Turning points in the lives of midlife and older women

Abstract

he study explored the turning points in their lives reported by 60 married or previously married lower-T income midlife and older women (born 1931-1936, 1941-1 946 and 1951-1 956), and considered the importance of age and cohort effects. Following a life-review interview, respondents were asked to nominate the turning points in their lives. The turning points that were identified were classified as involving predominantly a role transition, an adversity, or an experience of personal growth.There were significant cohort differences in that the youngest cohort nominated significantly more adversities and the oldest cohort correspondingly fewer. In the total sample, role transitions and adversity turning points were most commonly experienced between the ages of 21 and 40 years, while personal development experiences increased after midlife.It is noted that the turning point approach allows respondents to select and prioritise their own significant life events, and these are not always those that are emphasised in the literature on ageing. In the present study, the most frequently reported turning points were not marriage or motherhood, as might be expected, but personal growth experiences involving psychological "self-work", such as deciding to become more independent or to change one's lifestyle. The next most common was the death of a relative or friend, which acted as a turning point in diverse emotional and philosophical ways. In contrast, issues that are a frequent topic of life event research, such as the "empty nest" or menopause, were rarely mentioned. Most importantly, the study findings highlight the importance of experiences -and in particular personal growth experiences -that occur in the second half of life.How does age affect the way that people perceive their lives? Do older people believe that their lives have been mainly shaped by events that occurred early on, or do they continue to experience significant change within themselves right through life? And have the social changes of recent times made for differences in this respect between different birth cohorts? The present paper approaches these questions by comparing "turning points" in the lives of three birth cohorts of midlife and older women. We ask whether the women describe most of their significant turning points as occurring early in life -in childhood, youth and early adulthood -or as continuing at every age, and whether those women now aged in their sixties report a different pattern from those in their fifties and forties.

Using a Matrix in Life Transition Research

“…Turning points researchers recognize this by asking people to reflect on their lives and name major occurrences that have changed the course of their lives (Leonard & Burns, 1999;Ronka et al, 2003). These researchers have found that some events recognized as important in life events or transitions research were not named as turning points, even though they had occurred in that person's life.…”

Turning points in the lives of midlife and older women:Five-year follow-up

“…The Coming of Age longitudinal study follows the lives of three groups of women, first interviewed in their early 40s, 50s and 60s. This paper presents a comparison of the turning points identified in the first 5-year follow-up with those in the original interviews (Leonard & Burns, 1999).…”

“…Stage 1 of the research (Leonard & Burns, 1999) showed that there were significant group differences in that the youngest cohort nominated significantly more adversities and the oldest cohort correspondingly fewer. In the total sample, role transitions and adversity turning points were most commonly experienced between the ages of 21 and 40 years, while personal development experiences increased after midlife.…”

The potential of older adults to enhance community quality of life: Links between positive psychology and productive aging

“…Gerontologists hold conflicting opinions about the capacities, competencies, and potentials of older people (for some divergent viewpoints see P. Baltes et al, 1996;Berg, 1996;George & Clipp, 1991;Giambra, Camp, & Grodsky, 1992;Hultsch, Hertzog, Small, & Dixon, 1999;Leonard & Burns, 1999;Rapkin & Fischer, 1992;Ryff & Keyes, 1995). One possible reason for this lack of consensus is a historical over-emphasis on studying individuals in isolation rather than as active agents interacting with their social context (P. Baltes et al, 1996;Bronfenbrenner, 1989;Labouvie-Vief & Chandler, 1978;Ranzijn, in press;Thomas & Chambers, 1989;Verhaegen, Geraerts, & Marcoen, 2000).…”