Table Of ContentJournal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES Copyright 1999 by The Gemntological Society of America
1999, Vol. 54B, No. 6, S376-^S388
Effects of Surrogate Parenting on Grandparents' Well-Being
Maximiliane E. Szinovacz,1 Stanley DeViney,2 and Maxine P. Atkinson3
'Glennan Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.
2Department of Social Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore. D
o
department of Sociology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. w
n
lo
a
d
e
d
parOenbtjse' cdtievperse.s Tsihvies sstyumdyp taosmsess asensd wlifhee tshaetri sgfaracntidocnh, ialdnrde nw'sh emthoevri nsgu cinht oef oferc otsu tv oafr yg rbayn dgpenardeenrt so'r h roaucsee. hIot lfdusr tahfefre cetxs agmrainneds- fro
m
whether effects of surrogate parenting on grandparents' subjective well-being are direct or mediated through the impact of h
surrogate parenting on other life changes, namely, health, work hours, income, socializing, and social supports. ttp
s
Methods. The analyses rely on panel data from the National Survey of Families and Households, Waves 1 and 2. The sub- ://a
c
sample consists of Black and White grandparents with grandchildren younger than age 18 (N = 1,789). Ordinary least squares a
d
(OLS) regressions and path analyses are used to identify direct and indirect effects of grandchildren's move into and out of e
m
grandparents' household on change in depressive symptoms and life satisfaction (residualized gain scores). ic
.o
u
Results. The data indicate that grandchildren's move into the household increases depressive symptoms among grandmoth- p
ers. On the other hand, grandchildren's leaving the household leads to reduced well-being among grandfathers. Grandmothers .co
report less participation in church activities and more supports from friends and relatives after the grandchildren move in, m
whereas grandfathers frequent bars/taverns more when grandchildren move in and reduce time spent with church activities and /ps
y
paid work when grandchildren remain in the household. c
h
s
o
Discussion. The findings suggest that effects of surrogate parenting differ by gender, and that they are partially contingent c
g
on grandparents' vulnerabilities (marital status, education, and presence of childless dependent children in the household) e
before grandchildren join the household. Mediating effects of other life changes are relatively small. ron
to
lo
g
y
/a
rtic
TN 1997,3.9 million or 5.5% of children were raised partly or parents also have to reduce their work hours or (more rarely) le
-a
A exclusively by their grandparents (Casper & Bryson, 1998). quit their jobs to accommodate grandchildren, and many com- b
s
Grandparents who assume such surrogate parenting responsi- plain about difficulties in obtaining funds through federal or tra
c
bilities can be overwhelmed by the stresses and responsibilities state programs (Aquilino & Supple, 1991; Chalfie, 1994; t/5
associated with this living arrangement. Among the problems Dowdell, 1995; Dressel & Barnhill, 1994; Minkler & Roe, 4B
noted in previous research are health problems, financial diffi- 1993,1996; Mullen, 1996; Poe, 1992; Pruchno, 1999; Roe et /6
/S
culties, declines in social activities, stresses in relations with al., 1995; Sands & Goldberg-Glen, 1998; Simon-Rusinowitz, 3
7
other family members, and a decline in subjective well-being Krach, Marks, Piktialis, & Watson, 1996). 6/5
(for reviews, see Burton, Dilworth-Anderson, & Merriwether- Another commonly mentioned problem is decline in social 77
2
DeVries, 1995; Emick & Hay slip, 1996; Hirshorn, 1998; contacts and insufficient social supports (Minkler & Roe, 1993; 4
1
Minkler & Roe, 1993; Pebley & Rudkin, 1999; Shore & Poe, 1992; Pruchno, 1999). Surrogate parents have little time left b
y
Hayslip, 1994). for social encounters and often find that their friends, unencum- g
u
Some studies show, for example, that surrogate parents may bered by parenting responsibilities, have little understanding for es
suffer health problems because of either exhaustion and over- their predicaments. However, some grandparents may also en- t o
n
load or the physical strains caused by child-rearing activities hance social contacts after becoming surrogate parents (Burnette, 3
1
(Jendrek, 1993; Minkler & Roe, 1993,1996; Minkler, Roe, & 1999). Although surrogate parents seek out various sources of in- M
a
Price, 1992; Roe, Minkler, & Saunders, 1995; Solomon & formal and formal supports, the supports they are able to secure rc
h
Marx, 1999). However, one recent study (Pruchno, 1999) found frequently are limited as well (Burnette, 1999; Jendrek, 1993; 2
0
few effects of surrogate parenting on grandparents' health. Minkler & Roe, 1993; Szinovacz & Roberts, 1998). 1
9
Another investigation shows few health differences between There also is considerable evidence that surrogate parenting
grandmothers who live alone and those who are single and care affects grandparents' psychological well-being (Ellison, 1990;
for grandchildren. Furthermore, differences between surrogate Minkler & Roe, 1993, 1996; Shore & Hayslip, 1994; Straw-
and nonsurrogate grandmothers were more pronounced for per- bridge, Wallhagen, Shema, & Kaplan, 1997). In their panel
ceived health status than for other health measures (Solomon & study, Giarrusso, Feng, Wang, and Silverstein (1996) found no
Marx, 1999). significant overall effects of surrogate parenting on well-being,
Financial problems are quite common as well. Surrogate but grandparents who became surrogate parents were more
grandparents carry the financial burdens associated with child- likely than other grandparents to experience a decline in psy-
rearing, which can be particularly costly if the grandchildren chological well-being over time. Using data from the National
suffer from physical or mental health problems. Some grand- Survey of Families and Households (NSFH), Minkler, Fuller-
S376
SURROGATE PARENTING AND GRANDPARENTS' WELL-BEING S377
Thomson, Miller, and Driver (1997) showed that grandparents gate parenting responsibilities have similar outcomes for grand-
who had assumed "primary responsibility for grandchildren" mothers and grandfathers or for African American and White
after the first wave of the NSFH scored higher on depressive grandparents.
symptoms than other grandparents. In many cases, emotional Our aim is to expand on Minkler et al.'s (1997) analyses by
problems are attributed to life changes associated with surro- focusing on grandchildren's movement into and out of grand-
gate parenting, to concerns about the adult children, or to health parents' household, by investigating effects of grandparents'
and behavior problems of the grandchildren (Hayslip, Shore, care for grandchildren on selected aspects of grandparents' life
Henderson, & Lambert, 1998; Minkler & Roe, 1993, 1996). (health, income, employment, social contacts, and social sup- D
Other problems noted in earlier studies include loss of social ports) as well as on their psychological well-being (depressive ow
n
status, less privacy, fatigue, changes in routines and overload, symptoms, and life satisfaction), and by comparing effects of lo
a
and marital problems as well as family problems, such as lack surrogate parenting by gender and race. d
e
oSfu pspulpep, o1r9ts9 1o;r B jeuartloonu,s y1 9o9f2 o; Bthuerrt oand u< DcehVildrireesn, 1(A99q2u;i Blinuort o&n Theoretical Model d fro
m
et al., 1995; Dowdell, 1995; Jendrek, 1993; Minkler et al., The transition to surrogate parenting constitutes a stressful h
1992; Minkler & Roe, 1993,1996; Pearson, Hunter, Ensminger, life event that can be expected to exert a direct negative effect ttp
s
& Kellam, 1990; Poe, 1992; Pruchno, 1999; Roe, Minkler, & on grandparents' psychological well-being, reflected in an in- ://a
c
Barnwell, 1994; Sands & Goldberg-Glen, 1998; Shore & crease in depressive symptoms and a decline in life satisfaction a
d
Hayslip, 1994). When the adult children remain in the house- (George, 1990). In addition, grandchildren's presence in the e
m
hold, tensions over child rearing and household rules may fur- household has been linked to various other changes in grand- ic
.o
ther contribute to grandparents' stress (Aquilino, 1991; Caldwell, parents' life, especially their physical health, work hours and u
p
Antonucci, & Jackson, 1998; Harrigan, 1992; Jendrek, 1993; income, and social endeavors, changes that may be stressful in .c
o
Richardson, Barbour, & Bubenzer, 1991). themselves. Consequently, we also predict indirect negative ef- m
/p
Nevertheless, grandparents also derive some benefits from fects of surrogate parenting on well-being through its influence s
y
coresidence with grandchildren. Most often noted are: getting on these four life areas. Even though social supports may often ch
s
another chance at parenting, companionship, a new lease on be insufficient, many grandparents are able to secure some sup- oc
g
life, strength through coping, enhanced feelings of self-worth, ports in their efforts to raise their grandchildren; such supports e
ro
and a sense of belonging (Aquilino, 1991; Aquilino & Supple, have been shown to buffer the impact of negative life events on n
1991; Burton, 1992; Burton & DeVries, 1992; Flaherty, Facteau, psychological well-being (Antonucci, 1990). We thus expect tolo
g
& Garver, 1987; Giarrusso et al., 1996; Harrigan, 1992; Jendrek, grandparents who become surrogate parents to increase their y
/a
1993; Minkler & Roe, 1993; Poe, 1992; Pruchno, 1999; Roe et social supports and predict a positive relationship between in- rtic
al., 1994; Shore & Hayslip, 1994). creased social support and subjective well-being. le
Taken together, these studies suggest that surrogate parenting In contrast, grandchildren's moving out of grandparents' -ab
s
can take its toll on grandparents' health, income, employment, household is likely to enhance grandparents' well-being. tra
or social contacts as well as on their psychological well-being. Although grandparents whose grandchildren leave the house- ct/5
However, several of these findings and their interpretation re- hold may still maintain some responsibility for their grandchil- 4
B
quire further substantiation. First, it remains unclear whether dren, grandchildren's moving out of the household relieves /6
/S
decline in surrogate parents' psychological well-being derives grandparents of their various, often stressful, experiences with 3
7
directly from their surrogate parenting responsibilities or re- coresident grandchildren and, in some cases, also signifies the 6
/5
flects the impact of surrogate parenting on other life changes resolution of problems in adult children's lives that led to the 7
7
(health, finances, and social contacts). This distinction is not surrogate parenting arrangement. These changes should mani- 24
1
only of theoretical but also of practical relevance. If changes in fest themselves in a direct positive effect on grandparents' well- b
y
subjective well-being can be primarily attributed to other life being. To the extent that ending surrogate parenting also leads g
u
changes brought about by surrogate parenting, then interven- to positive changes in grandparents' other life spheres (income, e
s
tions should focus on ameliorating surrogate parents' physical work hours, etc.), it can further be expected to have indirect t o
n
health, finances, or social contacts and supports. However, if positive effects on well-being. Although social supports specifi- 3
1
subjective well-being is affected directly (i.e., independent of cally targeted to help grandparents cope with surrogate parent- M
other life changes), then additional intervention efforts will be ing are likely to decline when the grandchildren move out, this arc
necessary to boost surrogate parents' mental health. Further- decrease is unlikely to reduce well-being. Thus, we expect no h 2
more, because many previous studies relied on retrospective ac- indirect effect of grandchildren's leaving the household through 01
9
counts (Burton, 1992, 1996; Minkler & Roe, 1993; Pruchno, its impact on social supports.
1999), it is important to ascertain that observed changes in Long duration of surrogate parenting may further enhance
grandparents' subjective well-being are indeed causally linked grandparents' stress by forcing them into more permanent care
to surrogate parenting and not attributable to other factors. In arrangements for the grandchildren such as reduction in work
addition, several previous studies relied on relatively homoge- hours or quitting their job. If this were the case, then grandchil-
nous samples in regard to grandparents' gender (Burton, 1996; dren's continued presence in the household would lead to a fur-
Dilworth-Anderson, 1994; Dowdell, 1995; Pruchno, 1999; Roe ther decline in grandparents' well-being (Solomon & Marx,
et al., 1994,1995; Sands & Goldberg-Glen, 1998; Solomon & 1999). It is, however, also conceivable that grandparents who
Marx, 1999) and race (Burnette, 1999; Burton, 1992, 1996; remain surrogate parents eventually adapt to the situation
Dilworth-Anderson, 1994; Flaherty et al., 1987; Roe et al., (Shore & Hayslip, 1994). In this case, continued presence of
1994, 1995). It is, therefore, important to assess whether surro- grandchildren in the household would either be unrelated to the
S378 SZINOVACZETAL.
well-being variables or enhance well-being (as a result of suc- the main sample and 76.8% for the oversample, resulting in a
cessful coping). Because Solomon and Marx's (1999) large-scale total sample of 13,008 respondents. (For a detailed description
study indicates that duration of surrogate parenting enhances of the study, see Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1988.) A total of
grandparents' health problems, we predict that grandchildren's 10,005 respondents completed the Wave 2 interviews, repre-
staying in the household will lead to a further decline in grand- senting an attrition rate of 23.2%. The subsample used for the
parents' well-being. present analyses was restricted to respondents who were house-
Characteristics of the grandparents themselves, especially gen- hold heads and had grandchildren younger than age 18 at Time
der and race, may condition the influence of surrogate parenting 2 (no information on grandchildren other than their presence in D
on well-being. There is ample evidence that women take on most the household was collected at Time 1). Because extended liv- ow
n
care in families, so that one would expect effects of surrogate ing arrangements among minorities may be culturally moti- lo
a
parenting to be stronger for grandmothers than grandfathers. vated (Hirshorn, 1998; Kamo, 1998) and the number of minori- d
e
dInedrieveed e, nshoamncee dre gsreaanrdcpha irnendti cmateeasn itnhga tf rsoumrr othgeaitre i ngvroalnvdemfaethnet risn tNieast iovteh Aerm thearnic Aanfrsi)c aanre A tomoe srmicaanlls f o(er. gs.e,p Harisaptea naincasl, yAsseisa,n ws,e a rned- d fro
m
custodial care (Hayslip et al., 1998). Nevertheless, grandfathers strict our analyses to Caucasian and African American grand- h
may assume some care responsibilities, and they may also be af- parents. The number of participants for this subsample is 1,789 ttp
s
fected by their wives' preoccupation with care of the grandchil- (unweighted). ://a
c
dren (Jendrek, 1993). Thus, surrogate parenting is expected to To assess whether attrition may have an impact on results, a
d
exert some influence on grandfathers as well, but the effects we compared grandparents who remained in the study with em
should be more pronounced for grandmothers. Evidence fur- those who dropped out on selected life conditions and well- ic
.o
ther suggests that surrogate parenting experiences differ by being variables at Time 1. These analyses reveal that, for the u
p
race. Black grandparents may assume surrogate parenting re- subsample of grandparents used here, attrition is somewhat .c
o
sponsibilities under more difficult circumstances (e.g., adult more pronounced among the disadvantaged, that is, those who m
/p
children's drug problems or incarceration) than White grand- are older, have poorer health, score lower on life satisfaction, s
y
parents, and they are also more likely than White grandparents and score higher on depressive symptoms. This means that we ch
s
to enter this care arrangement under more disadvantaged so- may underestimate effects of surrogate parenting because the oc
g
cioeconomic conditions (Minkler et al., 1992; Pruchno, 1999). most vulnerable grandparents are somewhat underrepresented. e
ro
Both conditions could render Black grandparents more vulner- However, two-step Heckman selectivity tests (Heckman, 1979) n
able than White grandparents to the stresses of surrogate par- using unweighted data indicated no major effect of attrition on tolo
g
enting. We thus hypothesize a stronger effect of surrogate par- our models. In addition, attrition effects should be limited be- y
/a
enting for Black grandparents, especially when socioeconomic cause the weights used in the analyses adjusted for attrition as rtic
conditions are not controlled. well as oversampling and nonresponses. le
In addition, a variety of other potential risk factors may im- -ab
s
pinge on grandparents' well-being. To the extent the data per- Measures tra
mit, we control for such potential competing risks (changes in ct/5
marital status, in caregiving for other family members, and in Dependent variables.—Two measures of well-being were 4
B
spouse's health). Other controls (age, marital status, education, used in the analysis: depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. /6
/S
and household composition) adjust for differences in grandpar- Depressive symptoms were assessed with a modified version of 3
7
ents' vulnerability. the CES-D. The CES-D was designed to assess depressive 6
/5
symptoms in the general population, is widely used in mental 7
7
METHODS health research, and has also been applied to older populations 24
1
(Hertzog, 1989; Lewinsohn, Fenn, Stanton, & Franklin, 1986; b
y
Sample Radloff, 1977). The CES-D version included in the NSFH con- g
u
The study relies on secondary analyses of the National tains items pertaining to two (Affect and Somatic) of the usual e
s
Survey of Families and Household (NSFH), a nationally repre- four CES-D subscales. Specifically, respondents were asked, t o
n
sentative survey of 13,008 households at Time 1. Two waves of "Next is a list of ways you might have felt or behaved during 3
1
data have been collected, one in 1987-1988 and the other in the past week. On how many days during the past week did M
1992-1994. Thus, the NSFH now provides longitudinal infor- you: feel bothered by things that usually don't bother you, not arc
mation on diverse aspects of family life. Data for main respon- feel like eating, feel that you could not shake off the blues even h 2
dents were collected from a randomly selected household mem- with help from family or friends, have trouble keeping your 01
9
ber age 19 or older. Respondents were interviewed and also mind on what you were doing, feel depressed, feel that every-
completed a self-administered questionnaire. Interviews lasted thing you did was an effort, feel fearful, sleep restlessly, talk
typically between 70 min and 2 hr. Spouses filled out a self- less than usual, feel lonely, feel sad, feel you could not get
administered questionnaire during Wave 1 and were inter- going" (0 to 7 days). Factor analyses indicated that the CES-D
viewed during Wave 2. items included in the NSFH constitute one single dimension, a
The NSFH is based on a multistage area probability sample finding further substantiated by reliability analyses (Cronbach's
that was augmented by oversampling of minorities, one-parent a = .93 for Wave 1 and Wave 2). These values remained the
families, families with stepchildren, cohabitors, and recently same regardless of whether missing values were imputed or
married persons. The oversample was achieved by doubling the not. Because the items seemed to reflect a single dimension,
number of targeted households. First wave interview response total depressive symptom scores were derived by adding item
rates for the successfully screened households were 73.5% for scores for each wave.
SURROGATE PARENTING AND GRANDPARENTS' WELL-BEING S379
To assess change in depressive symptoms between waves, people your age, how would you describe your health?" (1 =
we derived unstandardized residuals from regressions of Wave very poor, 5 = excellent).
2 on Wave 1 scores (with no other controls). These residuals Income was based on constructed measures provided in the
reflect Wave 2 depressive symptoms net of Wave 1 depressive NSFH. These measures include both individuals' own personal
symptoms and can, therefore, be interpreted as gain scores income as well as couple incomes. The income variable used in
(Allison, 1990; Kessler, 1977). Because panel data are subject the analyses combines these two measures. Specifically, re-
to correlated measurement error, we also performed confirma-
tory factor analyses to estimate Wave 1 and Wave 2 scores for D
depressive symptoms, using the AMOS structural equation Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Independent ow
program (Arbuckle, 1997). Because results derived from these and Dependent Variables (Weighted) nlo
a
two methods of constructing scores for depressive symptoms d
Variable M SD e
were quite similar, we relied on the raw scores. The residuals d
from raw scale scores are easier to interpret and also allow Independent fro
m
adjustments for sample stratification and clustering that are Female (1 =yes) .52 .50 h
typically not available in structural equation analyses pro- Black (1 =yes) .12 .32 ttp
govraemr tsi.m Hei.gh scores indicate increases in depressive symptoms EAdguecation 5162..9663 92..7623 s://aca
Married (1 =yes) .77 .42 d
The second well-being measure is life satisfaction. Dependent children without children in household (1 yes) .14 .35 em
Respondents were asked: "Taking all things together, how Spouse's health improved (1 = yes) .07 .25 ic.o
would you say things are these days?" (1 = very unhappy, 7 = Started caregiving (1 = yes) .27 .44 u
p
very happy). Unstandardized residuals were used as indicators New relationship (1 = yes) .08 .27 .c
o
of change in life satisfaction over time. In this case, high scores End relationship (1 = yes) .11 .31 m
reflect an increase in life satisfaction between waves. Means Change in work hours (residuals) -5.24 18.48 /ps
y
and standard deviations for the dependent and independent vari- Change in income (income logged, residuals) -.13 1.73 ch
ables are shown in Table 1. CChhaannggee iinn hsoecailathli z(irnegsi d(rueaslisd)uals): -.06 .72 socg
e
Church (attendance) .15 164.41 ro
Independent variables.—The major independent variables in Church (socializing) -.03 .90 nto
the model are surrogate parenting and grandparents' life Relatives .02 .88 lo
g
changes (health, employment, income, social supports, and so- Friends -.04 .93 y/a
cial contacts). Neighbors .00 1.08 rtic
Surrogate parenting was derived from the household rosters Change in social supports (residuals): le
included in both waves. Comparison of grandchildren's pres- Advice .08 .91 -ab
ence in the household at Time 1 and Time 2 resulted in the Friends — instrumental supports .05 .45 stra
following surrogate parenting variables, coded as dummy vari- GrRanedlacthivileds i—n h ionusstreuhmoledn: t(anl osnuep p=o rrtesference) .13 .83 ct/5
ables: grandchildren move in (no grandchildren in the household 4
Move in .06 .23 B
at Time 1, and grandchildren in the household at Time 2), /6
Move out .03 .17 /S
grandchildren stay (grandchildren in the household at both Stay .02 .14 37
waves), and grandchildren move out (grandchildren in the 6
Dependent /5
household at Time 1 but not at Time 2). Grandparents with no 7
grandchildren in the household at both waves served as the ref- LDiefpe rseastsiisvfea cstyiomn p(troemsisd u(raelss)iduals) -..9036 141..1039 7241
erence category. The distribution of grandparents by surrogate b
y
parenting responsibility is shown in Table 2. Because adult chil- Note:N= 1,789, unweighted. g
u
dren and their children may also move to the (grand)parents' e
s
household to take care of the grandparent, we attempted to ex- t o
n
clude these cases in the designation of surrogate parenting. 3
Unfortunately, the available data are insufficient to distinguish Table 2. Distribution of Grandparents by Surrogate Parenting 1 M
between coparenting and other care arrangements in all cases. and Gender (Weighted) arc
Thus, a few cases that do not constitute surrogate parenting All Male Female h 2
may have been included. 01
Overall, 10.7% of grandparents had grandchildren in their Grandchild in Household % N % N % N 9
households at either wave. In over one half (52.3%) of these Moved in 5.6a 109 4.1 38 7.0 71
cases grandchildren moved in between waves, in over one quar-
Moved out 3.0 59 2.3 21 3.7 38
ter (28.3%) grandchildren moved out, and in 19.4% cases
Stayed 2.1a 41 1.0 9 3.1 32
grandchildren remained in the household over both waves.
Both waves of the NSFH included questions about respon- Any grandchild in household
dents' work hours. In Wave 1, total work hours were assessed, at Wave 1 or Wave 2 10.7ab 208 7.4 68 13.7 140
whereas in Wave 2 respondents were asked separately about (N = unweighted) 1,789 670 1,119
work hours in their primary and secondary jobs. Hours in these
lender difference significant at/? < .05.
jobs were combined to arrive at Time 2 work hours.
bSums may differ slightly from total values shown for any grandchild be-
Health was measured with the question: "Compared to other cause of rounding.
S380 SZINOVACZETAL.
spondents' own income was used if the respondent was not Marital status changes were represented in two dummy vari-
married at the time of the interview, and one half of the cou- ables: whether respondents started a new relationship or ended
ple's income was used for married respondents. This procedure their marriage between waves. Multiple changes (e.g., a respon-
provides more comparable data on not only respondents' living dent who got divorced and then remarried) would be reflected
standard but also on changes in their living standard over time in a score of 1 (yes) on both measures. In addition, changes in
in cases of divorce, remarriage, or widowhood. Income for both their spouses' lives (work hours, or health) may influence re-
waves was logged. spondents' well-being. Preliminary analyses revealed that only
The social support measures rely on questions about help re- improvements in spouses' health contributed significantly to D
ceived from friends, parents, children, siblings, and other rela- changes in well-being. Because many grandparents are not ow
n
tives in any of the following areas: babysitting, transportation, married, improvement in spouses' health had to be coded as a lo
a
housework, and advice (yes/no). Because type of support (ad- dummy variable. In this case, the reference category combined d
e
vviicaete v tsh ein ssttrreusmseesn toafl) s aunrrdo sgoauterc pea (rreenlatitnivge sin o dr iffrfieernednst) wmaayys a, lwlee- rwehspoo wndereen tnso wt mhoasreri espdo. uTsheiss ucnoddeinrwg epnrto cneod cuhraen igs ea wppitrho pthrioastee d fro
m
used three different support measures: number of sources (chil- when marital status is also controlled and essentially distin- h
dren, siblings, other relatives, and friends) providing advice guishes respondents whose spouses underwent some change ttp
s
(range = 0-4), number of instrumental supports (babysitting, from respondents who experienced no change (either because ://a
c
housework and repairs, and transportation) from friends (range spouse's health remained the same or because they were not a
d
= 0-3), and number of instrumental supports from any rela- married). Other controls considered in initial analyses (change e
m
tives (range = 0-9). in spouse's work hours, deaths of relatives, number of grand- ic
.o
The social contact variables available in the NSFH refer to children outside the household, and presence of adult childless u
p
how often respondents socialized (spent a social evening) with children in the household) did not influence relationships be- .c
o
relatives, neighbors, or friends, how often they participated in tween the major independent variables and well-being and were m
/p
social events at their church or synagogue, how often they at- not retained in the final models. s
y
tended church services, how often they went to a bar/tavern, Many of the variables have missing values. Because a signifi- ch
s
and how often they joined in group recreational activities. The cant reduction in sample size and biases in the data may have oc
g
latter variable (group activities) had no impact on any of the resulted if all cases with missing values were excluded (King, e
ro
well-being variables and was not used in the final analyses. Honaker, Joseph, & Scheve, 1999; Little & Rubin, 1987), we n
to
Except for church attendance, scores for the social contact vari- replaced missing values using the SPSS missing value analysis lo
g
ables ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (several times a week). Church program. Estimation of imputed values required several steps. y
/a
attendance was measured in number of visits per year (range = The first step was to examine the missing data patterns (Little rtic
0-365). Initial analyses (ordinary and confirmatory factor analy- & Schenker, 1995). Little and Schenker's chi-square test for le
sis, and reliability) showed that these items do not scale (e.g., missing completely at random (MCAR) showed a nonrandom -ab
s
Cronbach's a < .50). Thus, single-item measures were used. pattern at both Time 1 and Time 2. Given this nonrandom pat- tra
Of primary interest for our analyses is whether the impact of tern, pairwise or listwise exclusion of missing values is inap- ct/5
surrogate parenting on well-being is direct or mediated through propriate. The imputed data were estimated with EM (expecta- 4
B
its effect on grandparents' health, employment, income, social tion maximization) maximum likelihood algorithms. Because /6
/S
contacts, or social supports. Thus, change between waves is the missing value imputation can affect estimates of standard er- 3
7
main focus. To measure change, we derived gain scores from rors, we used bootstrapping to estimate standard errors and con- 6
/5
regressions in which the dependent variable was the selected fidence intervals for variables with imputed values (Stata, 7
7
characteristic (income, health, etc.) at Time 2, and the sole in- 1997). The resulting estimates were essentially the same as 24
1
dependent variable was this same characteristic at Time 1. The those derived from the original analyses. Consequently, signifi- b
y
unstandardized residuals from these regressions can be inter- cance levels derived from the original estimates of standard er- g
u
preted as gain scores. These residuals were used as independent rors are reported. Intercorrelations among the independent vari- e
s
or dependent variables in the analyses. ables were low to moderate, and multicollinearity is not a t o
n
In addition, various control variables were included in the problem, as indicated by an average variance inflation (VIF) of 3
1
analyses. They consist of major demographic and household 1.35 (Fox, 1991). Statistical power for our models (N=610 un- M
characteristics including gender, race, marital status, presence weighted for men, and N = 1,119 unweighted for women, with arc
of dependent childless children in the household (all coded as 25 predictor variables) approaches 1.00 for an alpha of .05 and h 2
dummy variables), age, and education. Dependent children are an/?2 of .10. 01
9
defined as children younger than age 19. Furthermore, other
life changes that may influence respondents' well-being were Analyses
controlled. Changes in caregiving responsibilities for household The analyses relied on ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-
members were assessed on the basis of questions asking re- sions. Estimation of standard errors was adjusted for complex
spondents whether they provided care to disabled household surveys (Stata, 1997). Because standardized coefficients cannot
members or to persons outside the household. Those who re- be derived from analyses that adjust for sample design (Stata,
ported such caregiving responsibilities at Time 2 but not at 1997), the betas shown in the tables are based on OLS regres-
Time 1 were coded as having started caregiving. We also exam- sions with robust standard errors. Three models are shown in
ined whether stopping caregiving (caregiving at Time 1 but not the tables: The first model includes gender, race, and the surro-
at Time 2) affected well-being. Because there was no signifi- gate parent variables; the second model includes all variables;
cant effect, this variable was not used in the final analyses. and the third model includes all variables except for selected
SURROGATE PARENTING AND GRANDPARENTS' WELL-BEING S381
controls (age, marital status, education, and presence of depen- Life Changes
dent childless children in the household). Other models (e.g., We expected that surrogate parenting should lead to declines
excluding life changes) were also estimated but are not shown in work hours, income, health, and social contacts and to in-
in the tables. We assessed variations in the effects of surrogate creases in social supports. The data only partially support these
parenting by gender and race through interaction terms (Race hypotheses (see Table 3). Men but not women (gender interac-
X Surrogate Parenting, and Gender X Surrogate Parenting). tion b = 13.22, p < .05) experience a significant decline in work
Because differences in the gender distribution by race may con- hours when grandchildren stay in the household, whereas grand-
found race and gender interactions, race interactions were tested children's moves into or out of the household have no impact on D
separately for all respondents and for female participants. The work hours. At the same time, continued stays of grandchildren ow
n
number of surrogate grandfathers was too small to test for race in the household apparently are associated with an increase in lo
a
differences. To examine whether the effects of surrogate parent- income for men but not women (gender interaction b = -2.22, d
e
ing are mediated by its impact on work hours, health, social p < .05). There are no significant effects of the surrogate parent- d
contacts, income, or supports, path analysis (Alwin & Hauser, ing variables on changes in health. fro
m
1981) was used. Path analysis decomposes the effect of an in- Several of the social contact variables (church attendance, h
dependent variable into its direct effect (i.e., the coefficients de- participation in social church events, socializing with neigh- ttp
s
rived from regressing depressive symptoms on the surrogate bors, and going to a bar or tavern) are affected by surrogate par- ://a
parenting and selected control and mediating variables) and its enting responsibilities. Grandmothers who assume surrogate ca
d
indirect effect (derived from the cross-product of the effect of parenting report a decline in church-related activities (both at- em
surrogate parenting on the mediating variables—health, in- tendance and socializing), whereas grandfathers' church activi- ic
.o
come, etc.—and the effects of the mediating variables on de- ties are not significantly influenced by surrogate parenting. u
p
pressive symptoms). Indirect effects are deemed significant However, the gender interaction is not significant. On the other .c
o
only if both coefficients (the correlation between the surrogate hand, grandfathers report reduced participation in social church m
/p
parenting and the mediating variables as well as the correlation events when grandchildren stay in the home and an increase in s
y
between the mediating and dependent variables) are significant. such activities when the grandchildren move out. Again, the ch
s
gender interactions are not significant. In the case of church at- oc
g
RESULTS tendance, there is a significant race interaction for women (b = ero
The results are presented in three sections. We first address 31.15, /? < .05), indicating that it is primarily White women n
to
the impact of surrogate parenting on selected life changes. Then who reduce their church attendance when grandchildren move lo
g
we discuss effects of surrogate parenting on depressive symp- into their homes. Socializing with neighbors increases among y
/a
toms and on life satisfaction, followed by the decomposition women but not men whose grandchildren moved out of the rtic
into direct and indirect effects. household (gender interaction b = .93, p < .05). Grandfathers le
-a
b
s
tra
c
t/5
Table 3. Effects of Surrogate Parenting on Change (Residualized Gain Scores) in Work Hours, Income, Health, Social Contacts, 4
B
and Social Supports (Unstandardized Coefficients; Standardized Coefficient sin Parentheses), based on OLS Regressions3 /6
/S
3
Work Church Church Socialize Socialize Socialize Bar/ Supports Supports 76
Grandchild in Hours Income Healh Attendance Social Friends Neighbors Relatives Tavern Advice Friends Relatives /5
7
Household 6 0) 6 0) 6(p) 6 0) 6 0) &O) 6 0) 6 0) 6 0) 6 0) 6 0) 6 0) 72
4
1
Male b
Move in -1.80 -.01 -.19 105.54 -.12 .03 .01 -.16 .46*b .16" -.01 .25 y g
(-.02) (-.001) (-.05) (.16) (-.03) (.01) (.002) (-.04) (.11) (.04) (-.002) (.06) u
e
Move out -2.02 -.49 .24 -20.03 .51** -.16 -.32b -.14 .29" .01 .22 .01 st o
(-.02) (-.04) (-05) (-.02) (.09) (-.03) (-.05) (-.02) (.05) (.002) (.07) (.003) n
Stay -12.37** .71** -.12 -17.92* _.49** -.13 .03 -.24 .09 -.16 -.14 .17 31
(-.06) (.04) (-.02) (-.01) (-.05) (-.01) (.003) (-.03) (.01) (-.02) (-.03) (.02) M
a
Female rc
Move in .77 -.11 .10 -19.48*c -.25** -.05 -.07 -.06 -.07 -.08 .11* .54** h 2
(.01) (-.02) (.03) (-.03) (-.07) (-.01) (-.02) (-.02) (-.03) (-.02) (.07) (.16) 01
9
Move out .35 .03 -.07 -27.62* -.02 -.25 .61* .31 -.21* -.01 -.11* -.26*
(.004) (.004) (-.02) (-.03) (-.003) (-.05) (.10) (.06) (-.06) (-.002) (-.05) (-.06)
Stay 1.78 -1.61 .01 -19.59 -.07 -.18 -.13 -.17 .08 -.03 -.08 .48
(.02) (-.16) (.004) (-.02) (-.01) (-.03) (-.02) (-.03) (.02) (-.005) (-.03) (-09)
Note: OLS = ordinary least squares.
aBased on regressions with the following controls: race, age, marital status, childless dependent children in household, new relationship, ended relationship, new
caregiving, change in: work hours, income, health, church attendance, social church events, socialize with neighbors, visit bars/taverns, advice, supports from friends
or relatives (except for the change variable which constitutes the dependent variable in the equation). Significance tests are adjusted for complex sampling design;
standardized coefficients were estimated with robust standard errors. All estimates rely on weighted data.
bGender interaction significant at p < .05.
cRace interaction significant at p < .05.
*p<.05; **/?<.01.
S382 SZINOVACZETAL.
apparently increase visits to bars both when grandchildren parenting (grandchildren moving in) takes its toll especially on
move in and when they move out, whereas grandmothers re- grandmothers' well-being. As shown in Table 4, women's de-
duce bar visits when the grandchildren leave. Both gender in- pressive symptoms increase when grandchildren move into the
teractions are significant (b = -.51, p < .05 for grandchildren household. Further analyses (not shown in the table) suggest
moving in; b = -.57, p < .05 for grandchildren moving out). that starting surrogate parenting for grandchildren with neither
As expected, surrogate parenting also influences social sup- parent in the household is particularly detrimental to grand-
ports. Especially women report enhanced instrumental supports mothers' well-being as indicated by depressive symptoms (b =
by friends and relatives when grandchildren move in as well as 5.32, (3 = .08, p > .05 for grandchildren with parents moving in; D
a decline in these supports when the grandchildren leave the fc=11.75,p = .ll,/?<.01 for grandchildren without parent ow
n
household. The gender interactions are, however, not signifi- moving in for Model 1 in Table 4). However, only a few of the lo
a
cant. Men seem more prone than women to receive additional NSFH grandmothers fall into the latter category (N = 19). d
e
athdev ihcoeu fsreohmol dfr i(egnednsd eorr irnetleartaivcetiso wn hbe =n -g.2ra8n, dpc h<i l.d0r5e)n, bmuot vthee i netfo- hAoluthsoehuoglhd sdiom niloatr aepfpfeecatrs f oorf ggrarannddfacthhielrdsr,e tnh'es gmenodveer iinnttoe rtahce- d fro
m
fect itself is not significant. tions are not significant. h
Overall, long-term stays of grandchildren in the household ttps
Weil-Being (Direct Effects) do not appear to significantly induce more depressive symp- ://a
c
According to our theoretical model, grandchildren's moving toms in grandparents. However, additional analyses (not shown a
d
into and remaining in the household should reduce well-being, in Table 4) suggest that continued presence of grandchildren em
whereas grandchildren's leaving the household should enhance with their parent in the household does enhance grandmothers' ic
.o
well-being. The data confirm that the beginning of surrogate depressive symptoms (b = 10.99, (3 =. 11, p < .01 for Model 1 u
p
.c
o
m
/p
s
Table 4. OLS Regressions for Effects of Surrogate Parenting, Other Life Changes, and Selected Controls on Change yc
h
(Residualized Gain Scores) in Depressive Symptoms (Unstandardized Coefficients; Standardized Coefficient sin Parentheses) s
o
c
g
Model la Model 2a Model 3a ero
n
Male Female Male Female Male Female to
lo
Variable g
y
/a
Black 2(.-0075) 3(..3089) (--..10203) (..0516) 1(•.5074) 1(..9042) rticle
Grandchild in Household -a
b
Move in 2.03 6.44* -.24 4.43* .07 5.76** stra
(•03) (.11) (-.004) (.08) (.001) (•10) c
Move out 7.12*c -4.37 7.13*c -4.60 7.18*c -4.21 t/5
4
(.08) (-.06) (.08) (-.06) (.08) (-.05) B
/6
Stay -3.20 7.20 -2.15 3.58 -3.35 4.08 /S
(-.02) (.08) (-.02) (.04) (-.03) (•05) 37
6
Age — — -.12 -.09 — — /5
7
— — (-.09) (-.06) — — 7
2
Married — — ^.57** -1.77 — — 41
— — (-.12) (-.06) — — by
Education — — -.20 -.71** — — gu
e
— — (-.05) (-.10) — — s
Dependent children without children in household — — .58 .75 — — t on
— — (.02) (-02) — — 31
Spouse's health improved — — .33 -3.87* .44 ^.63** M
a
— — (.01) (-.06) (.01) (-.07) rc
h
Started caregiving — — 1.86 1.48 2.01 1.28 2
0
— — (.06) (•05) (.07) (•04) 19
New relationship — — -4.00* -.36 -4.06 -.39
— — (-.09) (-.01) (-.09) (-.01)
Stop relationship — — .90 2.50 4.30 3.44*
— — (.02) (.06) (.09) (-08)
Change in work hours (residuals) — — -.05 -.07* -.03 -.05
— — (-.07) (-.08) (-•04) (-.06)
Change in income (residuals) — — -.69 -.66* -.74 -.76*
— — (-.09) (-.08) (-.10) (-.09)
Change in health (residuals) — — ^.51** -1.90** -4.70** -5.26**
— — (-.25) (-.24) (-.26) (-•26)
(Continued next page)
SURROGATE PARENTING AND GRANDPARENTS' WELL-BEING S383
Table 4. OLS Regressions for Effects of Surrogate Parenting, Other Life Changes, and Selected Controls on Change
(Residualized Gain Scores) in Depressive Symptoms (Unstandardized Coefficients; Standardized Coefficients in Parentheses) (Continued)
Model la Model 2a Model 3a
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Variable
Change in Socializing (Residuals)
Church attendance — — -.002 -.003** -.003 -.003** D
o
— — (-.02) (-.04) (-.03) (-.04) w
n
Church (social) — — .43 1.22* .15 1.17* lo
— — (.03) (.07) (.01) (.07) ad
e
Friends — — .33 -1.32* .47 -1.44* d
— — (.02) (-.08) (.03) (-.09) fro
m
Neighbors — — .13 -.54 .06 -.48 h
— — (.01) (-.04) (.01) (-.04) ttp
Relatives —— —— -(1-..1027) (--..9026) -(1-..0097) (--..9016) s://ac
Bar/tavern — — -.31 .73 -.39 .66 ad
e
— — (-.02) (.03) (-.03) (.03) m
ic
Change in Social Supports (Residuals) .o
Advice . .60 1.56** .56 1.41* up
— — (.04) (.10) (-04) (.09) .co
Friends—instrumental supports — — .66 -.23 .91 -.60 m
/p
— — (.02) (-.01) (.03) (-•02) s
y
Relatives—instrumental supports — — 1.80** .07 2.00** .24 ch
s
— — (.11) (.004) (.12) (.01) o
c
g
R2 .01 .03 .16 .17 .14 .16 e
ro
F 1.88 6.02** 9.30** 8.83** 8.95** 9.17** nto
lo
N (unweighted) (670) (1,119) (670) (1,119) (670) (1,119) g
y
/a
NaMooted:e lO 1L Sin =c lourddeisn aornyl yle gaestn dsqeur aarneds. race as controls. Model 2 adds demographic background variables as well as other life changes. Model 3 excludes age, marital rticle
status, education, and presence of dependent childless children in the household. -a
b
bSignificance tests are adjusted for complex sampling design; standardized coefficients were estimated with robust standard errors. All estimates rely on weighted s
data. tra
c
cGender interaction significant atp < .05. t/5
4
*/><.05; **/?<.01. B
/6
/S
3
7
6
/5
in Table 4). Once again, these data rely on a very small group these effects remain significant when other life changes and the 7
7
of grandmothers (N = 22). controls are included in the model. 24
1
Contrary to the hypothesis, we do not find a significant de- b
y
cline in depressive symptoms when grandchildren move out. Weil-Being (Indirect Effects) g
u
Indeed, grandfathers apparently experience an increase in de- In addition to these direct effects, our theoretical model pre- e
s
pressive symptoms when their grandchildren leave. In this case, dicts indirect effects of surrogate parenting through its impact on t o
n
the gender interaction is significant (b = 10.53, p < .01 for work hours, health, income, social contacts, and social supports. 3
1
Model 2 in Table 4). None of the effects of surrogate parenting As noted earlier, a significant indirect effect requires significant M
differ significantly by race. relationships between the independent variable (surrogate par- arc
Results for the effect of surrogate parenting on life satisfac- enting) and the mediating variable (e.g., work hours) as well as h 2
tion (see Table 5) confirm that grandchildren's move into the between the mediating variable and the dependent variable. 01
9
household reduces grandparents' well-being. Grandparents who These requirements are only met for church attendance and
became surrogate parents between the two NSFH waves report participation in social church events. However, in both cases the
a significant decline in life satisfaction. This effect does not dif- indirect effects are quite small. Using an initial model that ex-
fer by gender or race. Once again, we find no overall significant cludes both church attendance and participation in social church
effect of long-term stays of grandchildren in the household but events, we estimated direct and indirect effects separately for
a significant decline in life satisfaction when grandchildren and these two variables. For grandchildren's move into the house-
their parent remain in the household (b = -.48, (3 = -.03, p < hold, the total effect on grandmothers' depressive symptoms is
.05; data not shown in the table). The influence of grandchil- .0950 (beta). When church attendance is added to the model,
dren's leaving the household is in the same direction as for de- the direct effect is .0938 and the indirect effect through church
pressive symptoms (a decline in life satisfaction for men, and attendance is .0013. For the alternative model with participation
an increase for women) but fails to reach significance. None of in social church events, the direct effect of grandchildren's
S384 SZINOVACZETAL
Table 5. OLS Regressions for Effects of Surrogate Parenting, Other Life Changes, and Selected Controls on Changes
(Residualized Gain Scores) in Life Satisfaction (Unstandardized Coefficients; Standardized Coefficients in Parentheses)
Model la Model 2a Model 3a Model la Model 2a Model 3a
Variable M3)b Variable b ((3)b fc(P)b *>(P)b
Female -.26** -.16* -.21** Change in income (residuals) — .04 .04*
(-.11) (-.07) (-.09) — (.05) (.06)
Black -.05 .11 -.03 Change in health (residuals) — .30** .32** D
(-.01) (.03) (-.01) — (.18) (.20) ow
Grandchild in Household Change in Socializing (Residuals) nlo
Move in -.36* -.18 -.23 Church attendance — .00 .00* ad
(-.07) (-.04) (-.04) — (.03) (.03) ed
Move out -.11 -.19 -.19 Church (social) — .04 .05 fro
(-.02) (-.03) (-.03) — (.03) (.04) m h
Stay -.25 -.07 -.06 Friends — .02 .02 ttp
Age (-._03) (-..0011) (-_.01) Neighbors —— (..0013) (..0013) s://ac
(.06) — (.03) (.03) ad
e
Married .16 Relatives — .08* .08* m
(y .y(j\of)\\ Bar/tavern —— -(..1016*) -(..1006*) ic.ou
Education — .02 — — (-.07) (-.07) p.c
o
(.04) Change in Social Supports (Residuals) m
Dependent children without Advice — -.09* -.09* /ps
children in household — -.28** — _ (-.07) (-.07) yc
h
— (-.08) — Friends—instrumental supports — -.06 -.06 so
Spouse's health improved — .35** 34** — (-.02) (-.02) cg
e
— (.07) (.07) Relatives—instrumental supports — -.03 -.04 ro
n
Started caregiving — -.22** -22** — (-.02) (-.03) to
— (-.08) (-.08) R2 .02 .12 .11 log
y
New relationship — 37** .35** /a
— (.08) (.08) F 5.50** 13.62** 10.69** rtic
End relationship — -.30* -.41** N (unweighted) 1,789 1,789 1,789 le-a
— (-.08) (-.11) bs
Change in work hours (residuals) — .003 .001 tra
c
— (.05) (-02) t/5
4
B
Note: OLS = ordinary least squares. /6
aModel 1 includes only gender and race as controls; Model 2 adds demographic background variables as well as other life changes; Model 3 excludes age, marital /S
3
status, education, and presence of dependent childless children in the household. 7
6
bSignificance tests are adjusted for complex sampling design; standardized coefficients were estimated with robust standard errors. All estimates rely on weighted /5
7
data. 7
2
*p<.05; **/?<.01. 4
1
b
y
g
u
e
s
move into the household is .0996, and the indirect effect whether the influence of surrogate parenting is direct or medi- t o
n
through participation in social church events is -.0046. Thus, ated through selected life changes and whether it differs by gen- 3
1
increases in grandmothers' depressive symptoms on becoming der and race. M
surrogate parents are very slightly enhanced through decreased Our data provide only limited evidence that surrogate parent- arc
church attendance. As noted earlier, this seems to apply mostly ing brings about significant changes in grandparents' lives (at h 2
to White women. On the other hand, participation in social least those life spheres considered here). Although several char- 01
9
church events seems to exert a buffering function as indicated acteristics (e.g., work hours and religious activities) relate sig-
by the negative indirect effect, that is, participation in social nificantly to surrogate parenting, the effects are so small ((3 <
church events slightly reduces the effect of surrogate parenting .10) that one can hardly speak of a major impact. The only ex-
on depressive symptoms. There are no significant indirect ef- ceptions are increased bar/tavern visits among grandfathers (P
fects for life satisfaction. = .11) and increased instrumental supports from relatives
among grandmothers who started surrogate parenting (P = .16).
CONCLUSION Apparently grandmothers are able to secure help, especially
The main purpose of our analyses was to determine whether from relatives, when grandchildren move into the household.
grandchildren's movement into and out of grandparents' house- As grandfathers' experience with surrogate parenting is typi-
holds influences selected grandparent characteristics as well cally as spouses (82% of those who started surrogate parenting
as their psychological well-being. In addition, we assessed are married), their enhanced bar/tavern visits could signify an
SURROGATE PARENTING AND GRANDPARENTS' WELL-BEING S385
escape from their homes once grandchildren move in. These enting (Burton, 1992; Giarrusso et al., 1996; Jendrek, 1993;
findings contrast with some earlier studies (Burton, 1992; Pruchno, 1999; Shore & Hayslip, 1994). The well-being vari-
Jendrek, 1993; Minkler & Roe, 1993,1996) that report a deteri- ables included in the NSFH would reflect both positive and
oration in various life spheres on becoming surrogate parents negative effects of surrogate parenting, resulting in overall
but are in line with other research that also found little impact smaller effects (i.e., positive and negative effects cancel each
of surrogate parenting on health or work hours (Pruchno, 1999; other out to some extent).
Sands & Goldberg-Glen, 1998). Potential effects of surrogate Little is known about grandfathers who are surrogate parents
parenting on grandparents' lives most likely are contingent on (or who are married to grandmothers who assume surrogate D
the circumstances under which grandparents assume this re- parenting functions). Although grandchildren's move into the ow
n
sponsibility. Although many earlier studies focused on surro- household seems to exert some stresses on grandfathers (sug- lo
a
gate parenting under particularly difficult circumstances (e.g., gested by nonsignificant gender interactions and grandfathers' d
e
dBraurgn haibllu, s1e9 b9y4 ; tHhei rsphaorernn,t s1, 9o9r8 i;n Mcairnckelreart ieotna;l .,s e1e9 9D2r)e,s lsaerlg e&r min)o,r ger farnedqcuheinldt rveins'ist sp troes beanrcse/ taalvseor nasp paefaterrs gtor ahnadvceh sioldmreen b menoevfie- d fro
m
data sets such as the NSFH or Pruchno's (1999) study probably cial effects on grandfathers' well-being. This is indicated by an h
include a greater variety of surrogate parents. Because the increase in depressive symptoms when the grandchildren leave ttp
s
NSFH does not contain information on the reasons for grand- the household. If, as some research suggests (Minkler & Roe, ://a
children's presence in the household, we cannot determine 1993; Spitze & Ward, 1998), grandfathers do not become ca
d
whether grandparents who assume surrogate parenting under strongly involved in the care of custodial grandchildren, they e
m
particularly difficult circumstances experience more adverse ef- may derive benefits (e.g., companionship, or a new familial ic
.o
fects on their health, finances, or social contacts. Furthermore, focus, especially in the case of a dissatisfactory marital relation- u
p
sample selection bias and attrition may have eliminated some ship) from grandchildren's presence and miss these benefits .c
o
individuals who experienced the most detrimental effects of when the grandchildren move out. Hayslip et al. (1998) m
/p
surrogate parenting. showed, for example, that custodial grandfathers attach a more s
y
Our second research question addressed the influence of sur- positive meaning to the grandparent role than both noncustodial ch
s
rogate parenting on grandparents' psychological well-being. grandfathers and custodial grandmothers. Furthermore, custo- oc
g
Although our results corroborate earlier research indicating a dial grandfathers with low-problem grandchildren scored e
ro
decline in well-being among grandmothers who assume surro- higher on psychosocial satisfaction than their female counter- n
gate parenting (Ellison, 1990; Minkler & Roe, 1993, 1996; parts. Their more detached role in childrearing (Baranowski, tolo
g
Shore & Hay slip, 1994; Strawbridge et al., 1997), the effects 1985, 1990) also may shield grandfathers from emotional up- y
/a
are again quite small. Methodological features of our study (the heaval created by adult children's or grandchildren's problems, rtic
use of residualized gain scores, and the skewed distribution of as indicated by their tendency to seek relief in out-of-the home le
grandparents with and without surrogate parenting responsibili- entertainment (visits to bars/taverns). -ab
s
ties in the NSFH) are likely to produce small effects. For exam- We find no significant race differences in the influence of tra
ple, other stressful life events (other than changes in health) surrogate parenting on well-being. However, because the cir- ct/5
such as changes in marital status or beginning of caregiving ac- cumstances under which grandparents assume surrogate par- 4
B
tivities yield similar small effects. Nevertheless, methodological enting responsibilities vary by race (e.g., Black grandmothers /6
/S
issues alone are unlikely to account for our results. Several are more likely than White grandmothers to have grandchildren 3
7
other issues may also play a role. Once again the composition without their parents in the home), this certainly does not mean 6
/5
of surrogate parents in the NSFH may contribute to smaller ef- that the experience of surrogate parenting does not differ by 7
7
fects. Furthermore, surrogate parenting prevails among already race. For example, African American grandparents may assume 24
1
disadvantaged population groups (Fuller-Thomson, Minkler, & surrogate parenting under more difficult circumstances but be b
y
Driver, 1997; Szinovacz, 1998). These groups may experience a more able than White grandparents to secure and maintain so- g
u
deterioration in various life spheres and in well-being over time cial supports that buffer the effect of surrogate parenting on e
s
regardless of surrogate parenting responsibilities. In smaller well-being (Scott & Black, 1994). The small number of surro- t o
n
studies it is typically not feasible to control for such influences. gate parents in our data also may obscure race differences. 3
1
Comparisons of the models in Tables 4 and 5 (and additional We further explored the mediating effect of other life M
models not shown in the tables) indicate that controlling for changes on relationships between surrogate parenting and well- arc
major demographic characteristics (age, marital status, educa- being. Although path analyses reveal only marginal mediating h 2
tion, and presence of dependent children in the household) effects, the trends suggested by the data are somewhat more 01
9
reduces the impact of surrogate parenting on well-being in the complex. As already noted, surrogate parenting covaries with
case of life satisfaction to a nonsignificant level. It is conceivable demographic characteristics (e.g., marital status and education),
that grandparents attribute decreased well-being to the assump- which also predict changes in psychological well-being over
tion of surrogate parenting even though other factors may be at time. This implies that some surrogate parents may be particu-
least partially responsible. Strawbridge et al. (1997) reported, larly vulnerable to a deterioration both in various life spheres
for example, that most grandparent caregivers suffered from and in their well-being over time. Because we controlled for
poor health and other stressful life conditions well before they these demographic characteristics in our analyses, we elimi-
became surrogate parents. However, similar to our study, de- nated potential spurious relationships between such other life
pressive symptoms increased after the assumption of surrogate changes and well-being. Moreover, comparisons of Models 1
parenting. In addition, previous research indicates that grand- and 3 in Tables 4 and 5 reveal that inclusion of health, income,
parents also derive psychological benefits from surrogate par- employment, and social contacts and supports (without the de-
Description:(OLS) regressions and path analyses are used to identify direct and indirect effects of . ther contribute to grandparents' stress (Aquilino, 1991; Caldwell,. Antonucci . However, two-step Heckman selectivity tests (Heckman, 1979).
