Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:27:52.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploring the long-term effects of employment on social networks

Commentary on “Employment over the life course and post-retirement social networks: A gendered perspective” by Cohn-Schwartz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2024

Peter C. Sun*
Affiliation:
Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Commentary
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Psychogeriatric Association

Work brings people together, thereby shaping their social networks. Building on this premise, Cohn-Schwartz and Naegele (Reference Cohn-Schwartz and Naegele2023) investigated how years of employment and number of jobs affect social network size, type, and emotional closeness by gender. Using data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), they found that (1) Working for longer years and in more jobs was associated with larger social networks and a higher likelihood of including children and friends within the networks; (2) working for longer years and in more jobs was related to lower emotional closeness with the network, but working for more years among men was related to better emotional closeness with the network; (3) women had larger social networks and were more likely to include friends; and (4) extensive work histories were not related to worse family relationships. A unique contribution of their paper is testing if varying tenure in workplaces serves as a social convoy from which gendered networks are constituted (Wrzus et al., Reference Wrzus, Hänel, Wagner and Neyer2013). This is a welcome addition to previous studies that have tended to focus a priori on the social networks themselves or in relation to health outcomes (cf., Smith and Christakis, Reference Smith and Christakis2008). These findings have significance for the literature on productive aging, particularly the increasing phenomenon of working in later life, and provide several directions for future research.

While not focusing on employment in later life exclusively, Cohn–Schwartz & Naegele’s sample of individuals aged 50 and over yields insights into the social relationships of respondents who remain working in mid-life and later life. As demographers have observed, the dual forces of lower birth rates and increasing life expectancy have radically altered the age distributions of societies around the world. To address labor force shortages, some societies are promoting late retirement and concomitantly prolonging pension age. In response, scholars of productive aging argue that society must better support older adults who elect to make economic contributions in later life, such as via employment or volunteering (Gonzales et al., Reference Gonzales, Matz-Costa and Morrow-Howe2015). Lower levels of wealth have been associated with a longer need to remain in the labor force, as well as reduced autonomy for selecting the types of transitions to retirement. Conversely, more advantaged statuses have been correlated with diverse patterns of retirement, such as phased retirement (Carr et al., Reference Carr, Matz, Taylor and Gonzales2021). These observations are confirmed by Madero-Cabib et al. (Reference Madero-Cabib, Gauthier and Le Goff2015), who also utilized the retrospective job panel in SHARE; they established that late retirement after pension age was associated with accumulated disadvantages across the life course.

In light of these challenges, a significant finding in Cohn–Schwartz & Naegel’s study is that, irrespective of financial ability and other controls, individuals with longer working lives accrued emotionally meaningful relationships. There was a positive association between years in employment and emotional closeness with the social network for men and a positive association between years in employment and having a child confidant for both men and women. Further strengthening these social relationships or targeting their upstream factors in the workplace could counteract the disadvantages that accompany prolonged involvement in the labor market. Granted, this line of thinking has several caveats: It cannot be determined from the study if individuals with more years of working worked mostly prior to or after pension age, and no information about the level of volition for working beyond traditional retirement age was available. A solution would be to stratify the sample by age cohorts and retirement timing; however, as will be discussed later, incorporating characteristics of the type of work (e.g., part-time vs. full-time) will also capture older workers more vulnerable than others. Employment trajectories are certainly not uniform; some are more precarious, unpredictable, and less conducive to forming relationships than others (Shepherd, Reference Shepherd2024). Furthermore, the timing of key life events such as marriage and retirement have shown to be significant precursors for subsequent health outcomes (Eisenberg-Guyot et al., Reference Eisenberg-Guyot, Peckham, Andrea, Oddo, Seixas and Hajat2020).

The unexpected dynamic of spousal relationships vis-à-vis other confidants found in Cohn–Schwartz & Naegele’s study suggest the need for sociocentric network analysis. It was found, for instance, that adults who worked in more jobs were less likely to include their spouses in their social networks. Furthermore, working in more jobs potentially resulted in less emotional closeness with one’s spouse. The use of a name-generator approach may limit the ability to explain these results, because it is not immediately clear if intervening upon the respondent in such cases would positively impact the named confidants as well. While this egocentric approach is more straightforward methodologically and commonly found in the social network literature, it neglects key processes within the broader social network (Ayalon and Levkovich, Reference Ayalon and Levkovich2019). By considering which additional alters to include (i.e., the boundary specification problem)—such as mapping a broader network structure through a multi-informant approach—the whole network under study could potentially serve as the target for intervention (Koehly et al., Reference Koehly, Ashida, Schafer and Ludden2015; Laumann et al., Reference Laumann, Marsden, Prensky, Burt and Minor1989). Thus, the question as to why a respondent was less likely to include their spouse in their networks should be addressed through both the respondent’s perspective and the perspectives of his or her alters. Since the SHARE study interviews respondents and their spouse or partner, a spousal dyadic approach is feasible and could yield insights into how joint employment trajectories affect each other’s social network composition. One could assess, for example, the influence of joint work histories on the emotional reciprocity of spousal dyads. To measure other network properties, such as network density, bridging potential, and network homogeneity, the Multinational Time Use Study is an alternative dataset (Cornwell et al., Reference Cornwell, Marcum and Silverstein2015).

With respect to the literature on work histories, future research should seek to distinguish additional types of employment and retirement. Gendered trends between full-time work and part-time work may have a differential effect on social networks. Also, participants who are still engaged in paid work while receiving a pension should be separately classified, given the unique dynamics of partial retirement or bridge employment (Beehr and Bennett, Reference Beehr and Bennett2015)—although this kind of post-retirement data is not currently available in SHARE. The Job Episodes Panel used in the study, however, does contain information on unemployment spells, which has been found to have gendered effects on network composition and network emotional support (Rözer et al., Reference Rözer, Hofstra, Brashears and Volker2020). Absent this information, an individual with a stable trajectory of full-time work would be analytically identical to an individual with the same number of jobs and total years of work but multiple spells of unemployment between jobs. To minimize bias, researchers should consider following Wahrendorf (Reference Wahrendorf2015) in excluding early retirees or those who reported chronic illness during their working ages. Another fruitful avenue is to adopt optimal matching analysis or related sequence alignment techniques to account for the ordering of different work trajectories (Chan, Reference Chan1995; Liao et al., Reference Liao, Bolano, Brzinsky-Fay, Cornwell, Fasang, Helske, Piccarreta, Raab, Ritschard, Struffolino and Studer2022).

There are some limitations in Cohn–Schwartz & Naegele’s work that should be noted. First, while the study has been framed around post-retirement social networks, it is unclear if the sample included only retirees or both retirees and individuals still in the labor force. Given that the analytical sample consisted of adults aged 50 and over, it is likely that many individuals in the sample have not yet retired. To focus on retirees, one strategy is to limit the sample to respondents who receive a pension income (Dingemans and Möhring, Reference Dingemans and Möhring2019). Second, the authors note that women working until retirement were found to engage in more volunteer activities, but the participants’ volunteering histories were not controlled in the models. Volunteering is more likely to follow employment cessation according to the activity substitution hypothesis (e.g., Carr et al., Reference Carr, Kail and Taylor2023; Wilson and Musick, Reference Wilson and Musick1997), and a large body of work has linked volunteering with social networks (e.g., Putnam, Reference Putnam2000). If controlling for volunteering histories is not possible, it would be helpful to use metrics such as the E-value to measure the strength of an unmeasured confounder (VanderWeele and Ding, Reference VanderWeele and Ding2017). Third, the authors’ concern about reverse causation may very well be an intractable problem due to the lack of time-varying covariates across the employment life course. As a concession, the authors could test if mid-life employment histories (for which panel data are available, e.g., the aged 50–60 cohort) are related to social relationships in later life. This fully exploits the longitudinal nature of the SHARE dataset and permits a wider range of methods to attenuate the risk of reverse causation (e.g., Studer et al., Reference Studer, Struffolino and Fasang2018). Finally, to correct for the observed attrition bias in the sample, the individual sampling weights provided by SHARE should be used.

Understanding the life course of employment, from entry to retirement and beyond, is a promising starting point for devising means to strengthen social relationships in later life. An added benefit when studying whole networks as the unit of analysis is that not only would individual older adults benefit, but as supradyadic studies show, the effects may spread from person to person (e.g., Christakis and Fowler, Reference Christakis and Fowler2007; Valente and Davis, Reference Valente and Davis1999). Formulating subgroups by age cohorts, as argued above, will be essential for learning when along the life course interventions can be most effective. Looking ahead, artificial intelligence, with its rapid evolution across multiple sectors, may exacerbate generational differences in employment patterns, and its effects should be closely monitored. Thanks to Cohn–Schwartz & Naegele, we now know how to proceed.

References

Ayalon, L., & Levkovich, I. (2019). A systematic review of research on social networks of older adults. The Gerontologist, 59(3), e164e176. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beehr, T. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2015). Working after retirement: features of bridge employment and research directions. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 112128. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wau007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, D. C., Kail, B. L., & Taylor, M. (2023). Productive aging lifestyles: a latent class analysis of work and volunteer patterns over the retirement transition. Research on Aging, 45(1), 6076. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275221103793 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, D. C., Matz, C., Taylor, M. G., & Gonzales, E. (2021). Retirement transitions in the United States: patterns and pathways from full-time work. Public Policy & Aging Report, 31 (3), 7177. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/prab013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, T. W. (1995). Optimal matching analysis: a methodological note on studying career mobility. Work and Occupations, 22(4), 467490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888495022004005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 Years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370379. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa066082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn-Schwartz, E., & Naegele, L. (2023). Employment over the life course and post-retirement social networks: a gendered perspective. International Psychogeriatrics, 111. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610223000558 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornwell, B., Marcum, C., & Silverstein, M. (2015). The social network approach in gerontological research. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 70(1), 8790. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu157 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemans, E., & Möhring, K. (2019). A life course perspective on working after retirement: what role does the work history play? Advances in Life Course Research, 39, 2333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2019.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg-Guyot, J., Peckham, T., Andrea, S. B., Oddo, V., Seixas, N., & Hajat, A. (2020). Life-course trajectories of employment quality and health in the U.S.: a multichannel sequence analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 264, 113327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113327 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzales, E., Matz-Costa, C., & Morrow-Howe, N. (2015). Increasing opportunities for the productive engagement of older adults: a response to population aging. Gerontologist, 55(2), 252261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koehly, L. M., Ashida, S., Schafer, E. J., & Ludden, A. (2015). Caregiving networks—Using a network approach to identify missed opportunities. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 70(1), 143154. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu111 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laumann, E. O., Marsden, P. V., & Prensky, D. (1989). The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In Burt, R. S., & Minor, M. J. (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 6187). George Mason University Press.Google Scholar
Liao, T. F., Bolano, D., Brzinsky-Fay, C., Cornwell, B., Fasang, A. E., Helske, S., Piccarreta, R., Raab, M., Ritschard, G., Struffolino, E., & Studer, M. (2022). Sequence analysis: its past, present, and future. Social Science Research, 107, 102772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102772 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madero-Cabib, I., Gauthier, J.-A., & Le Goff, J.-M. (2015). The influence of interlocked employment-family trajectories on retirement timing. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2, 3853. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wav023 Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster Google Scholar
Rözer, J. J., Hofstra, B., Brashears, M. E., & Volker, B. (2020). Does unemployment lead to isolation? The consequences of unemployment for social networks. Social Networks, 63, 100111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2020.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, H. (2024). Organizational practices and workplace relationships in precarious work: new survey evidence. Social Networks, 77, 7992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. P., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Social networks and health. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 405429. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studer, M., Struffolino, E., & Fasang, A. E. (2018). Estimating the relationship between time-varying covariates and trajectories: the sequence analysis multistate model procedure. Sociological Methodology, 48(1), 103135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175017747122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 5567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 268274. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahrendorf, M. (2015). Previous employment histories and quality of life in older ages: sequence analyses using SHARELIFE. Ageing & Society, 35(9), 19281959. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1997). Work and volunteering: the long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251272. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.1.251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 5380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028601 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed