European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 31–39 | Cite as

Social participation and survival at older ages: is the effect driven by activity content or context?

  • Heiner MaierEmail author
  • Petra L. Klumb
Original Investigation


This study tested the hypothesis that time spent on social activities (i.e., in direct interaction with others) and time spent in social contexts (i.e., while others are present) is associated with survival in persons aged 70 and older. An observational study with mortality follow-ups was carried out in the former West Berlin, Germany (Berlin Aging Study). The sample was stratified by age and sex, and consisted of 473 persons aged 70 to 103 years. Social activity and social context measures were assessed in 1990–1993 by structured interviews in the participants’ homes. Cox regression was used to model survival from time of interview. The main outcome measure was survival on 1 August 2003. Time spent on social activities was revealed as a predictor of survival only in analyses that did not control for confounding factors. In contrast, time spent in context “with friends” was significantly related to increased survival (relative risk=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.99) even after several confounding factors were controlled for. This study suggests that time spent with friends affords a survival advantage among older adults, above and beyond the effects of other leisure activities. Future research on social participation and survival may benefit from an examination of the interaction between activity content and social context.


Social activity Social context Role support Mortality Longevity 



The present research was conducted within the context of the Berlin Aging Study (BASE), which is co-chaired by Paul B. Baltes and Karl Ulrich Mayer. BASE has been financially supported by several organizations, including the German Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (1989–1991, 13 TA 011+13 TA 011/A) and the German Federal Ministry for Family, Senior Citizens, Women, and Youth (1992–1998, 314-1722-102/9+314-1722-102/9a). We thank Peter Bath, Dorly Deeg, and Hans-Werner Wahl for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 56th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) in San Diego, CA, USA, 21–25 November 2003.


  1. Allison PD (1995) Survival analysis using the SAS system: a practical guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds) (1999) The Berlin Aging Study: aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltes MM, Maas I, Wilms H-U, Borchelt M, Little T (1999) Everyday competence in old and very old age: theoretical considerations and empirical findings. In: Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds) The Berlin Aging Study: aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 384–402Google Scholar
  4. Buunk BP, Schaufeli WB (2000) Reciprocity in interpersonal relationships: an evolutionary perspective on its importance for health and well-being. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds) European review of social psychology, vol 10. Wiley, Chichester, pp 259–291Google Scholar
  5. Cantor N, Sanderson CA (1999) Life task participation and well-being: the importance of taking part in daily life. In: Kahneman D, Diener E (eds) Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 230–243Google Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measure 20:37–46Google Scholar
  7. Cox DR (1972) Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B34:187–220Google Scholar
  8. Glass TA, Mendes de Leon C, Marottoli RA, Berkman LF (1999) Population based study of social and productive activities as predictors of survival among elderly Americans. Br Med J 319:478–483Google Scholar
  9. Hendricks CD, Hendricks J (1998) Aging in mass society: myths and realities. Addison Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Herzog AR, Ofstedal MB, Wheeler LM (2002) Social engagement and its relationship to health. Clin Geriatr Med 18:593–609Google Scholar
  11. House JS, Robbins C, Metzner HL (1982) The association of social relationships and activities with mortality: prospective evidence from the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 116(1):123–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson CL, Barer BM (1997) Life beyond 85 years: the aura of survivorship. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Klumb PL, Baltes MM (1999a) Time use of old and very old Berliners: productive and consumptive activities as functions of resources. J Gerontol Soc Sci 54B:S271–S278Google Scholar
  14. Klumb PL, Baltes MM (1999b) Validity of retrospective time-use reports in old age. Appl Cogn Psychol 13(6):527–539Google Scholar
  15. Klumb PL, Maier H (2002) Daily activities and survival at older ages. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, MPIDR Work Pap WP-2002-041 (–041.pdf)
  16. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ (1997) Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch Gen Psychiatr 54:337–343Google Scholar
  17. Kruse A, Wahl H-W (1999) Soziale Beziehungen. Z Gerontol Geriatr 32:333–347Google Scholar
  18. Lemon BW, Bengtson VL, Peterson JA (1972) An exploration of the activity theory of aging: activity types and life satisfaction among in-movers to a retirement community. J Gerontol 27:511–523Google Scholar
  19. Lennartsson C, Silverstein M (2001) Does engagement with life enhance survival of elderly people in Sweden? The role of social and leisure activities. J Gerontol Soc Sci 25:S335–S342Google Scholar
  20. Lindenberger U, Gilberg R, Little T, Nuthmann R, Pötter U, Baltes PB (1999) Sample selectivity and generalizability of results of the Berlin Aging Study. In: Baltes PB, Mayer KU (eds) The Berlin Aging Study: aging from 70 to 100. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 56–82Google Scholar
  21. Longino CF Jr, Kart CS (1982) Explicating activity theory: a formal replication. J Gerontol 37(6):713–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McEwen BS (1998) Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New Engl J Med 338:171–179Google Scholar
  23. Menec VH (2003) The relation between everyday activities and successful aging: a 6-year longitudinal study. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 58(2):74–82Google Scholar
  24. Mirowsky J, Ross CE (1998) Education, personal control, lifestyle and health—a human capital hypothesis. Res Aging 20:415–449Google Scholar
  25. Moss MS, Lawton MP (1982) Time budgets of older people: a window on four lifestyles. J Gerontol 37:115–123Google Scholar
  26. Nakanishi N, Tatara K (2000) Correlates and prognosis in relation to participation in social activities among older people living in a community in Osaka, Japan. J Clin Geropsychol 6(4):299–307Google Scholar
  27. Nakanishi N, Fukuda H, Tatara K (2003) Changes in psychosocial conditions and eventual mortality in community-residing elderly people. J Epidemiol 13:72–79Google Scholar
  28. Pinquart M, Sörensen S (2000) Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging 15:187–224Google Scholar
  29. Reid M (1934) Economics of household production. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Reis HT, Sheldon KM, Gable SL, Roscoe J, Ryan RM (2000) Daily well-being: the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26(4):419–435Google Scholar
  31. Rowe JW, Kahn RL (1998) Successful aging. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Sapolsky RM (1993) Potential behavioral modification of glucocorticoid damage to the hippocampus. Behav Brain Res 57:175–182Google Scholar
  33. Schooler C, Mulatu MS (2001) The reciprocal effects of leisure time activities and intellectual functioning in older people: a longitudinal analysis. Psychol Aging 16(3):466–482Google Scholar
  34. Seeman TE (2000) Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older adults. Am J Health Promot 14(6):361–370Google Scholar
  35. Seeman TE, McEwen BS (1996) Impact of social environment characteristics on neuroendocrine regulation. Psychosom Med 58:459–471Google Scholar
  36. Seeman TE, Berkman LF, Blazer D, Rowe J (1994) Social ties and support and neuroendocrine function. MacArthur Studies Of Successful Aging. Ann Behav Med 16:95–106Google Scholar
  37. Seeman TE, Singer BH, Ryff CD, Dienberg Love G, Levy-Storms L (2002) Social relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts. Psychosom Med 64(3):395–406Google Scholar
  38. Steinbach U (1992) Social networks, institutionalization and mortality among elderly people in the United States. J Gerontol Soc Sci 47:S183–S190Google Scholar
  39. Thoits PA (1983) Multiple identities and psychological well-being: a reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. Am Sociol Rev 48:174–187Google Scholar
  40. Tinetti ME (1986) A performance-orientated assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 34:119–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Walter-Ginzburg A, Blumstein T, Chetrit A, Modan B (2002) Social factors and mortality in the old-old in Israel: the CALAS study. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 57(5):308–318Google Scholar
  42. Welin L, Larsson B, Svardsudd K, Tibblin B, Tibblin G (1992) Social network and activities in relation to mortality from cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other causes: a 12 year follow up of the study of men born in 1913 and 1923. J Epidemiol Community Health 46(2):127–132Google Scholar
  43. Wilson RS, de Leon CFM, Barnes LL, Schneider JA, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA (2002) Participation in cognitively stimulating activities and risk of Alzheimer disease. J Am Med Assoc 287:742–748Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchRostockGermany
  2. 2.University of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations