Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences logoLink to The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
. 2023 Jul 26;78(11):1805–1812. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbad103

The Impact of Caregiving History on Later-Life Self-Perceptions of Aging

Rita Xiaochen Hu 1,2,✉, Marina Larkina 3, Jacqui Smith 4,5
Editor: Rodlescia Sneed
PMCID: PMC10645304  PMID: 37494006

Abstract

Objectives

Theories suggest that self-perceptions of aging (SPA) reflect structural and cultural ageism together with an individual’s personal life experiences. We examine the impact of an individual’s history of informal caregiving on their SPA.

Methods

Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS, N = 8,372, age range 50–102 years), we investigated caregiving history as a determinant of later-life SPA. HRS participants provided reports of up to 5 episodes of caregiving, the life-course timing of each episode (start/end year), and their relationship with the care recipients. SPA was measured by the HRS Attitudes Toward Own Aging Scale. We conducted linear regressions to examine associations between specific caregiving histories and later-life SPA. Models included controls for current sociodemographic and health status.

Results

Individuals who were ever a caregiver reported more negative SPA than noncaregivers. Variations in the impact of histories of caregiving were also revealed. Specifically, compared to people who had cared for adult(s) only, HRS participants who cared for both a child with special needs and an adult reported more negative SPA later in life.

Discussion

The study provides insight into potential life-course precursors of SPA and highlights the importance of conceptualizing caregiving history as a complex life experience that might affect an individual’s SPA later in life.

Keywords: Health and Retirement Study, Informal caregiving, Life-course history, Self-perceptions of aging

Self-perceptions of aging (SPA) reflect structural and cultural ageism (Chang et al., 2020; Levy, 2009) together with an individual’s own age-related life experiences, interpersonal relationships, and perceptions of age-related losses and gains (Diehl et al., 2014; Kornadt et al., 2020). Since 2000, a wealth of research has demonstrated that SPA predict psychological well-being, quality of life, physical and cognitive functioning, morbidity, and mortality (see reviews: Hu et al., 2021; Westerhof et al., 2014). In contrast, the current study examines a potential antecedent of late-life SPA, namely a history of informal caregiving.

Informal caregiving involves providing unpaid assistance, often to family members, who have limitations in their physical, mental, or cognitive functioning (Schulz et al., 2020). Numerous empirical studies and reviews have documented both positive and negative physical and psychological consequences for caregivers. In addition, the life span and life-course perspectives and the subjective life-course framework suggest that the timing and characteristics of an individual’s experiences, such as those associated with being an informal caregiver, might shape ageist attitudes and later-life SPA (Barrett & Barbee, 2022; Barrett & Montepare, 2015; Levy, 2003). A recent paper by Canell and Caskie (2021), for example, examined the ageist attitudes and future caregiving intentions of emerging adults who were primary informal caregivers for their grandparent, aunt/uncle, or a neighbor over age 65. Results were mixed but suggested that ageist attitudes might be influenced by early-life experiences as a caregiver. Our study extends the literature by examining the association between later-life SPA and retrospective reports of having given informal care to a child or adult or both in different periods of the life course (e.g., young adulthood, midlife, or as an older adult).

Caregiving History Characteristics and SPA

The caregiving literature reveals the complexity of caregiving experiences and consequences (Schulz et al., 2020). Factors such as caregiver–care recipient relationship (kin or nonkin), duration of care, and the caregiver’s age all contribute to shaping an individual’s caregiving experiences and the caregiver’s health and well-being. The caregiver–care recipient relationship, as well as the quality and length of these experiences, can affect both caregivers’ and recipients’ health and well-being (Marks et al., 2002). Caring for adults, especially older adults, contributes to high levels of depressive symptoms, financial and physical burden, and low psychological well-being (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2011). Parents caring for children with chronic conditions report high levels of depressive symptoms (Pinquart, 2019) and health-related parenting stress (Cohn et al., 2020; Pinquart, 2018). Caring for children may expose caregivers to physical and psychosocial burdens, which could erode their own health and well-being as they age (Namkung et al., 2018; Pohlkamp et al., 2019). Additionally, as caregivers themselves age, they may become increasingly concerned about their ability to continue providing care for their children (Mengel et al., 1996). They might eventually need care themselves and may not receive support from their children (Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2011).

In addition to the caregiver–care recipient relationship, other characteristics, such as the age at which providing care began and the duration of care given, may have long-lasting effects (Barrett & Barbee, 2022; Elder et al., 2003). Having a complex caregiving history, such as caring for both adults and children possibly in parallel or at different times, suggests a prolonged duration of providing care to others and a younger starting age as a caregiver. The long duration of providing care may have mixed effects on a caregiver’s health and well-being. On the one hand, a longer duration of care has been associated with physical and psychological burnout (Monin & Schulz, 2009); on the other hand, it is linked to personal growth (Pendergrass et al., 2019), stress attenuation (Ha et al., 2008), and physical strength (Rosso et al., 2015).

The Present Study

This literature about the consequences of different caregiving experiences together with theories of SPA provide the background for the present study. We proposed that episodes and experiences derived from providing informal care to another person are internalized, and are salient reminders of one’s own aging and manifest in later life as negative SPA. Specifically, we propose that having ever been a caregiver will predict a higher negative SPA in later life. In addition, among individuals with a caregiving history, high levels of negative SPA are associated with caring for adults, an older starting age, and a longer duration of first care.

From a life-course perspective, starting to provide care early in life can be seen as “off-time” because social institutions typically expect caregiving to occur later in life (Elder et al., 2003). Compared to people with a full-time paid work career, lifelong full-time caregivers are more likely to be less financially secure, healthy, or happy (Carmichael & Ercolani, 2016). Caregivers with a complex caregiving history (e.g., providing informal care for a child and an adult) are more likely to have started caregiving at a younger age. These caregivers may suffer from social isolation due to being off-time and experiencing prolonged exposure to caregiving burdens. Social isolation (Hu & Li, 2022) and physical burdens (reminders of one’s own aging and declines, Barrett & Gumber, 2020) have all been shown to be linked to negative SPA. Furthermore, the stereotype embodiment theory suggests that ageist stereotypes become more salient and self-relevant as people advance into older age (Meisner & Levy, 2016). It is also feasible that starting to be a caregiver at a young age may protect the caregiver from internalizing age stereotypes because they may not experience heavy health-related burdens and may have had potentially positive interactions with an older care recipient.

Method

Sample

We used data drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a biennial longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of individuals aged 50 and older in the United States. Specifically, we identified participants (N = 8,372) who provided data in the 2017 HRS retrospective Life History Mail Survey (LHMS, Smith et al., 2022), as well as SPA in the 2016 and 2018 HRS Psychosocial and Lifestyle Leave-Behind Questionnaire (LBQ, Smith et al., 2023).

Measures

Caregiving history

The caregiving history was obtained using an event life calendar method (Smith et al., 2021, 2022). Participants provided information about their informal caregiving history in the 2017 LHMS, where they reported the start and end years of at most five people for whom they provided unpaid care for six or more months and their relationships with the care recipient. Participants were asked, “Have you ever provided unpaid care to a relative or friend with some sort of special needs to help them take care of themselves, such as taking care of personal needs or household chores, managing a person’s finances, arranging for outside services, or visiting regularly to see how they are doing.” The questionnaire included the instruction that raising children without special needs was not defined as informal caregiving.

Provided care.

We created a dichotomized variable indicating whether participants reported any caregiving history (0 = never cared, 1 = cared).

Caregiving relationship.

For those participants who indicated that they provided care, participants chose from a list of relationships (spouse or partner, parents or in-laws, children, relatives, nonrelatives, and others) for every caregiving episode they reported. We created a categorical variable based on the relationships reported across all caregiving episodes (1 = cared for adults only, 2 = cared for a child only, 3 = cared for both). Spouse or partner, parents or in-laws, relatives, nonrelatives, and others were grouped under cared for adults. Children were grouped under cared for a child.

Start age of first care.

The variable was calculated using the start year of the earliest caregiving episode minus the birth year of the respondent and coded categorically (1 = <25 years old, 2 = 25–50 years old, 3 = 50–65 years old, 4 = 65 and above years old).

Duration of first care.

The variable was calculated using the end year of the earliest caregiving episode minus the start year of episode and coded as 0 = <5 years, 1 = 5–10 years, 2 = 10 years or more.

Self-perceptions of aging

The eight-item HRS measure of SPA was derived from the Attitudes Toward Own Aging Scale and the Berlin Aging Study and collected in 2016 and 2018 self-administered LBQ (Lawton, 1975; Liang & Bollen, 1983; Smith et al., 2023). The LBQ is administered to half of the core HRS panel during each wave; therefore, some participants answered the SPA questions in 2016 and others in 2018. The respondents were asked about their perspectives on their own aging on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Five items described negative evaluations (e.g., “Things keep getting worse as I get older”) and three items are positive (e.g., “I am as happy now as I was when I was younger”). We created an SPA score by reverse coding the positively worded items and then averaging the score across all eight items. The score was set to missing if four or more items had missing values (<1%). A higher SPA score indicated more negative SPA (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81).

Covariates

We included two sets of covariates known to be related to SPA, sociodemographic characteristics, and health-related factors. All the covariates were measured when SPA was collected (2016 or 2018). Sociodemographic characteristics included age (coded as 0 = 50–64, 1 = 65–79, 2 = 80 and above), sex (0 = man, 1 = woman), race/ethnicity (0 = non-Hispanic White, 1 = non-Hispanic Black, 2 = Hispanic, 3 = Others), years of education (range 0–17), marital status (0 = not currently married/partnered, 1 = currently married/partnered), employment status (0 = not currently working for pay, 1 = currently working for pay), and total wealth (0 = < 60 percentile, 1 = 60–100 percentile). Current health-related factors included the number of chronic conditions (8 items), physical limitations (12 items), memory (20 items), and depressive symptoms (8 items). The number of chronic conditions was a count of self-reported doctor-diagnosed conditions, including high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, lung disease, heart condition, congestive heart failure, stroke, and arthritis. Physical limitations was a count of the total number of reports about difficulties walking, sitting down and getting up, climbing stairs, stooping, reaching arms, pulling/pushing, lifting weights, and picking up dime. Memory was assessed by immediate and delayed recall of a 10-word list. Depressive symptoms were assessed by an eight-item modification of the Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depression scale (Steffick, 2000).

Analytic Strategies

First, to investigate the association between having ever provided care and later-life SPA, we used linear regression to regress the continuous SPA variable on the dichotomized provided care variable and adjusted for health-related and sociodemographic covariates. Then, we used the subsample of caregivers to examine the effects of caregiving history characteristics on later-life SPA. Specifically, we examined the association between different caregiver–care recipient relationships, start age of first care, and duration of first care and later-life SPA (Model 1). We also controlled for sociodemographic and health-related covariates (Model 2).

We conducted follow-up analyses to examine the sociodemographic variables and caregiving history characteristics associated with different caregiver–care recipient relationships. We used multinomial logistic regression, where we regressed the categorical variable, caregiver–care recipient relationship (cared for adults only—reference, cared for a child only, and cared for both) onto sociodemographic characteristics, later-life health, and other caregiving history characteristics. We also further examined whether different caregiver–care recipient relationships, specifically among those who cared for adults only, have effects on later-life SPA. We created a categorical variable, caregiver–care recipient relationship (cared for parent(s) only—reference, cared for spouse(s) only, cared for other adult(s) and combinations including cared for parent(s) and other(s), spouse(s) and other(s), and spouse(s) and parent(s)). Using linear regressions, we first regress the continuous SPA variable on the caregiver–care recipient relationship (Model 3) and adjusted for health-related and sociodemographic covariates (Model 4). We used R and R-packages papaja, tinylables, dplyr, and nnet for all our analyses.

Results

We will first report sample characteristics (N = 8,372) overall and broken down by caregiving history (never cared and provided care), followed by results regarding whether a caregiving history of providing care is associated with later-life SPA. We then focus on the associations between caregiving history characteristics: caregiver–care recipient relationships, start age of first care, and duration of first care. For this second analysis, we used the subsample of caregivers (n = 2,154 participants) who reported caregiver–care recipient relationships. From this subsample, 301 participants were excluded from the final analytic caregiver subsample (n = 1,853) because they had missing responses on the start and/or end year of their caregiving history. Participants who were dropped from the analytic sample are more likely to be Black (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI 1.07, 2.13]), Hispanic (OR = 1.93, 95% CI [1.24, 2.95]), married (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.04, 1.79]), to have poor memory (OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.86, 0.94]), and cared for child(ren) only (OR = 2.73, 95% CI [1.76, 4.18]).

Effects of Having a Caregiving History on Later-Life SPA

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample (N = 8,372) overall and broken down by participants who never provided care and those who provided care. Preliminary descriptive logistic regression revealed that compared to people who never provided care, caregivers were less likely to be 80 years and older, currently married or partnered, currently working, and in the lower 60 percentile of total wealth (see Supplementary Table 1). Caregivers were more likely to be women, non-Hispanic White, and to have more years of education.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (N = 8,372)

Never cared (n = 6,218) Cared (n = 2,154) Overall
M (SD)/% M (SD)/% M (SD)/%
SPA (1–6) 3.09 (1.02) 3.13 (1.03) 3.10 (1.02)
Age (50–102) 70.30 (9.73) 70.5 (9.29) 70.4 (9.61)
Woman 56% 72% 60%
Race/ethnicity
 White (non-Hispanic) 68% 76% 70%
 Black (non-Hispanic) 17% 15% 16%
 Hispanic 13% 7% 10%
 Others 3% 2% 3%
Years of education (0–17) 13.00 (2.96) 13.60 (2.54) 13.2 (2.87)
Married/partnered 60% 54% 58%
Working for pay 28% 25% 27%
Total wealth <60 percentile 52% 46% 51%
Chronic conditions (0–8) 2.23 (1.42) 2.24 (1.40) 2.23 (1.41)
Physical limitations (0–10) 2.53 (2.75) 2.55 (2.71) 2.54 (2.74)
Depressive symptoms (0–8) 0.30 (1.28) 0.35 (1.25) 0.31 (1.30)
Memory (0–20) 9.63 (3.32) 10.4 (3.23) 9.83 (3.32)
Open in a new tab

Notes: SD = standard deviation; SPA = self-perceptions of aging. SPA were collected in 2016 or 2018. Sociodemographic characteristics and health status were collected in the year of SPA.

Results from the linear regression of later-life SPA on people’s caregiving history (Table 2) showed that compared to people who never provided care, caregivers were likely to report higher negative SPA later in life after controlling for current health and sociodemographic characteristics (β = 0.06, standard error [SE] = .02, p = .005).

Table 2.

Linear Regression of SPA on Provided Care: Adjusted for Covariates (N = 8,372)

β (SE)
Intercept 3.07*** (0.07)
Caregiving history—never cared as reference
 Provided care 0.06** (0.02)
Age—50–64 as reference
 80 and above 0.08*(0.03)
Woman −0.13*** (0.02)
Race/ethnicity—non-Hispanic White as reference
 Black −0.32*** (0.03)
 Hispanic −0.11** (0.04)
Years of education −0.02*** (0.00)
Married/partnered −0.04* (0.02)
Total wealth—60 and above percentiles as reference
 <60 percentiles 0.08*** (0.02)
Chronic conditions 0.09*** (0.01)
Memory −0.02*** (0.00)
Depressive symptoms 0.10*** (0.01)
Physical limitations 0.13*** (0.00)
R 2 0.26
Open in a new tab

Notes: SE = standard error; SPA = self-perceptions of aging. Variables: age 65–79, race/ethnicity—Others, and working are omitted from the table due to nonstatistically significant results.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Effects of Caregiving History Characteristics on Later-Life SPA

The caregiving subsample (N = 1,853) was drawn from participants who reported providing informal care to at least one person and had no missing information on the start and end dates of care. Table 3 provides the caregiving history characteristics of the caregivers (see also Supplementary Table 2 for all sociodemographic characteristics and health status). Most caregivers cared for adult(s) (91%), started their first care between age 50 and 65 (42%), and provided less than 5 years of care during their first caregiving episode (52%).

Table 3.

Caregiving History Characteristics (N = 1,853)

M (SD)/%
Race/ethnicity White (non-Hispanic) 91%
Black (non-Hispanic) 14%
Hispanic 6%
Others 2%
Married/partnered 54%
Memory (0–20) 10.60 (3.18)
Care–recipient caregiver relationship Cared for adult(s) only 91%
Cared for a child only 5%
Cared for both 4%
Start age of care <25 years old 5%
25–50 years old 39%
50–65 years old 42%
65 years and older 15%
Duration of first care <5 years 52%
5–10 years 27%
10+ years 21%
Open in a new tab

Notes: SD = standard deviation; SPA = self-perceptions of aging. SPA other sociodemographic characteristics and health status are not statistically different from the caregiver sample reported in Table 1 (N = 2,154).

Results from the unadjusted linear regression of later-life SPA on caregiving history characteristics (Table 4, Model 1) showed that compared to people who cared for adults only, people who cared for both a child and an adult were likely to report higher negative SPA later in life (β = 0.30, SE = .10, p = .04), whereas people who cared for a child only did not differ from those who cared for adult(s) (β = 0.03, SE = .12, p = .77). Compared to people whose first caregiving episode is less than 5 years, those whose first episode is longer than 10 years were likely to report higher negative SPA later in life (β = 0.21, SE = .07, p = .001).

Table 4.

Linear Regressions of SPA on Caregiving History Characteristics (N = 1,835)

Model 1
β (SE)		 Model 2
β (SE)
Intercept 3.19*** (0.12) 3.07*** (0.18)
Caregiving relationships—cared for adults only as reference
 Cared for a child only 0.03 (0.12) 0.15 (0.10)
 Cared for both 0.23* (0.12) 0.20* (0.10)
Duration of first care—<5 years as reference
 5–10 years 0.01 (0.06) 0.01 (0.05)
 10+ years 0.21** (0.06) 0.07 (0.06)
Woman −0.15** (0.05)
Race/ethnicity—non-Hispanic White as reference
 Black −0.40*** (0.06)
Total wealth—60 and above percentile as reference
 <60 percentile 0.11* (0.05)
Chronic conditions 0.09*** (0.02)
Memory −0.03*** (0.01)
Depressive symptoms 0.09*** (0.02)
Physical limitations 0.12*** (0.01)
R 2 0.01 0.26
Open in a new tab

Notes: SE = standard error; SPA = self-perceptions of aging. Variables start age of first care, age, race/ethnicity-Hispanic, race/ethnicity—Others, years of education, married/partnered, and working are omitted from the table due to nonstatistically significant results.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

After controlling for later-life sociodemographic and health status (Model 2), people who cared for both were likely to report higher negative SPA later in life (β = 0.20, SE = .10, p = .04), but the association between prolonged duration of first care (more than 10 years) and later-life SPA did not differ from those who cared for a shorter time (less than 5 years).

Additional analyses

A follow-up analysis was undertaken to elucidate the sociodemographic characteristics of the caregivers who cared for a child only and both a child and an adult. Supplementary Table 3 shows the results from the multinomial logistic regression among caregivers. Comparing people who cared for adult(s) only, people who cared for a child only were more likely to start their first caregiving episode when they were younger than 25 years old (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 2.77 95% CI [1.13–6.76]), older than 65 years old (RRR = 4.80, 95% CI [2.25–10.26]), and to have provided care for longer than 10 years of care during the first caregiving episode (RRR = 4.90, 95% CI [2.80–8.58]). Compared to people who cared for adults only, people who cared for both a child and an adult were more likely to currently have more physical limitations (RRR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.94–1.14]), to start a first caregiving episode when they were younger than 50 years old (<25 years old, RRR = 4.90, 95% CI [2.11–11.38]; 25–50 years old, RRR = 2.65, 95% CI [1.49–4.71]), and to have provided more than 10 years of care during the first caregiving episode (RRR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.01–3.06]).

We also further explored the categories of caregiving relationships for adults and their effects on later-life SPA, using the subsample of caregivers who cared for adults only (n = 1,686). Within this group, 55% cared for parent(s) only, 17% cared for spouse(s) only, and 28% cared for other adult(s) or combinations. Supplementary Table 4 shows the results from the linear regressions. The association between cared for spouse(s), cared for other adult(s), and combinations and later-life SPA did not show any significant differences compared to those who cared for parent(s) only.

Discussion

Motivated by life span and life-course perspectives, this study sought to investigate the impact of caregiving history on later-life SPA. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that having ever been a caregiver is associated with higher negative SPA in later life. Moreover, we found that different caregiver–care recipient relationships have disparate effects on caregivers’ later-life SPA. Specifically, caring for both a child and an adult is associated with higher negative SPA later in life compared to caring for adult(s) only. Unexpectedly, other caregiving characteristics, including the start age of caregiving and the duration of the first care, were not associated with later-life SPA in the fully adjusted model, after controlling for later-life sociodemographic and health measures.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effects of caregiving histories on caregivers’ own SPA. Consistent with Barrett and Barbee’s (2022) subjective life-course framework, retrospective constructions of one’s past life can influence current and future self-perceptions. Using retrospective life history data, the current study expands prior research by conceptualizing caregiving history as an important life experience and a potential antecedent of later-life SPA.

An important finding from the study is that the experience of caring for both a child and an adult has negative effects on caregivers’ SPA later in life. This finding aligns with earlier studies suggesting that varying caregiver–care recipient relationships have distinct effects on caregivers’ psychological well-being (Marks et al., 2002). Nevertheless, our finding further expands the literature by documenting the complexity of caregiver–care recipient relationships beyond primary kin versus nonkin. The current study highlights that informal caregiving can be conceptualized as an age-related life experience and that the caregiver–care recipient relationship can shape caregivers’ outlook of their own aging.

A history of caring for both a child and an adult has unique effects on SPA, even after controlling other factors linked to SPA (i.e., physical and mental health). Our findings from the additional analyses that compared to people who cared for adult(s) only suggest that those who cared for a child and an adult were more likely to report more physical limitations later in life (i.e., the same year SPA was measured). It is possible that these caregivers experienced a double dose of burden. Studies have shown, for example, that caring for adults and children with chronic conditions is both linked to physical stress (Namkung et al., 2018; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2011). In addition, compared to people who cared for adult(s) only, those who cared for both were more likely to start caregiving at a young age (<25 years old) and to provide care for 10 or more years. The experience of prolonged double burdens can erode a caregiver’s physical health, which can become reminders of one’s own aging and declines, and contribute to negative SPA (Barrett & Gumber, 2020).

Our findings about the associations between other caregiving history characteristics and later-life SPA yielded some unexpected results. None of the other caregiving history characteristics, including start age of first care and duration of first care, were associated with later-life SPA after adjusting for sociodemographic and current health covariates. This contrasts with proposals about the importance of the timing of life-course events (Barrett & Barbee, 2022), and that ageist stereotypes become more salient as people advance into older age because they are more self-relevant (Meisner & Levy, 2016), and with earlier studies (Moen et al., 1995) which found that the timing and duration of caregiving in women’s lives influenced their well-being. The association between cared for 10 or more years and negative SPA became nonsignificant after controlling for sociodemographic and health characteristics may suggest that the effects of caregiving history characteristics on SPA can be attributed to their influence on later-life physical and mental health. As caregiving history remains a relatively unexplored domain, future studies should further examine the timing of caregiving in relation to the caregiver’s age. For example, by employing sequence analysis (Carmichael & Ercolani, 2016), researchers can take a closer look at the effects of timing in the life course. Providing care at a younger age can be considered “off time” because, on average, caregiving is expected to happen later in life, and this might lead to different perceptions of one’s own aging.

Our findings also point to potential gender differences in caregiving and SPA. Follow-up analyses revealed that women, compared to men, were more likely to have a caregiving history. However, in the full sample including both individuals with and without a caregiving history, men are more likely to have more negative SPA. This pattern persisted among caregivers. The current literature presents mixed findings regarding gender differences in subjective age and SPA. Middle-aged women tend to report an older subjective age than men (Barrett, 2005), but older women tend to report a younger subjective age than older men (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001). Nevertheless, there were no statistically significant differences in SPA between men and women (Diehl et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021). Taken together with earlier studies, our results suggest that being a male caregiver may hinder later-life SPA, possibly due to deviation from societal expectations. Nevertheless, studies on caregivers found the timing and duration of caregiving in women’s lives were related to caregiver’s effects on their well-being (Ice, 2023; Moen et al., 1995). Future studies should delve into the experience of being a male caregiver and its effects on the caregiver.

Our analyses also revealed that compared to Whites, Black caregivers are less likely to report higher negative SPA later in life. Although follow-up analyses on caregiving history characteristics did not find Black caregivers to be significantly different than White caregivers, recent studies have shown that there are racial differences in late-life SPA (Huo et al., 2023). The field should further explore the roles that race and culture play in interpreting caregiving experiences and aging.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that even though providing care had a negative effect on SPA, caring for both a child and an adult had a stronger effect on SPA than caring for adults only. This suggests that future studies should examine informal caregivers’ perceptions of their own aging separately from their attitudes toward older adults in general. According to the ageism and stereotype embodiment framework, negative SPA (self-directed ageism) becomes prominent after internalizing societal ageism across the life span. Meaningful interactions with older adults through caregiving may weaken informal caregivers’ negative SPA by dispelling negative expectations about older adults in general. This finding might also underscore the difference between informal and formal caregiving. Specifically, research on health care professionals (formal caregivers) indicates that caregiving experiences may foster negative attitudes and behaviors toward older adults (Baltes & Silverberg, 2019; Baltes & Wahl, 1992). Future research should investigate the role of different caregiving contexts, such as informal (e.g., caring for aging parents at home) versus formal (e.g., paid care in a facility or at home), in shaping caregivers’ SPA.

The interpretation of our study findings is constrained by the limited information about each caregiving history episode and early-life measures of perceptions of aging. Additionally, there is the possibility that participants may not have remembered all episodes of informal caregiving that happened in early adulthood (i.e., 30 years ago; Smith et al., 2021). Our data also lack specific details about caregiving history, such as the specific types of relationships and relationship quality between the caregiver and care recipient, reasons for caregiving, and the intensity of care, all of which have been shown to affect caregivers’ health and well-being. Although we could distinguish whether the care recipient was a spouse or close kin (i.e., a parent or relative), we could not make such distinctions for other relationships. Moreover, aside from parents, we do not have data on the age of the care recipient relative to the caregiver. Our follow-up analyses found no significant differences in later-life SPA among caregivers who cared for different adults (parent, spouse, others, parent and others, spouse and others, and parent and spouse). Future studies would benefit from having more specific information about the caregiver–care recipient relationships available. In addition to delving deeper into early-life caregiving history, future work should also examine the longitudinal nature of caregiving and changes in SPA. For example, future studies might investigate both histories of providing care and those caregivers who are still providing care, together with the effects of informal caregiving on changes in SPA over time.

The quality of caregiving relationships may play a greater role, than the practical (instrumental) aspects of providing care, in shaping caregivers’ later-life SPA. As suggested by related work, quality of the informal caregiving relationship and informal caregivers’ attitudes toward the care recipient (Canell & Caskie, 2021) play a role in shaping the caregivers’ attitudes toward older adults. Whether the quality has any effects on caregivers’ outlook for their own aging remains unexplored. Future research should explore the quality aspects of the caregiver–care recipient relationship. Furthermore, there are suggestions that SPA fluctuates in response to major life events and at different life stages (Diehl et al., 2021; Wolff et al., 2017). Future studies should examine SPA over time.

Despite these limitations, this study presents a pioneering exploration into the influence of caregiving histories on later-life SPA. Utilizing rich life history data, it provides new insights into the complexities of caregiving experience and how they shape people’s SPA. The findings expand existing theoretical frameworks concerning the antecedents of negative SPA. In doing so, it emphasizes the importance of conceptualizing caregiving not merely as an isolated event, but as a complex life experience with enduring impacts. Our study highlights the importance to explore how early-life experiences continue to reverberate throughout our lives, influencing people’s perceptions and expectations toward their own aging.

Supplementary Material

gbad103_suppl_Supplementary_Material
Click here for additional data file. (27.2KB, docx)

Contributor Information

Rita Xiaochen Hu, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Marina Larkina, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Jacqui Smith, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

The Health and Retirement Study is supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740). This work is supported by the NIA (R01 AG05114: PI Smith). R. X. Hu is supported by the University of Michigan’s Karl C.K. Ma Scholarship and the Elizabeth Douvan Junior Scholars Fund in Life Course Development. J. Smith and M. Larkina are partially supported by R01 AG05114 and U01 AG009740.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Author Contributions

R. X. Hu conceived the study, conducted data analysis, and wrote up a first draft of the manuscript. M. Larkina was ­involved in interpretation of findings, data analysis, and revision of the manuscript. J. Smith was involved in the conceptualization of the study, interpretation of findings, and revisions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Baltes, M. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (2019). The dynamics between dependency and autonomy: Illustrations across the life span. In Featherman D. L., Lerner R. M., & Perlmutter M. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (pp. 41–90). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baltes, M. M., & Wahl, H.-W. (1992). The dependency-support script in institutions: Generalization to community settings. Psychology and Aging, 7(3), 409–418. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.7.3.409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barrett, A. E. (2005). Gendered experiences in midlife: Implications for age identity. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(2), 163–183. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2004.05.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barrett, A. E., & Barbee, H. (2022. ). The subjective life course framework: Integrating life course sociology with gerontological perspectives on subjective aging. Advances in Life Course Research, 51, 100448. doi: 10.1016/j.alcr.2021.100448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett, A. E., & Gumber, C. (2020). Feeling old, body and soul: The effect of aging body reminders on age identity. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 75(3), 625–629. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gby085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrett, A. E., & Montepare, J. M. (2015). “It’s about time”: Applying life span and life course perspectives to the study of subjective age. In Diehl M. & Wahl H.-W. (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, Vol. 35, 2015: Subjective aging: New developments and future directions (pp. 55–77). Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  7. Canell, A. E., & Caskie, G. I. L. (2021). Emerging adult caregivers: Quality of contact, ageism, and future caregiving. Gerontologist, 62, 984–993. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnab173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carmichael, F., & Ercolani, M. G. (2016). Unpaid caregiving and paid work over life-courses: Different pathways, diverging outcomes. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 156, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang, E.-S., Kannoth, S., Levy, S., Wang, S.-Y., Lee, J. E., & Levy, B. R. (2020). Global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLoS One, 15(1), e0220857. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220857 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohn, L. N., Pechlivanoglou, P., Lee, Y., Mahant, S., Orkin, J., Marson, A., & Cohen, E. (2020). Health outcomes of parents of ­children with chronic illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Pediatrics, 218, 166–177.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Diehl, M., Wahl, H. W., Barrett, A. E., Brothers, A. F., Miche, M., Montepare, J. M., Westerhof, G. J., & Wurm, S. (2014). Awareness of ­aging: Theoretical considerations on an emerging concept. Developmental review: DR, 34(2), 93–113. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Diehl, M., Wettstein, M., Spuling, S. M., & Wurm, S. (2021). Age-related change in self-perceptions of aging: Longitudinal trajectories and predictors of change. Psychology and Aging, 36(3), 344–359. doi: 10.1037/pag0000585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer J. T. & Shanahan M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ha, J.-H., Hong, J., Seltzer, M. M., & Greenberg, J. S. (2008). Age and gender differences in the well-being of midlife and aging parents with children with mental health or developmental problems: Report of a national study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49(3), 301–316. doi: 10.1177/002214650804900305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hu, R. X., & Li, L. W. (2022). Social disconnectedness and loneliness: Do self-perceptions of aging play a role? The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 77(5), 936–945. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbac008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hu, R. X., Luo, M., Zhang, A., & Li, L. W. (2021). Associations of ageism and health: A systematic review of quantitative observational studies. Research on Aging, 43(7–8), 311–322. doi: 10.1177/0164027520980130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Huo, M., Kim, K., & Haghighat, M. D. (2023). Changes in self-perceptions of aging among black and white older adults: The role of volunteering. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 78(5), 830–840. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbad007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ice, E. (2023). Bringing family demography back in: A life course approach to the gender gap in caregiving in the United States. Social Forces, 101(3), 1143–1170. doi: 10.1093/sf/soac041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Dunkle, R. E., Chadiha, L., Lawrence-Jacobson, A., Li, L., Weir, E., & Satorius, J. (2011). Intergenerational ambivalence: Aging mothers whose adult daughters are ­mentally ill. Families in Society, 92(1), 114–119. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim, Y. K., Kim, K., Neupert, S. D., & Boerner, K. (2021). Changes in married older adults’ self-perceptions of aging: The role of gender. Psychology and Aging, 36(3), 383–393. doi: 10.1037/pag0000507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kornadt, A. E., Kessler, E.-M., Wurm, S., Bowen, C. E., Gabrian, M., & Klusmann, V. (2020). Views on ageing: A lifespan perspective. European Journal of Ageing, 17(4), 387–401. doi: 10.1007/s10433-019-00535-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lawton, M. P. (1975). The Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale: A revision. Journal of Gerontology, 30(1), 85–89. doi: 10.1093/geronj/30.1.85 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Levy, B. (2009). Stereotype embodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 332–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01662.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Levy, B. R. (2003). Mind matters: Cognitive and physical effects of aging self-stereotypes. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(4), P203–11. doi: 10.1093/geronb/58.4.p203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liang, J., & Bollen, K. A. (1983). The structure of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale scale: A reinterpretation. Journal of Gerontology, 38(2), 181–189. doi: 10.1093/geronj/38.2.181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Marks, N. F., Lambert, J. D., & Choi, H. (2002). Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective U.S. national study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 657–667. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00657.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Meisner, B. A., & Levy, B. R. (2016). Age stereotypes’ influence on health: Stereotype embodiment theory. In Bengtson V. L., Settersten R. A. Jr., Kennedy B. K., Morrow-Howell N., & Smith J. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (3rd ed., pp. 259–275). Springer Publishing Company. doi: 10.1891/9780826129437.0014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mengel, M. H., Marcus, D. B., & Dunkle, R. E. (1996). “What will happen to my child when i’m gone?” A support and education group for aging parents as caregivers. Gerontologist, 36(6), 816–820. doi: 10.1093/geront/36.6.816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Moen, P., Robison, J., & Dempster-McClain, D. (1995). Caregiving and women’s well-being: A life course approach. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(3), 259–273. doi: 10.2307/2137342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Monin, J. K., & Schulz, R. (2009). Interpersonal effects of suffering in older adult caregiving relationships. Psychology and Aging, 24(3), 681–695. doi: 10.1037/a0016355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Namkung, E. H., Greenberg, J. S., Mailick, M. R., & Floyd, F. J. (2018). Lifelong parenting of adults with developmental disabilities: Growth trends over 20 years in midlife and later life. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(3), 228–240. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-123.3.228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pendergrass, A., Mittelman, M., Graessel, E., Özbe, D., & Karg, N. (2019). Predictors of the personal benefits and positive aspects of informal caregiving. Aging & Mental Health, 23(11), 1533–1538. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2018.1501662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pinquart, M. (2018). Parenting stress in caregivers of children with chronic physical condition—A meta-analysis. Stress and Health, 34(2), 197–207. doi: 10.1002/smi.2780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Pinquart, M. (2019). Depressive symptoms in parents of children with chronic health conditions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 44(2), 139–149. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsy075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well-being in old age: a meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56(4), P195–P213. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.4.p195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2011). Spouses, adult children, and children-in-law as caregivers of older adults: A meta-analytic comparison. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1037/a0021863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pohlkamp, L., Kreicbergs, U., & Sveen, J. (2019). Bereaved mothers’ and fathers’ prolonged grief and psychological health 1 to 5 years after loss—A nationwide study. Psycho-Oncology, 28(7), 1530–1536. doi: 10.1002/pon.5112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rosso, A. L., Lee, B. K., Stefanick, M. L., Kroenke, C. H., Coker, L. H., Woods, N. F., & Michael, Y. L. (2015). Caregiving frequency and physical function: The Women’s Health Initiative. The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 70(2), 210–215. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schulz, R., Beach, S. R., Czaja, S. J., Martire, L. M., & Monin, J. K. (2020). Family caregiving for older adults. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 635–659. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, J., Hu, M., & Lee, H. (2021). Measuring life course events and life histories. In Ferraro K. F. & Carr D. (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (9th ed., pp. 33–47). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815970-5.00003-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith, J., Ofstedal, M., Larkina, M., Helppie-McFall, B., Sonnega, A., & Weir, D. (2022). LHMS user guide 2015-2017. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/publications/biblio/12749 [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, J., Ryan, L. H., Larkina, M., Sonnega, A., & Weir, D. R. (2023). Psychosocial and lifestyle questionnaire 2006–2022. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://hrspubs.sites.uofmhosting.net/publications/biblio/12903 [Google Scholar]
  43. Steffick, D. (2000). Documentation of affective functioning measures in the Health and Retirement Study. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/sites/default/files/biblio/dr-005 [Google Scholar]
  44. Westerhof, G. J., Miche, M., Brothers, A. F., Barrett, A. E., Diehl, M., Montepare, J. M., Wahl, H.-W., & Wurm, S. (2014). The influence of subjective aging on health and longevity: A meta-analysis of longitudinal data. Psychology and Aging, 29(4), 793–802. doi: 10.1037/a0038016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wolff, J. K., Schüz, B., Ziegelmann, J. P., Warner, L. M., & Wurm, S. (2017). Short-term buffers, but long-term suffers? Differential effects of negative self-perceptions of aging following serious health events. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(3), 408–414. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv058 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

gbad103_suppl_Supplementary_Material
Click here for additional data file. (27.2KB, docx)

Articles from The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES