TITLE: FACILITATING THE HEALTH OF OUR ELDERS: ADDING THE CONCEPT OF
FAMILIAL EFFICACY TO DISCUSSIONS OF HEALTH AND CAREGIVING
formally enforced. In other words, there is no law in the Untied States that positively requires us
to generally care for older members of our family. The second proposition is that social support
is an informal norm among family members. We generally feel a need to support our parents,
which is coupled with varying levels of familialism (Silverstein and Bengtson 1997). These two
propositions lead to the conclusion that if social support is a norm, it must be an effective norm
to actually compel individuals to provide social support.
To add to the complexity, social support is not openly discussed issue during the life
course and lacks specific social scripts. Furthermore, models seeking to explain variation in
care-giving now include several aspects of the adult children, those parents needing care, race
and economic issues (Pearlin, Pioli, and McLaughlin 2001). Variations in care giving cannot be
explained with out attention to cultural differences. Thus, how can an informal norm be
effective, explicit and society wide enforcement?
The answer follows in two parts: social capital networks enforce norms (whether
explicitly stated or otherwise), and social capital spreads beyond directly connected members in
the form of efficacy. The ultimate theoretical challenge this paper attempts to solve is this: how
do different connections between households (i.e., the familial connections among people)
predict patterns of social support of older family members?
Trust and Interpersonal Knowledge. Coleman (1990) defines trust as a calculation
(formal or informal) that one actor (ego) makes about another (alter) in deciding whether or not
to depend on them to act in a certain way. This decision is based on a simple comparison of two
ratios: ego’s estimation of the odds that alter will do X compared to the ratio of ego’s total losses
if alter does not do X to ego’s total gains if alter does perform. If the odds are greater than the
losses/gains, then ego will trust; if they are less than, ego will not trust, and equality between the
E.
C
.
H
EDBERG
,
D
EPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
,
U
NIVERSITY OF
C
HICAGO
4
Convention