Author
Listed:
- Laura Upenieks
- Alex Biern
- Yeonjung Lee
Abstract
ObjectivesThis research examines whether a sense of divine control modifies nonlinear associations between frequency of caregiving for individuals with a chronic health condition or a limitation and two aspects of psychological distress (depression and anxiety symptomology).MethodsData were derived from the Caregiving, Aging, and Financial Experiences Study, a national longitudinal study of Canadians aged 65–85 (x̄ = 71.8) collected in 2021 and 2022 (N = 2,420). Within-between models tested nonlinear associations between caregiving and the distress outcomes, examining two types of associations: (a) associations based on time-stable differences between people and (b) associations based on factors that vary within individuals over time. Moderation of these associations by time-stable sense of divine control (due to its high stability) was subsequently tested.ResultsAt the between- and within-person levels, frequency of caregiving was nonlinearly associated with both outcomes, with benefits of caregiving at lower frequencies of care and detriments at higher frequencies. This pattern was more pronounced for within-person caregiving. For several associations, the salubrious aspects were strengthened and the deleterious aspects weakened by a sense of divine control, thereby indicating stress buffering.DiscussionReaching the end of life y place a burden on caregivers, but caregiving can have benefits for mental health at a lower frequency of care, leading to nonlinear associations between frequency of caregiving and psychological distress. A failure to consider nonlinearity y conceal these benefits. Beliefs in a supportive relationship with a higher power through a sense of divine control bolster the benefits and weaken the mental health detriments of caregiving.
Suggested Citation
Laura Upenieks & Alex Biern & Yeonjung Lee, 2025.
"The paradox of inforl caregiving: benefits and harms to mental health in the context of sense of divine control,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 80(10), pages 126.-126..
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:80:y:2025:i:10:p:gbaf126.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:80:y:2025:i:10:p:gbaf126.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.