The hypothesis that status of the aged is negatively related to societal literacy is tested on a sample of 122 cultures drawn from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample and the Human Relations Area Files. The hypothesis is not supported; instead, a small positive relationship is observed. This relationship, however, appears to be spurious due to the effects of variables indexing societal complexity, which are positively related to status of the aged for societies of the kind represented in this sample. The conclusions of this study are: (1) societal literacy has no independent effect on status of the aged; and (2) the overall relationship between societal complexity and status of the aged appears to be curvilinear. Both of those conclusions are contrary to existing theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SimmonsL. W., The Role of the Aged in Primitive Society, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1945.
2.
OgburnW. T. and NimkoffM. F., Sociology, second edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1940.
3.
CottrellF., The Technological and Societal Bases of Aging, TibbittsC. (ed.), Handbook of Social Gerontology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960.
4.
SimmonsL. W., Aging in Preindustrial Societies, TibbittsC., (ed.), Handbook of Social Gerontology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960.
5.
MooreW. E., Aging and the Social System, McKinneyJ. C. and de VyverF. T. (eds.), Aging and Social Policy, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966.
6.
CowgirlD. O. and HolmesL. D., Aging and Modernization, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1972.
7.
CowgillD. O., Aging and Modernization: A Revision of the Theory, GubriumJ. F., (ed.), Late Life: Communities and Environmental Policy, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1974.
8.
HolmesL. D., Trends in Anthropological Gerontology: From Simmons to the Seventies, Aging and Human Development, 7, pp. 211–220, 1976.
9.
AtchleyR. C., The Social Forces in Later Life, second edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, 1977.
10.
PressI. and McKoolM., Social Structure and Status of the Aged: Toward Some Valid Cross-Cultural Generalizations, Aging and Human Development, 3, pp. 297–306, 1972.
11.
PalmoreE. B. and MantonK., Modernization and Status of the Aged: International Correlations, Journal of Gerontology, 29, pp. 205–210, 1974.
12.
BengtsonV. L.DowdJ. J.SmithD. H. and InkelesA., Modernization, Modernity and Perceptions of Aging: A Cross-Cultural Study, Journal of Gerontology, 30, pp. 688–695, 1975.
13.
LipmanA., Prestige of the Aged in Portugal: Realistic Appraisal and Ritualistic Deference, Aging and Human Development, 1, pp. 127–136, 1970.
14.
MaxwellR. J., The Changing Status of Elderly in Polynesian Society, Aging and Human Development, 1, pp. 137–146, 1970.
15.
PalmoreE. B. and WhittingtonF., Trends in the Relative Status of the Aged, Social Forces, 50, pp. 84–91, 1971.
16.
PalmoreE. B., The Status and Integration of the Aged in Japanese Society, Journal of Gerontology, 30, pp. 199–208, 1975.
17.
WatsonW. H. and MaxwellR. J., Human Aging and Dying: A Study in Sociocultural Gerontology, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1977.
18.
MaxwellR. J. and SilvermanP., Information and Esteem: Cultural Considerations in Treatment of the Aged, Aging and Human Development, 1, pp. 361–392, 1970.
19.
MurdockG. P. and WhiteD. R., Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, Ethnology, 8, pp. 329–369, 1969.
20.
LeeG. R., Family Structure and Interaction: A Comparative Analysis, J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, 1977.
21.
MurdockG. P., Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary, Ethnology, 6, pp. 109–236, 1967.
22.
SheehanT., Senior Esteem as a Factor of Socioeconomic Complexity, Gerontologist, 16, pp. 433–440, 1976.
23.
PalmoreE. and MaddoxG. L., Sociological Aspects of Aging, BusseE. W. and PfeifferE. (eds.), Behavior and Adaptation in Late Life, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1977 (second edition).
24.
BlumbergR. L. and WinchR. F., Societal Complexity and Familiar Complexity: Evidence for the Curvilinear Hypothesis, American Journal of Sociology, 77, pp. 898–920, 1972.
