your groceries? How long have you lived here? The interviewer, in fact, talked very little, but let the interviewee structure the conversation. In most cases, very little prompting was required The interviewee would “volunteer” all sorts of revelant comments. More often the problem was one of bringing him or her back from obvious digressions. Our data were more complex and voluminous than those yielded by specific openended questions. In our unstructured interview, questions were not always worded in the same way, or asked in the same sequence. Indeed, topics might be addressed by the interviewee in the absence of any question at all. The complexity of the data demanded procedures of interpretation such as those found in content analysis. As observed by Woodrum (1984 p. 2) assessment
the special potential of content analysis is its explicit linkage of qualitative symbol usage with quantitative data. Natural language sets. laden with symbolic meanings, arc the focus of content analysis; it is a technique for studying culture. But unlike hmeneutics, literary interpretation, and other purely qualitative procedures it brings to bear the power of quantitative analysis.
382
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
In this way, the quantitative approach substitutes controlled observation and systematic counting for impressionistic ways of observing frequency of occurrence (Holsti 1969). Woodrum (1984) distinguishes between two types of content analysis: manifest and latent content (thematic) analyses. These categories are roughly equivalent to Camey’s (1972) “classical” and “theoretically oriented” content analyses. The former involves the enumeration of manifest characteristics of a document, such as specific words or expressions. The latter involve the distinction and enumeration of themes or symbolic content that may not be as obvious as the appearance of a specific word or phrase. Interview data have been usefully analyzed elsewhere through a thematic content analysis (Bird, Lochstead, and Willingale 1983). From our interview data we selected certain themes to be coded. Coding is the process whereby raw data are systematically transformed and aggregated into units that permit a precise description of revelant content characteristics. In our study we focused on perceived “needs” regarding the five areas of housing concerns. Two themes were selected for each area of housing concern: an indication of an unmet need; and an indication of a need that has been met or that no need was perceived. There was a total of ten themes for five areas of housing concerns. The following analytical steps were taken. First, individual interviews were examined separately. An interview was transcribed and the contents coded. The coded statements had to be interpreted in context of the interview to ensure the quantitative aspects were in accordance with the qualitative nature of the data (Woodrum 1984). Then the frequencies of these coded statements (themes) were counted. A frequency table was drawn up to record the result of each interview. Inferences were then drawn from these frequency counts about the interviewee’s “overall” perception with respect to each area of housing concern: (1) no perceived needs or perceived needs met; (2) perceived needs not met; and (3) ambiguous attitude toward a need where both satisfaction and lack of it were recorded. Second, individual interviews were aggregated to establish “collective” perceptions. This was a two-prong process. 1. The frequency counts for each area of housing concern were added up, thus treating all statements as essentially comparable. 2. The “overall” perceptions of all interviewees with respect to each area of housing concern (see above) were tallied, thus accommodating the integrity of “overall” perceptions of each interviewee. The quantitative and qualitative aspects of the analysis were complementary: The former gave an objective measure of the relative significance of the housing concerns and needs, and the latter illuminated the nature of the perceptions and the intensity of feelings. Because the aggregation of individual perceptions can be fraught with danger, a very conservative approach was used in interpreting the findings, focusing only on the most “obvious” indications. At the same time, anecdotal comments from the interviews were used to provide a context for interpretation. In this way we hoped to penetrate the subjective attitude and behavior of elderly homeowners toward their housing situation.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
363
IMPLEMENTATION Interviews were conducted in Kingston in 1982 and 1983 (population 60,000; 27 interviewees) and Belleville, Ontario in 1985 (population 20,000; 12 interviewees). The two sets of interviews were analyzed separately. The focus was on low-income homeowners because it was felt that this group was particularly significant in social and housing policy consideration. An earlier study had identified areas of concentration (at city block level) of lowincome elderly homeowners (Leung 1984). These were .defined as low-income areas with a large number of elderly homeowners. The assumption was that low-income elderly tend to live in low-income areas. A totally random sample was not possible because (1) although the areas represented concentrations of elderly homeowners not all the household heads in the area were elderly homeowners; and (2) some of the elderly homeowners approached for interview declined to participate. Additional interviews had to be generated through local senior citizen councils and service agencies. But care was taken to make sure that all interviewees were drawn from the areas of concentration of low-income elderly homeowners. (In case of Belleville this rule had to be relaxed because the city did not have too many such areas.) Each interview took about 45 minutes, and was taped and transcribed. In the case of Kingston the interviewer was also the content analyst. In the case of Belleville the interviewers and the analysts were different persons. For each interview a report was written with a spelling-out of the inferences drawn from it and a statement of the reasons justifying the inferences. A given response could often be classified under a number of housing concerns. These concerns were not mutually exclusive and a response could fall into more than one area. For example, the following statement, “My family will take me anywhere I want to go. I never have any trouble getting out if I want to,” indicates that a need is satisfied in two areas: social support network, and accessibility and mobility. The following were the general decision rules used. 1. References of attitudes and behaviors toward dwelling quality, or some aspects of it, were considered under “shelter quality.” 2. References of attitudes toward neighborhood conditions or situations were grouped under “neighborhood quality.” 3. References about location of services and facilities with respect to the dwelling, and ability of the interviewee to move around or travel were considered under “accessibility and mobility.” All references to accessibility to services or family, the convenience or inconvenience of location, or the ability or inability to travel in any way were included. 4. The “burden and benefit of homeownership” included both financial and physical aspects. Maintenance or upkeep of the dwelling or property was included but not additions or optional renovations, which were “shelter quality” concerns. 5. References to other persons (such as friends or family members) on whom the interviewee relied or with whom the interviewee was in contact were considered under “social support network.”
394
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 997
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
6. References to the past were included if they reflected continuing or long-term attitudes or behavior, such as locational advantages of dwelling occupied for many years.
FINDINGS Although our sample was not entirely random, it was comparable to the general elderly population in terms of age and sex distribution. Nearly all were long-term residents (i.e., 20 years and more). Because some of the interviewees were generated through service agency referrals it can be assumed that these were more “needy” cases than the normal elderly population. There are two parts to our findings: frequency counts and anecdotal comments. They are obviously related. The following frequency tables are of special interest (Tables 1,2, and 3).
TABLE 1
Total Frequency Counts by Housing Concern, Kingston and Belleville’ Bellevilie
Kingston Frequency
Shelter quality Neighborhood quality Accessibility and mobility Benefit and burden of homeownership Social support network Total
Total
Percentage
Frequency
Total
Percentage
39
9
49
56 14
13 18
58 102
10 12 22
89 163
21 38
100 164
21 35
421
99
473
100
Note: *Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 2
Frequency Counts by Housing Concern by Themes, Kingston’ MetNeeds Frequency Shelter quality Neighborhood quality Accessibility and mobility Benefit and burden of homeownership Social support network
Unmet Needs
Total
Frequency
Percentage
18 3
3 32 4
39 56 74
100 100 100
88 91
11 15
12 9
89 163
100 100
89
48
11
421
100
Percentage
38 38 71
91 68 96
78 148 373
Frequency
1
Percentage
Notes: *“Met needs” include “Needs not perceived.” In the area of “Benefit and Burden of Homeownership,” benefit equals met needs;and burden equals unmet needs.
305
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
TABLE 3
“Overall” Interviewee Perception by Housing Concern, Kingston
Sheller quality
20
74
0
0
I
4
6
22
Neighborhood quality
12
44
4
15
8
30
3
I1
Accessibility and mobility
23
85
1
4
3
11
0
0
Benefit and burden of homeownership
18
67
0
0
9
33
0
0
Sad
20
74
0
0
7
26
0
0
wppon
network
Note: “Met weds” include “Needs not perceived.” In the area of “Benefit and Burden of Homeownership,” benefit quals met needs, and burden quals unmet needs.
The total number of references made to a particular area of housing concern was considered as a measure of the revelance of that housing concern, regardless of whether a reference was one of unmet need or fulfilled need. By comparing the frequency counts we identified the relative significance of the various housing concerns. Of all the concerns “social support network” was considered by most to be the most relevant and significant. It accounted for 38% of the responses in Kingston and 35% in Belleville, followed by “benefit and burden of homeownership” (21% in both cities) and accessibility and mobility (18% and 22%). “Neighborhood quality” and “shelter quality’* were not considered as significant and accounted for only 13% and 12%, and 9% and 108, respectively. In all areas, references to fulfilled needs far exceeded references to unmet needs. However, there were relatively more unmet needs in the area of neighborhood quality. The following is a brief description of the “nature” of these references. 1. Our interviewees’ perception of the conditions of their own homes was generally favorable. These included appearance, maintenance, and other conditions. 2. They generally perceived their neighborhood conditions as “poor,” “not desirable,” or “not as they used to be.” However, they all wanted to cling to their neighborhood. “I’ve lived here so long. I’ve got roots here. Otherwise, I could live better in a residential neighborhood. The noise of the traffic and the dust from the road, I am used to it now.” 3. They perceived reasonable access and general mobility. Their knowledge about public services and facilities was also good. Services might be brought to them, such as the Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) and Meals-on-Wheels. Most often, they were offered rides by friends, neighbors, or relatives, who would also run errands for them. Sometimes they used their own car or a taxi. They seldom used buses. It is interesting to note that the loss of a spouse, especially the husband, often meant the loss of mobility. 4. Their income levels did not seem to be high, but their perception about the financial situation was not grim and, apparently, they could cope with the normal
386
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
housing expenditures (taxes, heating, repairs etc.). We did not specifically ask about income. Income levels were inferred from their financial ability to meet their needs. In fact, one interviewee even remarked that although his income was only $9 above the “offtcial” poverty level, he did not see any financial difficulty. Many have tried other living arrangements (such as taking in a boarder or a relative), but nearly all preferred living by themselves. The most often cited reason for living by themselves was privacy. 5. In terms of “coping” with old age, the general perception was that they could cope, with help that they got either through an informal social support network or institutionalized social services. Loneliness was the big problem. “There are times when you could run miles just to stop from being alone.” 6. Their perception about any change in housing conditions was linked to a total change in their lifestyle. In other words, housing conditions would change with a drastic decline in their health and/or income. They also perceived any such change as undesirable and terminal, with no transitional phase. Their Perceived housing options were limited to apartments and nursing homes. They associated the moving out from their home with the end of their “usefulness” or the loss of “meaning of existence. ” “No, when I move the next time it will be a nursing home, I’ll be finished.”
DISCUSSION In large measure our findings corroborated O’Bryant’s results. Physical neighborhood and shelter quality were relatively insignificant concerns, thus explaining, at least in part, the large discrepancies between environmental factors and housing satisfaction. We did not ask specific questions about “homeownership” as in the case of O’Bryant’s study. But our findings showed that although our interviewees ranged form “young” elderly who were very active and independent to frail elderly who relied heavily on others from day to day, they all seemed to attach a similar importance to homeownership. Of primary im~~ance was privacy, inde~ndence, and the freedom to do as they pleased. They also saw the “house” as providing much better shelter quality than apartments. Many felt that their home was a great “asset” in maintaining close contact with their family members. Our findings also suggested that “traditional family oreintation,” as manifested in some form of social support network, was important; and “competence in a familiar environment,” as manifested in accessibility to services and familiarity to the neighborh~d, was a very relevant consideration as far as an elderly homeowner was concerned. Because our study was designed specifically to explore subjective housing perceptions we were also able to identify some interesting areas for further examination. It appears that a good social support network is the single most important factor in maintaining a good quality of life as an elderly homeowner. The ability to maintain one’s own home and adequate trans~~ation are two factors that affect the quality of life greatly, and our findings indicated that to a large extent these are a function of a succsssful social support network. Interviewees often mentioned friends and family in conjunction with some kind of help they received.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
387
Two themes that emerged from our findings deserve closer attention: the question of “needs” and the ambigui~ of attitudes.
The Question of “Needs” Ivan Illich (1977, p. 11) once remarked, “I propose that we name the mid-twentieth century the Age of Disabling Professions, an age when people had ‘problems,’ experts had ‘solutions’ and scientists measure im~nderables such as ‘abilities’ and ‘needs.’ ” Two aspects in our findings are of special interest. Sefvices 8nd Facilities 8 t the lUeigh6orhoodLevel Based on questions about the use of social services, availability of such services at the neighborh~ level, and preferences about such services, researchers found that as a person grows older his home range has contracted and he increasingly uses only local shops and services (Huttman 1977). It has also been suggested that the physical space occupied by the elderly is often circumscribed by the neighborhood grocery, church, and dwelling unit (Montgomery 1972). Our findings indicated that there was a host of informal support for access to services. In other words, location of services at the neigh~rho~ level (grocery, bank, clinic, etc.) did not seem to matter much as far as the quality of life of the eldery was concerned. This raises questions about such needs as accessibility to services at the neighborhood level, desirable walking distance to various facilities, and so forth, which form the staple of many environmental studies.
It is commonly assumed that the financial burden of homeowne~~p for low-income elderly people would be difficult to bear. Our findings suggested that they could cope, and more significantly, they seemed to be coping well. This is particularly interesting because many of our interviewees were referred by social service agencies. There was also a lot of self-help and reciprocity. All these do not necessarily mean that financial considerations are not important, but they throw into question the revelance and importance of financial assistance to the quality of life of the elderfy. It Seems their needs are as much social as they are financial.
Ambiguity of Attitudes Studies based on the congruence approach focus on the “goodness of fit” between personal and environmenta ~haracte~stics, with given activity and social norms. As such, they do not readily accommodate ambiguities in attitude and behavior, where the answer is couched not in terms of “either/or,” or even “maybe,” but rather in terms of “yes and no,” or “as well as.” Such ambiguities may, no doubt, simply reflect inconsistencies in human behavior in general, but they also raise important questions about the important assumption in the cong~ence theory: that the match between the individual and the environment is definable, identifiable, and achievable. In our findings, the ambiguous attitude was most prevalent in the areas of benefit and burden of homeownership, neighborhood quality, and social support network, while perceptions about shelter quality and accessibility and mobility were more straightforward
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
388
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
IndependenceandDependence Our interviewees wanted to be independent as much as possible and as long as possible. But their independence was less than total. More often they were ambiguous about their independence. I think you will find that old people like privacy, and if you take them and put them in with quite a few people, they like company at times, but there are times when they want to be by themselves. Once in a while when I get awfully depressed, I’ll get on the phone, but I don’t like bothering people and I don’t want them to think they have to cater to me just because I am alone. I am one of the happiest in the world and one of the loneliest, if you can figure that out.
They enjoyed the self-esteem and benefits of their independence, such as “come and go as I please,” “doing things my way.” Yet, they realized they could not do so without being dependent on some people and/or assistance. While they would like to remain independent, it becomes a more and more difficult task. For many, the attitude is one of “you are grateful for help, but let me try it first.” Often independence is gained through reciprocity. Many of the interviewees were an integral part of their community. Many of them lived near their extended families. They were not just elderly people who need a lot of help and take up other people’s time. They were grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. In most cases it was a give-and-take situation. They would find ways to help others and show their gratitude. One woman was always baking for her children and grandchildren. Many of them helped to care for grandchildren. Others were good neighbors. Sometimes, they insisted on “buying” the services of other people, so as to make themselves feel less dependent. They will do it if I ask them. I pay them. I don’t pay them directly, but if there is any change, I’ll leave it there.
Privacy and Social interaction Privacy was generally valued: “There is a difference between being lonely and alone.” As far as living arrangements were concerned, nearly all the interviewees preferred to live by themselves. Even those who had misgivings about being alone did not want to live with other people. It’s funny, you know, I don’t like living alone, yet I don’t believe I would want to live with anyone.
Most would like to have social interaction. But they wanted to have it on their terms. It’s nice to have your privacy but it is also nice to have some companionship. There are times when you could run miles just to stop from being alone. Most of my friends feel the same way. They don’t like to be alone, but they don’t think they would want to live with someone. So I guess we can’t be satisfied. Their idea of good neighbor a respect for privacy.
is both intriguing
and illuminating.
Being “close” requires
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
389
I like it here, because we are all senior citizens here, and if they need help they just knock on the wall. If we need it we have the same opportunity. We are very close neighbors. Mind our own business, but we are there to help each other. That’s why I like it here. I don’t run from one house to the other. We get along well. I think that’s why we get along so well, because we are not bothering anyone too much. In an apartment you wouldn’t get to know too many neighbors to say hello to.
“Familiarity”of the Social and Physica/ Enviromnent The feeling of ambiguity was very strong when it came to the perception of their neighborhood conditions. Unlike some research findings that suggest that people have a bias to feel good about whatever environment they live in, especially if it cannot be changed (Lawton 198Oc), many of our interviewees, to their dismay, saw their neighborhood changing for the worse. Yet, they felt a loyalty toward it. I knew all the neighbors once. It’s changed now. The neighbor across the street, I don’t even know what their names are. But it’s hard to get away from what you have been doing all your life. They justified their staying on in the neighborhood by pointing to their familiarity with their “environment,” rather than to the amenities and services that some researchers thought were important in encouraging them to stay on. As Montgomery (1972) pointed out, it is a sense of place that is a basic need of many elderly. More than other groups, they have the need for the sense of spatial identity. In spite of great inconveniences, such as those identified by Carp (1976)-unrepaired streets, poorly lit walkways, trash, and so forth-the elderly would stay on. Contrary to Lowy’s (1980) observation that as neighborhoods and neighbors change, people lose that sense of the familiar and may feel that it is time to leave, we found that while most of our interviewees had memories of better past, they would not move simply because the neighborhood had deteriorated. In the final analysis, as on interviewee put it, “I know things are wearing out, but it’s home.”
CONCLUSION The sample size of this study was not large enough (neither was it random) for firm conclusions to be drawn. We had adopted a conservative approach to interpreting our findings and focused only on the more “obvious” indications. It is interesting to note that although the studies in Kingston and Belleville were carried out by different interviewers and analysts the relative significance of housing concerns in both cases were nearly identical (see Table 1). This should give added confidence about the findings and the reliablility and transferability of the research method. Our interview findings could still have been biased by the same “unrealistic” or “fatalistic” outlook of the elderly, which plagued the other studies. But our unobtrusive approach is less likely to make the interviewees feel defensive and want to hide their inadequacy. It should also be noted that perceptions and attitudes do not necesarily predict future behavior. Our interviewees were not expressing preferences with full knowledge of possible options.
390
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
Within their limitation our findings corroborated those by O’Bryant. Generally, they reinforced the notion that elderly people place a high value on independence and wish to remain in familiar surroundings. Further, they may wish to remain in the same
neighborhood in order to maintain existing relationships (Goldenberg 198 1). We found that a social support network was the most significant concern of the elderly. The significance of this variable in explaining housing satisfaction deserves to be more thoroughly investigated. However, our most interesting finding was the ambiguity of attitudes. This poses questions for both researcher and policy makers-how to understand and allow for the “yes and no” type of attitudes and behaviors. In many ways Elite interview and content analysis are complementary techniques. Neither method is exclusive of potentially important information. Both are based on as few substantive assumptions as possible. Furthermore, the extent and detail of the data gathered and the comprehensive method of analysis gave our study a depth that cannot be obtained through a questionnaire survey. However, this is a very expensive and time-consuming research method. It cannot be used on a large scale. It can best be used to open up the inquiry, generate variables that can then be tested by cheaper methods, and illuminate the nature of housing perceptions, including ambiguous attitudes.
REFERENCES Bird, H.H., E.N. Lochstead, and M.C. Willingale. 1983. “Methods of Investigating Decisions Involving Spatial Effects Including Content Analysis of Interviews.” Instirute of Eti/r Geographers Tran~tionr News Services 8(2): 143-157. Campbell, A., P.E. Converse, and W.L. Rodgers. 1976. 77reQua& of American rife: Perceptions, Evah~~tkms, and Satisjiitions New York: Russell Sage. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1983. “Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation (Section 56.1);’ Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Camey, T.F. 1972. Content Analysis A Technique for Systematic Inferencefiom Communications. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press. Carp, F.M. 1975. “Ego Defense or Cognitive Consistency Effects on Environmental Evaluation.” Journal of Get-onto&y 30: 707-7 11. -. 1976. “Urban Life Style and Life Cycle Factors.” Pp. 19-40 in Community PrCmning for an Aging Society, edited by M.P. Lawton, R.J. Newcomer and T.O. Byerts. Stroudsberg, PA: Douden, Hutcbinson and Ross, Inc. Dexter, L.A. 1970. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Goldenberg, L. 198 1. Housing for the Elderly: New Trena3 in Europe. New York: Garland STPM Press. Gubrium, J. 1973. 7’he Myth of the Golden Years A Socio-Environmental Theory of Aging. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. -. 1975. Living and Dying at Murray Manor. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Holsti, 0. 1969. Content Analysis for the Sod Science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Huttman, E.E. 1977. Housing and Social Services for the El&@. New York: Praeger. Illich, I. 1977. “Disabling Professions.” Pp. 1 l-39 in Disabling Profmkms, edited by I. Illich, et al. London: Marion Boyars. Kahana, E. 1975. “A Congruence Model of Personal Environment Interaction.” Pp. UUU-Uuu m Theory Development in Environment and Aging, edited by P. Windley and G. Ernst. Washington, DC: Gerontological Society.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
391
Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Anuiysix An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lareau, L.S. 1983. “Needs Assessment of the Elderly: Conclusions and Methodological Approaches.” Gerontobgist 23: 5 18-526. Lawton, M.P. 1978. “The Housing Problems of Community Resident Elderly.” In Occasionul Papers in Housing and Community Affairs, Vol. 1. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 1980a. Environment and Aging. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. -. 1980b. “Housing for the Elderly: Residential Quality and Residential Satisfaction,” Resekh on Aging 2: 309-327. . 1980~. “Environmental Research: Issues and Methods.” Pp. 3 l-57 in Gerontological Research Council of Ontario, Research lssue~ in Aging, edited by R. Bayne and B. Wigdor. Hamilton, ON: Gerontology Research Council of Ontario. Leung, H.L. 1984. Housing Concentration of .EUerly Homeowners Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Lowy, L. 1980. Social Policies and l+ogmnu on Aging. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Montgomery, J. 1972. “The Housing Patterns of Older Families.” The Family Coordinator 21: 41. Montgomery, J.E., A.C. Stubbs, and S.S. Day. 1980. “The Housing Environment of the Rural Elderly.” Gerontologist 20: 444-45 1. G’Bryant, S.L. 1983. “Subjective Value of the ‘Home’ to Older Persons.” Journaf of Housing for the Eldmty 1: 29-44. G’Bryant, S.L., and S.M. Wolf. 1983. Research on Aging 5(2): 217-233. Struyk, R.J. 1977. “The Housing Situation of Elderly Americans.” Gerontobgkt 17: 130-139. Woodrum, E. 1984. “‘Mainstreaming’ Content Analysis in Social Science: Methodological Advantages, Obstacles, and Solutions.” Social Science Rexarch 13: 1- 19.
ABSTRACT: This article examines the subjectiveperct~tions of low-income e&riy
homeownersabouttheirhousingsituatio~by using a nonstanakdizedandunobtrusive i~~~iew method and a thematiccontentanalysis Five housingareas were inve@ated shelterquality,neighborhood qua&y, acce.ssibw and mobility,be@ and burden of homeowner&p, and social support network The jimiings corrobomted the siudy by O’Blyanton the importanceof subjectivevariablesin explain@ housing satkfation Two themese-d questionablehousing %eeaY and ambiguityperceptions
INTRODUCTION Most studies about housing for the elderly focus on the match between need and environment: measuring housing satisfaction against an array of objective and observable characteristics. The dominant congruence theory argues that there is a strong interrelationship between individual characteristics and the sociocultural environment with respect to the attitudes and behavior of the aged (Gubrium 1973,1975). Kahana (1975) suggested that individuals change their environment or alter their needs via adaptive behavior in order to maximize the fit, or congruence, between their need and the specific environment. Where the congruence exists, the individual perceives a high level of satisfaction, and vice versa. Typically, researchers use the type of structure, number of rooms, age of housing, whether owned or rented, value of home, condition of structure, etc., as shelter characteristics (e.g., Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers 1976; CMHC 1983). In addition, aspects of the neighborhood and community are also taken into consideration (e.g., Campbell et al. 1976; Lawton 1978,198Oa; Struyk 1977). There is overwhelming evidence, however, that the elderly find their housing situation highly satisfactory, and prefer to remain in their own homes (Lawton 1980a), *Direct all communications to: Hok Lin Leung, School E(ingston. Ontario K7L 3N6.
of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University,
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES, Volume 1, Number 4, pages 379-391. Copyright 0 1987 by JAI F’ress,Inc. AU rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0890-4065.
380
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
apparently irrespective of physical conditions. O’Bryant (1983) observed that “a great amount of the housing satisfaction expressed by the elderly is independent from what has been defined as physical quality.” Lawton (1978) was able to account for only 22% of the variance in housing satisfaction, despite a large number of objective housing quality indicators. In another study by Campbell et al. (1976), objective housing characteristics explained only 12% of the variance in satisfaction. Several explanations have been advanced for the discrepancies between objective housing quality and housing satisfaction among the elderly: 1. Cognitive dissonance (Carp 1975): When an elderly person’s environment is inconsistent with his or her self-concept, and he or she is unable to improve the situation, one way to reduce feelings of inadequacy is to deny that the living situation is all that bad. 2. Positive adaptive mechanivm(Lawton 1978): An elderly person would try to persuade himself or herself that the situation is not so bad after all; in other words, the elderly are “unrealistic” about their circumstances, 3. Lacking busing aspiration (Campbell et al. 1976; Montgomery, Stubbs, and Day 1980): The elderly may have “lost hope and become resigned to their fate,” or that they have been socialized to “stay in their own place,” even to be “humble” and appreciative of the few good things they have experienced. In fact, Lawton (1980a) recognized that housing satisfaction seems independent of what we have succeeded in defining as physical quality, and that our research must look more carefully for factors in the person or in the environment. He further conceded that “the most appropriate personal characteristics for which environmental congruence should be sought are essentially unknown as yet” (198Oc, p. 35). Going beyond “the conventional wisdom of the housing professional [who] tends to see physical housing for the elderly as an end in itself, rather than a means to a different end-psychological well being.. .,” O’Bryant and Wolf (1980) set out to investigate the effect of four “subjective ‘*factors: status value of homeownership, traditional family orientation, cost versus comfort trade off, and competence in a familiar environment. Through a questionnaire survey, they examined how the three types of variablespersonal-demographic, housing characteristric, and subjective-function as a predictor of housing satisfaction. It was found that in the case of homeowners 10% of the variance in housing is explained by personal-demographic variables, 14% by housing characteristics, and 24% by the subjective variables (for renters they were 98, 25%, and 14% respectively) (O’Bryant and Wolf 1983). This article reports a study that sought to futher explore the subjective housing perceptions of the elderly.
METHOD O’Bryant’s variables were generated through an analysis (categorizing and tallying) of the open-ended responses to the question: “What was the one main reason for the elderly to want to stay in the present residence.” This was part of a large needs-
Housing Concernsof Efdedy Honmownm
361
survey previously performed. These variables were then included in a questionnaire survey instrument to test their explanatory significance. The problem with this is the ad hoc approach in the generation of the variables. They were deduced from responses to a question not specfically designed to solicit or generate them (Lzueau 1983). In the original needs-assessment survey the investigators necessarily defined the questions within the parameters of established presuppositions. This could have influenced the responses to the extent that their meaning and significance were obscured. The data gathered could have excluded matters of importance or interest, or masked significant distinctions (Krippendorff 1980). In our study we attempted to generate and analyze subjective variables about housing concerns by the elderly through a research instrument specifically designed for that purpose: a combination of “Elite” interview method and a thematic content analysis. This should comborate the findings by O’Bryant as well as initiate new lines of enquiry. “Elite” interview is basically a nonstandardized, nonobtrusive interview method pioneered by Lewis Dexter (1970). This method emphasizes the interviewee’s definition of the situation; encourages the interviewees to structure the account of the situation; and allows the interviewees to introduce, to a considerable extent, his or her notion of what he or she regards as relevant, instead of relying upon the investigator’s notion of revelance. Instead of detining the question and problem, we were willing, and indeed eager, to let the interviewee teach us what the problem, the question, and the situations were--to the limits, of course, of our ability to perceive relationships to our basic concerns, which were: shelter quality, neighborhood quality, accessibility and mobility, benefits and burden of homeownership, and social support network. The assumption was that together they embrace a whole range of common human needs related to housing, as identified by other researchers. The interview itself focused on the subjective experiences of the interviewee. We were interested not only in the present attitude but also in actual behavior, past and present, of the interviewee in coping with changes in the environment. We had designed some questions to prompt the interviewee to talk about the various areas of housing concern, for example: Where do you get your groceries? How long have you lived here? The interviewer, in fact, talked very little, but let the interviewee structure the conversation. In most cases, very little prompting was required The interviewee would “volunteer” all sorts of revelant comments. More often the problem was one of bringing him or her back from obvious digressions. Our data were more complex and voluminous than those yielded by specific openended questions. In our unstructured interview, questions were not always worded in the same way, or asked in the same sequence. Indeed, topics might be addressed by the interviewee in the absence of any question at all. The complexity of the data demanded procedures of interpretation such as those found in content analysis. As observed by Woodrum (1984 p. 2) assessment
the special potential of content analysis is its explicit linkage of qualitative symbol usage with quantitative data. Natural language sets. laden with symbolic meanings, arc the focus of content analysis; it is a technique for studying culture. But unlike hmeneutics, literary interpretation, and other purely qualitative procedures it brings to bear the power of quantitative analysis.
382
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
In this way, the quantitative approach substitutes controlled observation and systematic counting for impressionistic ways of observing frequency of occurrence (Holsti 1969). Woodrum (1984) distinguishes between two types of content analysis: manifest and latent content (thematic) analyses. These categories are roughly equivalent to Camey’s (1972) “classical” and “theoretically oriented” content analyses. The former involves the enumeration of manifest characteristics of a document, such as specific words or expressions. The latter involve the distinction and enumeration of themes or symbolic content that may not be as obvious as the appearance of a specific word or phrase. Interview data have been usefully analyzed elsewhere through a thematic content analysis (Bird, Lochstead, and Willingale 1983). From our interview data we selected certain themes to be coded. Coding is the process whereby raw data are systematically transformed and aggregated into units that permit a precise description of revelant content characteristics. In our study we focused on perceived “needs” regarding the five areas of housing concerns. Two themes were selected for each area of housing concern: an indication of an unmet need; and an indication of a need that has been met or that no need was perceived. There was a total of ten themes for five areas of housing concerns. The following analytical steps were taken. First, individual interviews were examined separately. An interview was transcribed and the contents coded. The coded statements had to be interpreted in context of the interview to ensure the quantitative aspects were in accordance with the qualitative nature of the data (Woodrum 1984). Then the frequencies of these coded statements (themes) were counted. A frequency table was drawn up to record the result of each interview. Inferences were then drawn from these frequency counts about the interviewee’s “overall” perception with respect to each area of housing concern: (1) no perceived needs or perceived needs met; (2) perceived needs not met; and (3) ambiguous attitude toward a need where both satisfaction and lack of it were recorded. Second, individual interviews were aggregated to establish “collective” perceptions. This was a two-prong process. 1. The frequency counts for each area of housing concern were added up, thus treating all statements as essentially comparable. 2. The “overall” perceptions of all interviewees with respect to each area of housing concern (see above) were tallied, thus accommodating the integrity of “overall” perceptions of each interviewee. The quantitative and qualitative aspects of the analysis were complementary: The former gave an objective measure of the relative significance of the housing concerns and needs, and the latter illuminated the nature of the perceptions and the intensity of feelings. Because the aggregation of individual perceptions can be fraught with danger, a very conservative approach was used in interpreting the findings, focusing only on the most “obvious” indications. At the same time, anecdotal comments from the interviews were used to provide a context for interpretation. In this way we hoped to penetrate the subjective attitude and behavior of elderly homeowners toward their housing situation.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
363
IMPLEMENTATION Interviews were conducted in Kingston in 1982 and 1983 (population 60,000; 27 interviewees) and Belleville, Ontario in 1985 (population 20,000; 12 interviewees). The two sets of interviews were analyzed separately. The focus was on low-income homeowners because it was felt that this group was particularly significant in social and housing policy consideration. An earlier study had identified areas of concentration (at city block level) of lowincome elderly homeowners (Leung 1984). These were .defined as low-income areas with a large number of elderly homeowners. The assumption was that low-income elderly tend to live in low-income areas. A totally random sample was not possible because (1) although the areas represented concentrations of elderly homeowners not all the household heads in the area were elderly homeowners; and (2) some of the elderly homeowners approached for interview declined to participate. Additional interviews had to be generated through local senior citizen councils and service agencies. But care was taken to make sure that all interviewees were drawn from the areas of concentration of low-income elderly homeowners. (In case of Belleville this rule had to be relaxed because the city did not have too many such areas.) Each interview took about 45 minutes, and was taped and transcribed. In the case of Kingston the interviewer was also the content analyst. In the case of Belleville the interviewers and the analysts were different persons. For each interview a report was written with a spelling-out of the inferences drawn from it and a statement of the reasons justifying the inferences. A given response could often be classified under a number of housing concerns. These concerns were not mutually exclusive and a response could fall into more than one area. For example, the following statement, “My family will take me anywhere I want to go. I never have any trouble getting out if I want to,” indicates that a need is satisfied in two areas: social support network, and accessibility and mobility. The following were the general decision rules used. 1. References of attitudes and behaviors toward dwelling quality, or some aspects of it, were considered under “shelter quality.” 2. References of attitudes toward neighborhood conditions or situations were grouped under “neighborhood quality.” 3. References about location of services and facilities with respect to the dwelling, and ability of the interviewee to move around or travel were considered under “accessibility and mobility.” All references to accessibility to services or family, the convenience or inconvenience of location, or the ability or inability to travel in any way were included. 4. The “burden and benefit of homeownership” included both financial and physical aspects. Maintenance or upkeep of the dwelling or property was included but not additions or optional renovations, which were “shelter quality” concerns. 5. References to other persons (such as friends or family members) on whom the interviewee relied or with whom the interviewee was in contact were considered under “social support network.”
394
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 997
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
6. References to the past were included if they reflected continuing or long-term attitudes or behavior, such as locational advantages of dwelling occupied for many years.
FINDINGS Although our sample was not entirely random, it was comparable to the general elderly population in terms of age and sex distribution. Nearly all were long-term residents (i.e., 20 years and more). Because some of the interviewees were generated through service agency referrals it can be assumed that these were more “needy” cases than the normal elderly population. There are two parts to our findings: frequency counts and anecdotal comments. They are obviously related. The following frequency tables are of special interest (Tables 1,2, and 3).
TABLE 1
Total Frequency Counts by Housing Concern, Kingston and Belleville’ Bellevilie
Kingston Frequency
Shelter quality Neighborhood quality Accessibility and mobility Benefit and burden of homeownership Social support network Total
Total
Percentage
Frequency
Total
Percentage
39
9
49
56 14
13 18
58 102
10 12 22
89 163
21 38
100 164
21 35
421
99
473
100
Note: *Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 2
Frequency Counts by Housing Concern by Themes, Kingston’ MetNeeds Frequency Shelter quality Neighborhood quality Accessibility and mobility Benefit and burden of homeownership Social support network
Unmet Needs
Total
Frequency
Percentage
18 3
3 32 4
39 56 74
100 100 100
88 91
11 15
12 9
89 163
100 100
89
48
11
421
100
Percentage
38 38 71
91 68 96
78 148 373
Frequency
1
Percentage
Notes: *“Met needs” include “Needs not perceived.” In the area of “Benefit and Burden of Homeownership,” benefit equals met needs;and burden equals unmet needs.
305
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
TABLE 3
“Overall” Interviewee Perception by Housing Concern, Kingston
Sheller quality
20
74
0
0
I
4
6
22
Neighborhood quality
12
44
4
15
8
30
3
I1
Accessibility and mobility
23
85
1
4
3
11
0
0
Benefit and burden of homeownership
18
67
0
0
9
33
0
0
Sad
20
74
0
0
7
26
0
0
wppon
network
Note: “Met weds” include “Needs not perceived.” In the area of “Benefit and Burden of Homeownership,” benefit quals met needs, and burden quals unmet needs.
The total number of references made to a particular area of housing concern was considered as a measure of the revelance of that housing concern, regardless of whether a reference was one of unmet need or fulfilled need. By comparing the frequency counts we identified the relative significance of the various housing concerns. Of all the concerns “social support network” was considered by most to be the most relevant and significant. It accounted for 38% of the responses in Kingston and 35% in Belleville, followed by “benefit and burden of homeownership” (21% in both cities) and accessibility and mobility (18% and 22%). “Neighborhood quality” and “shelter quality’* were not considered as significant and accounted for only 13% and 12%, and 9% and 108, respectively. In all areas, references to fulfilled needs far exceeded references to unmet needs. However, there were relatively more unmet needs in the area of neighborhood quality. The following is a brief description of the “nature” of these references. 1. Our interviewees’ perception of the conditions of their own homes was generally favorable. These included appearance, maintenance, and other conditions. 2. They generally perceived their neighborhood conditions as “poor,” “not desirable,” or “not as they used to be.” However, they all wanted to cling to their neighborhood. “I’ve lived here so long. I’ve got roots here. Otherwise, I could live better in a residential neighborhood. The noise of the traffic and the dust from the road, I am used to it now.” 3. They perceived reasonable access and general mobility. Their knowledge about public services and facilities was also good. Services might be brought to them, such as the Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) and Meals-on-Wheels. Most often, they were offered rides by friends, neighbors, or relatives, who would also run errands for them. Sometimes they used their own car or a taxi. They seldom used buses. It is interesting to note that the loss of a spouse, especially the husband, often meant the loss of mobility. 4. Their income levels did not seem to be high, but their perception about the financial situation was not grim and, apparently, they could cope with the normal
386
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
housing expenditures (taxes, heating, repairs etc.). We did not specifically ask about income. Income levels were inferred from their financial ability to meet their needs. In fact, one interviewee even remarked that although his income was only $9 above the “offtcial” poverty level, he did not see any financial difficulty. Many have tried other living arrangements (such as taking in a boarder or a relative), but nearly all preferred living by themselves. The most often cited reason for living by themselves was privacy. 5. In terms of “coping” with old age, the general perception was that they could cope, with help that they got either through an informal social support network or institutionalized social services. Loneliness was the big problem. “There are times when you could run miles just to stop from being alone.” 6. Their perception about any change in housing conditions was linked to a total change in their lifestyle. In other words, housing conditions would change with a drastic decline in their health and/or income. They also perceived any such change as undesirable and terminal, with no transitional phase. Their Perceived housing options were limited to apartments and nursing homes. They associated the moving out from their home with the end of their “usefulness” or the loss of “meaning of existence. ” “No, when I move the next time it will be a nursing home, I’ll be finished.”
DISCUSSION In large measure our findings corroborated O’Bryant’s results. Physical neighborhood and shelter quality were relatively insignificant concerns, thus explaining, at least in part, the large discrepancies between environmental factors and housing satisfaction. We did not ask specific questions about “homeownership” as in the case of O’Bryant’s study. But our findings showed that although our interviewees ranged form “young” elderly who were very active and independent to frail elderly who relied heavily on others from day to day, they all seemed to attach a similar importance to homeownership. Of primary im~~ance was privacy, inde~ndence, and the freedom to do as they pleased. They also saw the “house” as providing much better shelter quality than apartments. Many felt that their home was a great “asset” in maintaining close contact with their family members. Our findings also suggested that “traditional family oreintation,” as manifested in some form of social support network, was important; and “competence in a familiar environment,” as manifested in accessibility to services and familiarity to the neighborh~d, was a very relevant consideration as far as an elderly homeowner was concerned. Because our study was designed specifically to explore subjective housing perceptions we were also able to identify some interesting areas for further examination. It appears that a good social support network is the single most important factor in maintaining a good quality of life as an elderly homeowner. The ability to maintain one’s own home and adequate trans~~ation are two factors that affect the quality of life greatly, and our findings indicated that to a large extent these are a function of a succsssful social support network. Interviewees often mentioned friends and family in conjunction with some kind of help they received.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
387
Two themes that emerged from our findings deserve closer attention: the question of “needs” and the ambigui~ of attitudes.
The Question of “Needs” Ivan Illich (1977, p. 11) once remarked, “I propose that we name the mid-twentieth century the Age of Disabling Professions, an age when people had ‘problems,’ experts had ‘solutions’ and scientists measure im~nderables such as ‘abilities’ and ‘needs.’ ” Two aspects in our findings are of special interest. Sefvices 8nd Facilities 8 t the lUeigh6orhoodLevel Based on questions about the use of social services, availability of such services at the neighborh~ level, and preferences about such services, researchers found that as a person grows older his home range has contracted and he increasingly uses only local shops and services (Huttman 1977). It has also been suggested that the physical space occupied by the elderly is often circumscribed by the neighborhood grocery, church, and dwelling unit (Montgomery 1972). Our findings indicated that there was a host of informal support for access to services. In other words, location of services at the neigh~rho~ level (grocery, bank, clinic, etc.) did not seem to matter much as far as the quality of life of the eldery was concerned. This raises questions about such needs as accessibility to services at the neighborhood level, desirable walking distance to various facilities, and so forth, which form the staple of many environmental studies.
It is commonly assumed that the financial burden of homeowne~~p for low-income elderly people would be difficult to bear. Our findings suggested that they could cope, and more significantly, they seemed to be coping well. This is particularly interesting because many of our interviewees were referred by social service agencies. There was also a lot of self-help and reciprocity. All these do not necessarily mean that financial considerations are not important, but they throw into question the revelance and importance of financial assistance to the quality of life of the elderfy. It Seems their needs are as much social as they are financial.
Ambiguity of Attitudes Studies based on the congruence approach focus on the “goodness of fit” between personal and environmenta ~haracte~stics, with given activity and social norms. As such, they do not readily accommodate ambiguities in attitude and behavior, where the answer is couched not in terms of “either/or,” or even “maybe,” but rather in terms of “yes and no,” or “as well as.” Such ambiguities may, no doubt, simply reflect inconsistencies in human behavior in general, but they also raise important questions about the important assumption in the cong~ence theory: that the match between the individual and the environment is definable, identifiable, and achievable. In our findings, the ambiguous attitude was most prevalent in the areas of benefit and burden of homeownership, neighborhood quality, and social support network, while perceptions about shelter quality and accessibility and mobility were more straightforward
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
388
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
IndependenceandDependence Our interviewees wanted to be independent as much as possible and as long as possible. But their independence was less than total. More often they were ambiguous about their independence. I think you will find that old people like privacy, and if you take them and put them in with quite a few people, they like company at times, but there are times when they want to be by themselves. Once in a while when I get awfully depressed, I’ll get on the phone, but I don’t like bothering people and I don’t want them to think they have to cater to me just because I am alone. I am one of the happiest in the world and one of the loneliest, if you can figure that out.
They enjoyed the self-esteem and benefits of their independence, such as “come and go as I please,” “doing things my way.” Yet, they realized they could not do so without being dependent on some people and/or assistance. While they would like to remain independent, it becomes a more and more difficult task. For many, the attitude is one of “you are grateful for help, but let me try it first.” Often independence is gained through reciprocity. Many of the interviewees were an integral part of their community. Many of them lived near their extended families. They were not just elderly people who need a lot of help and take up other people’s time. They were grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. In most cases it was a give-and-take situation. They would find ways to help others and show their gratitude. One woman was always baking for her children and grandchildren. Many of them helped to care for grandchildren. Others were good neighbors. Sometimes, they insisted on “buying” the services of other people, so as to make themselves feel less dependent. They will do it if I ask them. I pay them. I don’t pay them directly, but if there is any change, I’ll leave it there.
Privacy and Social interaction Privacy was generally valued: “There is a difference between being lonely and alone.” As far as living arrangements were concerned, nearly all the interviewees preferred to live by themselves. Even those who had misgivings about being alone did not want to live with other people. It’s funny, you know, I don’t like living alone, yet I don’t believe I would want to live with anyone.
Most would like to have social interaction. But they wanted to have it on their terms. It’s nice to have your privacy but it is also nice to have some companionship. There are times when you could run miles just to stop from being alone. Most of my friends feel the same way. They don’t like to be alone, but they don’t think they would want to live with someone. So I guess we can’t be satisfied. Their idea of good neighbor a respect for privacy.
is both intriguing
and illuminating.
Being “close” requires
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
389
I like it here, because we are all senior citizens here, and if they need help they just knock on the wall. If we need it we have the same opportunity. We are very close neighbors. Mind our own business, but we are there to help each other. That’s why I like it here. I don’t run from one house to the other. We get along well. I think that’s why we get along so well, because we are not bothering anyone too much. In an apartment you wouldn’t get to know too many neighbors to say hello to.
“Familiarity”of the Social and Physica/ Enviromnent The feeling of ambiguity was very strong when it came to the perception of their neighborhood conditions. Unlike some research findings that suggest that people have a bias to feel good about whatever environment they live in, especially if it cannot be changed (Lawton 198Oc), many of our interviewees, to their dismay, saw their neighborhood changing for the worse. Yet, they felt a loyalty toward it. I knew all the neighbors once. It’s changed now. The neighbor across the street, I don’t even know what their names are. But it’s hard to get away from what you have been doing all your life. They justified their staying on in the neighborhood by pointing to their familiarity with their “environment,” rather than to the amenities and services that some researchers thought were important in encouraging them to stay on. As Montgomery (1972) pointed out, it is a sense of place that is a basic need of many elderly. More than other groups, they have the need for the sense of spatial identity. In spite of great inconveniences, such as those identified by Carp (1976)-unrepaired streets, poorly lit walkways, trash, and so forth-the elderly would stay on. Contrary to Lowy’s (1980) observation that as neighborhoods and neighbors change, people lose that sense of the familiar and may feel that it is time to leave, we found that while most of our interviewees had memories of better past, they would not move simply because the neighborhood had deteriorated. In the final analysis, as on interviewee put it, “I know things are wearing out, but it’s home.”
CONCLUSION The sample size of this study was not large enough (neither was it random) for firm conclusions to be drawn. We had adopted a conservative approach to interpreting our findings and focused only on the more “obvious” indications. It is interesting to note that although the studies in Kingston and Belleville were carried out by different interviewers and analysts the relative significance of housing concerns in both cases were nearly identical (see Table 1). This should give added confidence about the findings and the reliablility and transferability of the research method. Our interview findings could still have been biased by the same “unrealistic” or “fatalistic” outlook of the elderly, which plagued the other studies. But our unobtrusive approach is less likely to make the interviewees feel defensive and want to hide their inadequacy. It should also be noted that perceptions and attitudes do not necesarily predict future behavior. Our interviewees were not expressing preferences with full knowledge of possible options.
390
JOURNAL OF AGING STUDIES
Vol. 1 /No. 4/l 987
Within their limitation our findings corroborated those by O’Bryant. Generally, they reinforced the notion that elderly people place a high value on independence and wish to remain in familiar surroundings. Further, they may wish to remain in the same
neighborhood in order to maintain existing relationships (Goldenberg 198 1). We found that a social support network was the most significant concern of the elderly. The significance of this variable in explaining housing satisfaction deserves to be more thoroughly investigated. However, our most interesting finding was the ambiguity of attitudes. This poses questions for both researcher and policy makers-how to understand and allow for the “yes and no” type of attitudes and behaviors. In many ways Elite interview and content analysis are complementary techniques. Neither method is exclusive of potentially important information. Both are based on as few substantive assumptions as possible. Furthermore, the extent and detail of the data gathered and the comprehensive method of analysis gave our study a depth that cannot be obtained through a questionnaire survey. However, this is a very expensive and time-consuming research method. It cannot be used on a large scale. It can best be used to open up the inquiry, generate variables that can then be tested by cheaper methods, and illuminate the nature of housing perceptions, including ambiguous attitudes.
REFERENCES Bird, H.H., E.N. Lochstead, and M.C. Willingale. 1983. “Methods of Investigating Decisions Involving Spatial Effects Including Content Analysis of Interviews.” Instirute of Eti/r Geographers Tran~tionr News Services 8(2): 143-157. Campbell, A., P.E. Converse, and W.L. Rodgers. 1976. 77reQua& of American rife: Perceptions, Evah~~tkms, and Satisjiitions New York: Russell Sage. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1983. “Non-Profit and Cooperative Housing Program Evaluation (Section 56.1);’ Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Camey, T.F. 1972. Content Analysis A Technique for Systematic Inferencefiom Communications. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press. Carp, F.M. 1975. “Ego Defense or Cognitive Consistency Effects on Environmental Evaluation.” Journal of Get-onto&y 30: 707-7 11. -. 1976. “Urban Life Style and Life Cycle Factors.” Pp. 19-40 in Community PrCmning for an Aging Society, edited by M.P. Lawton, R.J. Newcomer and T.O. Byerts. Stroudsberg, PA: Douden, Hutcbinson and Ross, Inc. Dexter, L.A. 1970. Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Goldenberg, L. 198 1. Housing for the Elderly: New Trena3 in Europe. New York: Garland STPM Press. Gubrium, J. 1973. 7’he Myth of the Golden Years A Socio-Environmental Theory of Aging. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. -. 1975. Living and Dying at Murray Manor. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Holsti, 0. 1969. Content Analysis for the Sod Science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Huttman, E.E. 1977. Housing and Social Services for the El&@. New York: Praeger. Illich, I. 1977. “Disabling Professions.” Pp. 1 l-39 in Disabling Profmkms, edited by I. Illich, et al. London: Marion Boyars. Kahana, E. 1975. “A Congruence Model of Personal Environment Interaction.” Pp. UUU-Uuu m Theory Development in Environment and Aging, edited by P. Windley and G. Ernst. Washington, DC: Gerontological Society.
Housing Concerns of Elderly Homeowners
391
Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Anuiysix An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Lareau, L.S. 1983. “Needs Assessment of the Elderly: Conclusions and Methodological Approaches.” Gerontobgist 23: 5 18-526. Lawton, M.P. 1978. “The Housing Problems of Community Resident Elderly.” In Occasionul Papers in Housing and Community Affairs, Vol. 1. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. 1980a. Environment and Aging. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. -. 1980b. “Housing for the Elderly: Residential Quality and Residential Satisfaction,” Resekh on Aging 2: 309-327. . 1980~. “Environmental Research: Issues and Methods.” Pp. 3 l-57 in Gerontological Research Council of Ontario, Research lssue~ in Aging, edited by R. Bayne and B. Wigdor. Hamilton, ON: Gerontology Research Council of Ontario. Leung, H.L. 1984. Housing Concentration of .EUerly Homeowners Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Lowy, L. 1980. Social Policies and l+ogmnu on Aging. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Montgomery, J. 1972. “The Housing Patterns of Older Families.” The Family Coordinator 21: 41. Montgomery, J.E., A.C. Stubbs, and S.S. Day. 1980. “The Housing Environment of the Rural Elderly.” Gerontologist 20: 444-45 1. G’Bryant, S.L. 1983. “Subjective Value of the ‘Home’ to Older Persons.” Journaf of Housing for the Eldmty 1: 29-44. G’Bryant, S.L., and S.M. Wolf. 1983. Research on Aging 5(2): 217-233. Struyk, R.J. 1977. “The Housing Situation of Elderly Americans.” Gerontobgkt 17: 130-139. Woodrum, E. 1984. “‘Mainstreaming’ Content Analysis in Social Science: Methodological Advantages, Obstacles, and Solutions.” Social Science Rexarch 13: 1- 19.
