Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 123–131 | Cite as

Social network and cognitive functioning in old age

Self-efficacy as a mediator?
  • Sonja Fankhauser
  • Andreas Maercker
  • Simon ForstmeierEmail author
Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt

Abstract

This study investigated self-efficacy (self-perceived and rated by an informant) as a mediator of the relationship between social network variables (including network size, frequency of social contacts, satisfaction with social contacts and social support) and cognitive impairment. Participants were 189 adults with a mean age of 75 years, 32 of whom suffered from mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 39 from early stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and 118 who had no cognitive impairment. Binary logistic regression and linear regression models were used to assess the association between the predictor variables and cognitive impairment, controlling for several confounders. Network size was significantly associated with the cognitive status (mini mental status examination; β = 0.15, p < 0.05) and with odds of cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93–0.99). General self-efficacy rated by the informant mediated this relationship in both analyses. Possible underlying mechanisms, including neuroendocrine reactivity and health behavior are discussed.

Keywords

Self-efficacy Social network Mild cognitive impairment Alzheimer’s disease Cognitive functioning 

Soziales Netzwerk und kognitive Fähigkeiten im Alter

Selbstwirksamkeit als ein Mediator?

Zusammenfassung

In dieser Studie wurde die Selbstwirksamkeit (selbst erlebt und bewertet von einem Informanten) als ein Mediator in der Beziehung zwischen sozialen Netzwerkvariablen (einschließlich Netzwerkgröße, Häufigkeit sozialer Kontakte, Zufriedenheit mit sozialen Kontakten und soziale Unterstützung) und kognitiven Störungen untersucht. Insgesamt 189 Erwachsene (mittleres Alter: 75 Jahre) nahmen an der Studie teil. Hiervon litten 32 unter einer leichten kognitiven Störung („mild cognitive impairment“, MCI), 39 befanden sich im Frühstadium einer Alzheimer-Erkrankung (AD) und 118 hatten keine kognitive Störung. Binäre logistische sowie lineare Regressionsmodelle wurden verwendet, um den Zusammenhang zwischen den Prädiktorvariablen und der kognitiven Störung zu beurteilen, wobei mehrere Störvariablen kontrolliert wurden. Die Netzwerkgröße war signifikant mit dem kognitiven Status (Mini-mental-Status-Untersuchung; β = 0,15; p < 0,05) und mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine kognitive Störung (Odds-Ratio [OR] 0,96; 95% Konfidenzintervall [CI] 0,93–0,99) assoziiert. Die von dem Informanten bewertete allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit vermittelte diese Beziehung in beiden Analysen. Mögliche zugrundeliegende Mechanismen, einschließlich neuroendokrine Reaktivität und Gesundheitsverhalten, werden diskutiert.

Schlüsselwörter

Selbstwirksamkeit Soziales Netzwerk Leichte kognitive Störung Morbus Alzheimer Kognitive Fähigkeiten 

Notes

Funding

This project was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF, the Velux Foundation, Tropos Foundation, KurtFries Foundation, and the Swiss Alzheimer’s Association.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interests

S. Fankhauser, A. Maercker and S. Forstmeier declare that they have no competing interests.

All studies described in this article were carried out with the approval of the responsible ethics committee and in accordance with national law and the Helsinki Declaration from 1964 (in its present revised form). Informed consent was obtained from all participants in studies.

References

  1. 1.
    Antonucci TC, Akiyama H (1997) Social support and the maintenance of competence. In: Willis SL, Schaie KW, Hayward M (eds) Societal mechanisms for maintaining competence in old age. Springer, New York, pp 182–206Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonucci TC, Jackson JS (1987) Social support, interpersonal efficacy, and health: A life course perspective. In: Carstensen LL, Edelstein BA (eds) Handbook of clinical gerontology. Pergamon Press, Elmsford NYGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol 28:117–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barnes LL, Mendes De Leon CF, Wilson RS et al (2004) Social resources and cognitive decline in a population of older African Americans and whites. Neurology 63:2322–2326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bassuk SS, Glass GA, Berkman LF (1999) Social disengagement and incident cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly persons. Ann Intern Med 131:165–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beland F, Zunzunegui M, Alvardo B et al (2005) Trajectories of cognitive decline and social relations. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60B:320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I et al (2000) From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med 51:843–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bisconti TL, Bergeman CS (1999) Perceived social control as a mediator of the relationships among social support, psychological well-being, and perceived health. Gerontologist 39:94–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carstensen LL (1993) Motivation for social contact across the lifespan: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. In: Jacobs JE, Motivation NSo (eds) Developmental perspectives on motivation. Current theory and research in motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp 209–254Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen S (1988) Psychosocial models of the role of social support in the etiology of physical disease. Health Psychol 7:269–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen S, Wills TA (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull 98:310–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crooks VC, Lubben J, Petitti DB et al (2008) Social network, cognitive function, and dementia incidence among elderly women. Am J Public Health 98:1221–1227CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ertel KA, Glymour MM, Berkman LF (2008) Effects of social integration on preserving memory function in a nationally representative US elderly population. J Public Health (Bangkok) 98:1215–1220Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fankhauser S, Forstmeier S, Maercker A et al (2015) Risk of dementia in older adults with low versus high occupation-based motivational processes: differential impact of frequency and proximity of social network. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 28:126–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forstmeier S, Maercker A (2015) Motivational processes in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: results from the Motivational Reserve in Alzheimer’s (MoReA) study. BMC Psychiatry 15:293CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forstmeier S, Maercker A (2008) Motivational reserve: Lifetime motivational abilities influence cognitive and emotional health in old age. Psychol Aging 23:886–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Forstmeier S, Maercker A, Maier W et al (2012) Motivational reserve: Motivation-related occupational abilities and risk of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Psychol Aging 27:353–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fratiglioni L, Paillard-Borg S, Winblad B (2004) An active and socially integrated lifestyle in late life might protect against dementia. Lancet Neurol 3:343–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fratiglioni L, Wang HX (2007) Brain reserve hypothesis in dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 12:11–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fratiglioni L, Wang HX, Ericsson K et al (2000) Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study. Lancet 355:1315–1319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fydrich T, Geyer M, Hessel A et al (1999) Fragebogen zur Sozialen Unterstützung (F-SozU): Normierung an einer repräsentativen Stichprobe [Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU): Norms from a representative sample]. Diagnostica 45:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fydrich T, Sommer G, Menzel U et al (1987) Fragebogen zur Sozialen Unterstützung (Kurzform; SOZU-K-22). Z Klin Psychol 16:434–436Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guo S, Fraser MW (2009) Propensity score analyses. Statistical methods and applications. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holtzman RE, Rebok GW, Saczynski JS et al (2004) Social network characteristics and cognition in middle-aged and older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 59:P278–P284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hughes TF, Andel R, Small BJ et al (2008) The association between social resources and cognitive change in older adults: evidence from the Charlotte County Healthy Aging Study. J Gerontol 63b:241–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larson EB, Wang L, Bowen JD et al (2006) Exercise is associated with reduced risk for incident dementia among persons 65 years of age and older. Ann Intern Med 144:73–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lepage B, Dedieu D, Savy N et al (2016) Estimating controlled direct effects in the presence of intermediate confounding of the mediator-outcome relationship: Comparison of five different methods. Stat Methods Med Res 25:553–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lübke N, Grassl A, Kundy M et al (2001) Hamburger Einstufungsmanual zum Barthel-Index. Geriatr J 1‑2:41–46Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luszczynska A, Gutiérrez-Doña B, Schwarzer R (2005) General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. Int J Psychol 40:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mackinnon A, Khalilian A, Jorm AF et al (2003) Improving screening accuracy for dementia in a community sample by augmenting cognitive testing with informant report. J Clin Epidemiol 56:358–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mackinnon DP, Dwyer JH (1993) Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval Rev 17:144–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peters R, Poulter R, Warner J et al (2008) Smoking, dementia and cognitive decline in the elderly, a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 8:36. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-8-36 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pfeifer L, Horn AB, Maercker A et al (2015) Caregiver perception of apathy in persons with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study. Aging Ment Health 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scholz U, Gutierrez Dona B, Sud S et al (2002) Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries. Eur J Psychol Assess 18:242–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith GC, Kohn SJ, Savage-Stevens SE et al (2000) The effects of interpersonal and personal agency on perceived control and psychological well-being. Gerontologist 40:458–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhart S (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco CAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Valentijn SA, Hill RD, Van Hooren SA et al (2006) Memory self-efficacy predicts memory performance: results from a 6-year follow-up study. Psychol Aging 21:165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Verghese J, Lipton RB, Katz MJ et al (2003) Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. N Engl J Med 348:2508–2516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Whitmer RA, Gustafson DR, Barrett-Connor E et al (2008) Central obesity and increased risk of dementia more than three decades later. Neurology 71:1057–1064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M et al (2004) Mild cognitive impairment – beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 256:240–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yeh SC, Liu YY (2003) Influence of social support on cognitive function in the elderly. BMC Health Serv Res 3:9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL et al (1983) Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 17:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Privatklinik MeiringenMeiringenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Developmental Psychology, Faculty IIUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations