Intergenerational connections enhance the personal/social development of young children

Abstract

In the last four decades changes have occurred that have resulted in the virtual disappearance ofthe extendedfamily, and dramatic decrease in the amount ofsignificant interactions between generations. America has become more mobile, widening the geographic and emotional separation between children and senior adults, creating a societal "health" problem -disconnectedness.Traditionalfamilial tasks (caringfor the children and elderly) are now delegated to institutions outside the home; childcare centers and nursing homes. Experts suggest that a general nucleus ofsocial problems including violence, family dysfunction, alcohol/drug abuse, boredom, and lack ofengagement may well be linked to the quality ofexisting care and the amount oftime spent in these environments. This suggests a need to use whatever potential there is to enhance the development ofour nation's children. Could intergenerational programming be the answer?Intergenerational programs unite people ofdifferent age groups in on-going, beneficial experiences that foster the development ofrelationships, while enhancing the quality oflife for those involved. In this nation, intergenerational programs have existed since the 1960 's, but have recently emerged as an answer to a plethora ofsocial problems. While a review ofthe shifting demographic data foretells ofthe impending societal care crisis for young children and senior adults, the amount and variety ofintergenerational research has been limited. Reflecting on the number ofyoung children and senior adults who are now, or those who could potentially be involved in intergenerational programs and the lack ofempirical research, there is a gap in the body ofknowledge related to this emerging field.This cause and effect research study examined the personal/social development of preschool children. Comparative group analysis revealed that children in intergenerational group care settings have significantly higher personal/social developmental scores than children in non-intergenerational settings.

The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: a review

“…After removing the duplicates and irrelevant results, we obtained 55 articles for full text review. The final selection obtained 27 sources ( Figure 1) (Camp et al, 1997;Newman, 1997;Travis et al, 1997;Bales et al, 2000;Middlecamp and Gross, 2002;Rosebrook, 2002;Scott et al, 2005;Epstein and Boisvert, 2006;Ayala et al, 2007;Reisig and Fees, 2007;Holmes, 2009;Doll and Bolender, 2010;Belgrave, 2011;Heyman et al, 2011;Jarrott and Smith, 2011;Kamei et al, 2011;Morita and Kobayashi, 2013;Isaki and Harmon, 2014;Skropeta et al, 2014;Low et al, 2015;Murayama et al, 2015;Thompson and Weaver, 2015;Varma et al, 2015;Sakurai et al, 2016;Teater, 2016;Yasunaga et al, 2016). Ten studies assessed the impact of IG programs upon children (Newman, 1997;Bales et al, 2000;Middlecamp and Gross, 2002;Rosebrook, 2002;Holmes, 2009;Heyman et al, 2011;Kamei et al, 2011;Isaki and Harmon, 2014;Thompson and Weaver, 2015;Yasunaga et al, 2016), 15 referred to the elder population (Ca...…”

“…Differently, a trial performed in Ohio, compared social and personal skills between preschool children involved in IG programs and preschool children not involved in similar activities (Rosebrook, 2002). This study, including 200 children, showed that IG childcare enhanced personal/social development in preschoolers (Rosebrook, 2002).…”

“…Ten studies evaluated children's outcomes (Newman, 1997;Bales et al, 2000;Middlecamp and Gross, 2002;Rosebrook, 2002;Holmes, 2009;Heyman et al, 2011;Kamei et al, 2011;Isaki and Harmon, 2014;Thompson and Weaver, 2015;Yasunaga et al, 2016). The main characteristics of the retrieved studies are summarized in Table 1.…”

“…They were written between 1997 (Newman, 1997) and 2016 (Yasunaga et al, 2016). Eight works were conducted in the US (Newman, 1997;Bales et al, 2000;Middlecamp and Gross, 2002;Rosebrook, 2002;Holmes, 2009;Heyman et al, 2011;Isaki and Harmon, 2014;Thompson and Weaver, 2015), while two in Japan (Kamei et al, 2011;Yasunaga et al, 2016). The sample size ranged from 7 (Kamei et al, 2011) to over 940 children (Thompson and Weaver, 2015).…”

“…The sample size ranged from 7 (Kamei et al, 2011) to over 940 children (Thompson and Weaver, 2015). Most programs took place in school or preschool environments (Newman, 1997;Bales et al, 2000;Rosebrook, 2002;Isaki and Harmon, 2014;Yasunaga et al, 2016).…”