Meet Ray: Age 69 to 87

© 2021 Walden University, LLC 1

Meet Ray: Age 69 to 87 Program Transcript NARRATOR: Ray begins to watch more spiritual programming and reconnects with the

Catholic faith. He joins the local church and encourages Yolanda to attend services as

well. Ray volunteers at the church's thrift shop and at youth events, establishing

friendships with several older men in the church. Engaging in these activities helps

Ray's psychological functioning and his acceptance of later life.

In his 70s, Ray starts using a wheelchair for mobility. He also begins to forget things

and even leaves the oven on overnight. Yolanda takes Ray to the Aging Center, which

has sliding fee services for neurology. The neurologist determines that Ray has early-

onset dementia that will get progressively worse.

The diagnosis is a major blow to Ray, who understands what this will mean for the rest

of his life. Ray becomes depressed again. More grandchildren are born, and when Ray

is well, he invents silly games to play with them. During gatherings, Ray sits outside and

watches the children, finding fulfillment and peace in the family he has created.

As Ray enters his 80s, full dementia sets in. Ray also experiences sundown syndrome,

in which he becomes agitated and paranoid every day in the late afternoon. He is cared

for by Yolanda, Peter, and Amy, along with his grandchildren, who have complex

emotions as they watch his deterioration. Ray has a peaceful passing at age 87,

surrounded by his wife and children. At his bedside, Yolanda reminisces, saying, "He

was the love of my life."

1

© 2021 Walden University, LLC

Week 10 Life Span Interview

Below are some questions to start the conversation with your interviewee. Do not

hesitate to add more questions as needed.

You are encouraged to reach out to a senior center, adult living facility, or nursing home

to locate an interviewee, or you may use an older friend or family member. When

interviewing an individual, please consider how to show respect to an individual of this

age within their cultural values.

Demographics

How do you prefer to be addressed?

What is your age?

Where were you born and raised?

How do you identify your ethnicity?

How do you identify your gender?

Childhood and Adolescence

How many siblings do you have?

How would you describe your childhood?

Who were your friends when you were growing up? Did you maintain those

friendships throughout life? Any reason why or why not?

What was your favorite thing to do for fun (movies, beach, etc.) growing up? In

your young/middle adult years?

Where did you go to school? What was school like for you as a child? What were

your best and worst subjects?

At what age did you leave home?

Young and Middle Adulthood

Did you marry? If so, at what age? If you have children, how many?

Were you employed? If so, where?

Where did you live?

Were you involved in the military in your young or middle adulthood? If so, how

did it mold you as a person?

Later Adulthood

2

© 2021 Walden University, LLC

Have you retired? If so, from where? How would you rate your retirement

experience? (Did you return to work?)

Have you experienced any financial limitations in later adulthood?

Do you have any health issues? If so, what are they? Do these health issues

place limits on your functioning?

Has religion/spirituality been a part of your life? If so, how has your religious or

spiritual development changed in later adulthood?

What has been your experience with aging (physically, psychologically, socially,

environmentally)?

Do you have any challenges accessing healthcare?

How would you describe your social life, friendships, and social activities?

How do you see yourself today? (e.g., as an elder, senior, older adult?)

Have you had any experiences with services not being available to you as an

elder/senior/older adult?

Have you experienced age-related discrimination? Other types of discrimination?

Looking Back

What has been the happiest moment of your life?

Who is the person who has influenced your life the most?

Have you lost a loved one? If so, how has that loss affected your life?

What world events have had the most impact on you?

What are some of the most important lessons you have learned over the course

of your life?

As you look back over your life, do you see any “turning points”; that is, a key

event or experience that changed the course of your life or set you on a different

track?

What are you most proud of?

How would you like to be remembered?

Life Span and Resiliency Theory: A Critical Review

Alexa Smith-Osborne

Abstract: Theories of life span development describe human growth and change over the life cycle (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2006). Major types of develop- mental theories include biological, psychodynamic, behavioral, and social learn- ing, cognitive, moral, and spiritual, and those influenced by systems, empower- ment, and conflict theory. Life span development theories commonly focus on onto- genesis and sequential mastery of skills, tasks, and abilities. Social work scholars have pointed out that a limitation of life span and other developmental theory is lack of attention to resilience (Greene, 2007; Robbins et al., 1998).

The concept of resilience was developed to “describe relative resistance to psy- chosocial risk experiences” (Rutter, 1999b, p. 119). Longitudinal studies focused on typical and atypical child development informed theory formulation in develop- mental psychopathology (Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Luthar, Cichetti, & Becker, 2000) and in an evolving resilience model (Richardson, 2002; Werner & Smith, 1992). Research on resilience has found a positive relationship between a number of indi- vidual traits and contextual variables and resistance to a variety of risk factors among children and adolescents. More recently, resilience research has examined the operation of these same factors in the young adult, middle-age, and elder life stages.

This article examines the historical and conceptual progression of the two devel- opmental theories—life span and resiliency—and discusses their application to social work practice and education in human behavior in the social environment.

Keywords: Life span, resiliency theory, life cycle, critique

T heories of life span development describe human growth and change over the life cycle (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 2006). Major types of develop- mental theories include biological, psychodynamic, behavioral and social

learning, cognitive, moral and spiritual, and those influenced by systems, empowerment, and conflict theory. Life span development theories commonly focus on ontogenesis and the sequential mastery of skills, tasks, and abilities.

152

Alexa Smith-Osborne, Ph.D. is assistant professor at The University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work, Arlington, TX 76019.

Copyright© 2007 Advances in Social Work Vol. 8 No. 1 (Spring 2007) 152-168. Indiana University School of Social Work.

The major theories address the entire life cycle, from prenatal or birth to death, but they often focus in-depth on particular age periods, referred to as life stages. Some theorists within this field have focused more exclusively on a single life stage (Vaillant, 1993) or on a macro-level view of developmental traits that char- acterize an age cohort with defined ranges of birth dates or historical/cultural periods of primary influence on development (Strauss & Howe, 1991). For pur- poses of this paper, only a segment of life span theory can be addressed. Therefore, this paper focuses on personality and psychosocial theories, which form the historical foundation for much of the other life span theories.

Resiliency theory is an emerging theoretical perspective that has been devel- oped within developmental psychopathology and ecosystems perspectives and is influenced by stress and coping theories. Although this theory has not been explicitly developed as an outgrowth of life span theory, it is developmental in focus, and theory-driven research typically examines a specific chronological life stage as a starting point. This theoretical framework addresses health develop- ment of at-risk populations, and overcoming stress and adversity to achieve func- tional outcomes either during a life stage, a specific trajectory (e.g., educational or deviancy), or throughout the life span. The initial focus of theory development has been on childhood and adolescence and associations of traits and events at these life stages with outcomes later in life. Some recent research in this field has applied resiliency constructs to adults at risk (Daining, 2005; Smith, 2003; Smith- Osborne, 2006).

Historical Context

The notion that life can be understood as a series of significant and sequential stages can be traced to the earliest human civilizations and has appeared consis- tently in literary, religious, and philosophical writings throughout history (Erikson, 1968; Robbins et al., 1998). The scientific approach to human develop- ment throughout the life cycle was stimulated by the emergence of evolutionary theory at the turn of the century (Darwin, 1872), which led to the development of biologically focused maturational and psychosexual perspectives, such as those of G. Stanley Hall in 1904, Sigmund Freud in 1905, and Arnold Gesell in 1925. These seminal theories challenged the Victorian (and earlier) conception of chil- dren as little adults, and childhood as a time of relative stability, while the chil- dren were simply waiting to grow physically (Colby, 1970; Karl, 1964).

These theories also established the conceptualization of human development as occurring in a series of essentially stable stages, with periods of instability during transitions between stages and the mastery of stage-specific skills or conflicts as the foundation for progress to the next stage (Hoffman, Paris, Hall, & Schell, 1988).

Freudian theory came to dominate much of human development theory and clinical practice in the early 20th century, with several of Freud’s students, notably Jung and Erikson, expanding on his concepts on the basis of their own clinical and cross-cultural experiences. These amplifications of Freudian theory occurred against the backdrop of the rise of fascism, the Holocaust, and World War II. The originator of what is now called the life span approach to human psychological development, Erik Erikson, had been a student of Freud’s and trained as a psy-

153Smith-Osborne/LIFE SPAN AND RESILIENCY THEORY

choanalyst in Germany. Erickson fled Nazi Germany in 1939 to immigrate to America, where he expanded Freud’s stages to apply to the entire life span, emphasizing psychosocial, rather than biological drive theory.

Resiliency theory, in contrast, originated on the basis of prospective longitudinal research on cohorts of children at risk (Garmezy, 1993; Rutter, Quinton, & Hill, 1990; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992), rather than on the basis of individual clini- cians’ observations and case studies. Such studies were informed by prevention science (Greene, 2007) and the application of the epidemiological concepts of immunity and resistance to disease to human development and psychopatholo- gy (Thoits, 1983). In particular, Werner and Smith’s longitudinal study of 698 infants, many of Hawaiian and Asian descent, provided a major empirical basis for the inception of resiliency constructs and hypotheses for further testing, as did Rutter’s work with early onset mental disorders and with institutionalized Romanian children (e.g., Rutter, 1983; Rutter et al., 1990). Resiliency theory’s salu- togenic orientation has been heavily influenced by the Hawaiian study’s focus on those in childhood adversity who overcome the odds by the time they reach adulthood. The initial formulation of theoretical concepts and constructs based on this research proceeded within the developmental psychopathology frame- work in psychiatry (e.g., Rutter, 1987) and developmental psychology (e.g., Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984) and within family stress and adjustment the- ory (e.g., McCubbin & Dahl, 1976; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) in social work. Much of the seminal research in this field was begun in the late 1950s (e.g., Werner & Smith began their study in 1955) and initial findings were reported in the 1980s. Thus, this early theoretical development was situated historically in the post- Vietnam War and the post-colonial era of globalization, and it often focused on identifying factors in overcoming trauma and adverse events, such as war- induced family separations. Later, as social work educators and researchers gave more attention to salutogenic, strengths-based (Saleebey, 1997) theoretical mod- els for practice, resiliency constructs were further developed within the ecologi- cal perspective (e.g., Fraser & Galinsky, 1997; Gilgun, 1996) in social work theory, rather than in life span theory. Social workers have continued to draw on resilien- cy theory constructs and empirical findings in research (e.g., Herrenkohl, Hill, Chung, Guo, Abbott, & Hawkins, 2003) and in human behavior and practice texts (e.g., Haight & Taylor, 2007; Johnson, 2004; Thomlison, 2007), either within the ecological perspective (e.g., Haight & Taylor) or, more commonly, outside a spec- ified theoretical frame of reference. Furthermore, some social workers have explicitly identified and used resiliency theory as a theoretical framework, inde- pendent of other perspectives, for education (Greene, 2007) and research (Smith- Osborne, 2005a, 2006; Ungar, 2004).

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Life Span Theory

Life span theory utilizes the central concept of ontogenesis, the chronological unfolding of human development (Gunnar & Thelen, 1989; Thelen & Smith, 1994), which includes both change in size and change in the complexity and dif- ferentiation of function (e.g., the change in motor reflexes at various stages in

154 ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK

life). Some theorists include deterioration or diminishment in size and function, particularly if the focus is on aging and the adult life cycle, as well as accretion or augmentation ( Jung, 1965; Newman & Newman, 1975; Santrock, 1989).

Erikson (1950) proposed the concept of “epigenesis” to convey that human development unfolds from part to whole, with elements of the chronologically appropriate ability or personality feature gradually emerging in a prescribed sequence until the functional whole was achieved. The term has since been used within the developmental psychopathology theoretical perspective to also apply to the chronological unfolding over the life span of the disease process, such as schizophrenia (e.g., Cannon, Rosso, Bearden, Sanchez, & Hadley, 1999). He saw this emergence as occurring within an interactional and adaptive framework, within which the individual develops through interaction and adaptation to the immediate social environment as well as to the larger society, culture, and histor- ical context. Thus, Erikson postulated that mutual responsiveness on the part of both the individual and society was necessary for optimal development.

Another key life span concept associated with the work of Freud and Erikson is the life stage. The life stage is seen as an age-related period of life characterized by predictable features, tensions, and changes and leads into a subsequent stage. Erikson formulated the notion of the psychosocial crisis, a period of tension and disorganization centered on a stage-specific theme, the resolution of which was the goal of the transition phase from one stage to the next. Freud and Erikson conceptualized stages as prescriptive, in that their sequence was unvarying and defined optimal mature development, was associated with specific tensions/con- flicts, and was prerequisite, in that each stage must be worked through and the associated conflicts resolved before successful transition to the next stage could be accomplished. Freud’s and Erikson’s life stage models are presented in Hoffman et al. (1988, pp. 30 and 32).

Erikson (1950) moved beyond Freud’s life stage constructs in proposing that ego development in childhood is a process of identification, which he defined as internalization of another person’s values and standards in an attempt to become like that person or parts of that person. It was in adolescence that Erikson observed (1968) the identity was formed through a process of:

repudiation and mutual assimilation of childhood identifications and their absorption in a new configuration, which in turn, is dependent on the process by which a society (often through subsocieties) identi- fies the young individual, recognizing him as somebody who had to become the way he is and who, being the way he is, is taken for grant- ed. (p. 159)

In Erikson’s theory, then, the concept of the mature ego identity as a complex sense of self, comprising societally-defined life roles as well as aspects of person- ality, is crucial. The “identity crisis” in adolescence is normative and revolves around issues of personal sameness and historical continuity, which serve as a link between the individual and the larger society. Prolonged adolescence, in Erikson’s schema, provides a psychosocial moratorium in which the sexually mature individual engages in free role experimentation, sanctioned by society, in

155Smith-Osborne/LIFE SPAN AND RESILIENCY THEORY

order to find a defined niche in society, while postponing adult sexual roles. Erickson saw this as a second period of delay in the life cycle, with the first being Freud’s psychosexual moratorium of the latency life stage, which permits the young to learn the basics of society’s work situations before embarking on mature sexual roles, such as spouse and parent. Erikson used the term identity diffusion, and later the term identity confusion (1968), to describe the state of mild confu- sion commonly experienced by adolescents in the process of identity formation. James Marcia (1980) developed this concept further to apply to adolescents who are not in an identity crisis, because they are not committing themselves to occu- pational or ideological goals and are not concerned about the situation.

Based on the mature and socially acceptable ego identity, the young adult, in Erikson’s schema, could then take up the mature sexual role in seeking a spouse or intimate partner. In the middle adult stage, the individual was seen as transi- tioning to the ego strength made up of procreativity, productivity, and creativity, such as in forming a family and mentoring future generations on a personal, soci- etal or even global level. The last stage of life was that of ego integrity, which involves the older adult’s acceptance of his/her own live as meaningful and coherent, and the perspective that one has handled life’s tasks in the best way possible under given circumstances.

Contemporary theorists have proposed expanded models, particularly in the adolescent and adult stages. Two such models, proposed by Vaillant (1993, p. 145) and Newman and Newman (1988, p. 45).

Erikson (1982, 1986, 1988) built on his earlier work in the last life stage, as he and his wife reflected on their own adult development in later life, conceptualizing aging in terms of revisitation of earlier stages of development within his Stage 8 of Integrity vs. Despair.

Erikson and other psychodynamic theorists, such as Vaillant (1993), acknowl- edge developmental influences such as culture, race, and gender, but tend to view intrapsychic and biological factors, including IQ, as being more important to development.

Other theorists conceptualize human development as being more fluid throughout the life span, rather than the product of invariant and chronological- ly sequential stages, and as being more heavily influenced by social roles (Goffman, 1959; Neugarten, 1985), demographic variables, such as gender, race, or socioeconomic status, culture and historical “moment,” and even the recipro- cal, interactive effects of the immediate physical/social environment (Gunnar & Thelen, 1989).

Resiliency Theory

The concept of resilience was developed to “describe relative resistance to psy- chosocial risk experiences” (Rutter, 1999b, p. 119). It has been further defined as “a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of sig- nificant adversity” (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000) and “the process of coping with adversity, change, or opportunity in a manner that results in the identifica- tion, fortification, and enrichment of resilient qualities or protective factors”

156 ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK

(Richardson, 2002, p. 308). Research on stress reactions and recovery from stress, with implications for education, has also informed this theory (Benotsch et al., 2000; D’Imperio, Dubow, & Ippolito, 2000; Dubow, Schmidt, McBride, Edwards, & Merk, 1993; Dubow, Tisak, Causey, Hryshko, & Reid, 1991; Fontana, Schwartz, & Rosenheck, 1997; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Golding, 1989; Keenan & Newton, 1984; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, resilience is conceptualized as relative resistance to psychosocial stressors or adversity. Although varying models of resiliency have been tested, researchers and theorists agree that the construct is salient in the context of stress and adversity and is not operative in the absence of environmental stressors ( Jew, Green, & Kroger, 1999; Rutter, 1999).

The central constructs of the theory include risk factors/mechanisms, vulnera- bility factors, and protective factors/mechanisms. Risk factors and mechanisms have been conceptualized in alternate ways in the literature: either as 1) the events or conditions of adversity (for example, poverty) themselves for which there is empirical evidence of association with psychopathology, illness, or dys- functional developmental outcomes or as 2) factors that operate to reduce resist- ance to stressors/adversity. Vulnerability factors are traits, genetic predisposi- tions, or environmental and biological deficits (such as cognitive impairments) for which there is empirical evidence of heightened response, sensitivity, or reac- tion to stressors or risk factors. The constructs of vulnerability factors and risk fac- tors are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature. Protective factors and mechanisms are traits, contextual characteristics, and interventions that operate to enhance or promote resistance, or which may moderate the effect of risk fac- tors, and for which there is empirical evidence of association with health and functional developmental outcomes. Rutter (1987) suggests that protective mechanisms may operate in one of four ways to allow overcoming odds in the face of adversity: by reducing risk impact, by reducing negative chain reactions to risk factors, by promoting resiliency traits (i.e., the opposite of vulnerability fac- tors, such as self-efficacy and optimism), and by setting up new opportunities for success. Reducing risk impact can occur not only by way of buffering events and social networks, but also by inoculation due to successful coping with earlier, milder stressful events. Protective and risk mechanisms have been found to vary according to the type of adversity, type of resilient outcome, and life stage under analysis; risk factors in one context may be protective in another (Rutter, 1999; Smith-Osborne, 2006; Ungar, 2004).

Research on resilience among children, adolescents, and young adults has found a positive relationship between spirituality, social support, social capital, income, and personal/family traits (e.g., hardiness, coherence, social compe- tence and self-efficacy, normal attachment, healthy attributions, active stress appraisal, and coping), and resistance to a variety of risk factors, including psy- chiatric disorders and school failure/drop-out (Daining, 2005; Garmezy, 1991; Luthar et al., 2000; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Richardson, 2002; Rutter, 1999a; Smith & Carson, 1997; Werner, 1992). Research on military families dealing with war-induced separation and trauma has found associations between resilience and similar protective mechanisms (Benotsch et al., 2000; Lavee et al., 1985; McCubbin & Dahl, 1976; McCubbin, Dahl, Lester, Benson, & Robertson, 1976;

157Smith-Osborne/LIFE SPAN AND RESILIENCY THEORY

McCubbin, Hunter, & Dahl, 1975; McCubbin et al., 1980; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1996; Patterson, 2002; Sutker et al., 1995; Thoits, 1983).

Units of Analysis

Life span theory is most commonly applied to the individual and family as the units of analysis (McCubbin et al., 1980). However, Erikson (1962, 1968, 1969) pro- posed that this theory could apply to humanity as an entity, thus not being limit- ed to one’s interactions with individuals, groups, or specific environments/insti- tutions.

Subsequent theorists, such as Coles (1990, 1991, 1997) and Strauss and Howe (1991), have focused on the more macro-level implications of Erikson’s concepts, for example, in investigating human development within generations and reli- gious reference groups.

Like life span theory, resiliency theory has been most commonly applied to individuals and family units that are consistent with these theories’ shared devel- opmental focus. More recent investigations of specific risk and protective factors, however, have shown a trend toward the examination of macro-level or contextu- al variables (Herrenkohl et al., 2003; Schafft, 2006; Smith-Osborne, 2005, 2006; Ungar, 2004), such as neighborhoods (e.g., disorganized, residentially unstable) and institutional policies.

Aspects of Human Development

Rapid advances in the knowledge base about the biological underpinnings of human development tend to lend support to conceptualizations of the life stages that are more fluid throughout the life span, rather than invariant or even neces- sarily sequential (Robbins et al., 1998; Thelen & Smith, 1994). Incorporation of this new knowledge is seen most clearly in researchers who focus on adult devel- opment and aging. George Vaillant (1993), for example, pointed out that:

If adult development is to be conceived as a psychobiological process then it must conform to biology, and neither to social mores

Related Tags