Journal of Gerontology

Vol. 36, No. 2, 244-250

The Impact of Preretirement Programs

on the Retirement Experience1
Francis D. Glamser, PhD2
In an attempt to provide evidence on the impact of preretirement programs on the retirement experience
of participants a longitudinal design was employed. Two experimental groups and a control group
were used to evaluate a comprehensive group discussion program and an individual briefing program.

Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
Questionnaire data were collected prior to program initiation and again six years later. Over 80 male
industrial workers participated throughout the project. Now age 65 or over they have been retired an
average of 3.7 years. Posttest data indicate no significant effect upon the retirement experience by either
program. No substantive differences with the control group were noted in length of adjustment period,
accuracy of expectations, level of preparation, life satisfaction, attitude toward retirement, or job
deprivation. It was concluded that the impact of preretirement programs may be of short duration
and of primary value in the preretirement phase.
Key Terms: Preretirement programs, Retirement, Retirement counseling, Retirement education,
Retirement preparation.

P1965).RERETIREMENT programs have been

in existence for nearly 30 years (Hunter,
Such programs are designed to ease
employers in that they may promote better
employee relations and encourage early re-
tirement of highly paid workers. The recent
the transition to retirement and to minimize legal prohibition of mandatory retirement prior
problems which may be encountered. They to age 70 makes this latter consideration
were thought to be necessary because of the doubly important.
importance of the worker role as a source of Preretirement programs are known by many
identity and status (Donahue et al., 1960; names: retirement planning, preretirement
Friedmann&Havighurst, 1954;Maddox, 1966; education, preretirement counseling, and
Miller, 1965). The loss of this role was seen preparation for retirement. These programs
as a potential source of a number of patho- have either an individual or group approach.
logical results for the retiree. The individual approach features one or more
More recent research suggests that the briefings with the prospective retiree during
importance of work has been overrated as a which he or she is advised of pension benefits,
factor in retirement adjustment (Atchley, 1976; social security regulations, and general
Glamser, 1976; Goudy et al., 1975; Simpson retirement information. This method is the
et al., 1966a). The most important factors in most common in industry and is usually
retirement adjustment are health and finances, handled by a company personnel manager.
and few retirees actually miss their job The group method is more comprehensive
(Atchley, 1976; Ward, 1979). and is most likely to be employed by large
In spite of the changing views of geron- organizations where there are a number of
tologists with respect to retirement, there has older workers at a given time. This approach
been a recent substantial growth in the preva- may include group discussions, role playing,
lence of retirement preparation programs. In lectures, printed material, and/or audio-visual
addition to meeting the needs of workers, such materials in order to provide a broad coverage
programs are thought to be advantageous to of retirement issues and to deal with the
feelings and concerns of the participants. It
is important to note, however, that probably
'Revision of a paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the
Gerontological Society, Washington, DC, Nov., 1979. This research was no more than 15% of large companies provide
supported in part by a North Texas State Univ. faculty research grant.
2
Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology, Univ. of Southern Mississippi,
a comprehensive preretirement program
Hattiesburg, MS 39401. (O'Meara, 1977).

244
 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS
In view of the growing interest in retirement
preparation, it is surprising that there is little
meaningful evidence on the long-term effec-
tiveness of such programs. While there have
been numerous research reports seeking to
evaluate preretirement programs, most fail
to provide a definitive test because of methodo-
logical problems (Charles, 1971; Hunter, 1957,
1968; Mack, 1958). To differing extents most
studies suffer one or more of the following
deficiencies: no control group, self-selected
samples (volunteers), and/or immediate
measurement of results.
One study attempted to overcome these
problems by employing an experimental design
with randomly assigned groups and a 4 week
delay subsequent to program completion prior
to the posttest (Glamser & DeJong, 1975).
Among the workers studied the group discus-
sion method was effective in increasing know-
ledge of retirement issues. Participants felt
better prepared for retirement and evidenced
less uncertainty about the future. They also
exhibited an increase in retirement preparation
activities and plans. However, because the
participants had not retired, no conclusions
as to the actual retirement experience were
possible.
A similar but more sophisticated study is
that of Tiberi et al., (1978). Over 500 older
workers volunteered to participate in one of
four preretirement education programs—each
of which involved a different model of retire-
ment preparation. The models were identified
as: (1) facilitated interaction; (2) semistruc-
tured stimulus discussion; (3) presentation
audience; and (4) individual resource. Partici-
pants, including members of a control group,
completed questionnaires prior to program
initiation and three months subsequent to
program completion.
The data suggest that the type of preretire-
ment program employed is an important factor
in behavioral, informational, and attitudinal
outcomes. The facilitated interaction and
stimulus discussion models were most effective
in the area of behavioral change, while the
facilitated interaction and presentation audi-
ence models were most effective with respect
to informational change. While attitudinal
change was minimal (as has been the case in
other studies), two of the models, presentation
audience and individual resource, appear to
have had a negative effect on retirement
245
attitudes. The authors conclude that a program
which does not provide specific processes to
deal with the feelings and apprehensions of the
preretiree may be counterproductive.
An important study which deals with actual
retirees is that of Greene et al. (1969) who
surveyed 648 older workers and retirees. The
subjects were selected from eight companies,
four of which had preretirement counseling
programs. Retirees who had taken part in a
counseling program were better adjusted than
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
those who had not. This was particularly true
when comparing workers from the same com-
pany. This finding is difficult to interpret
inasmuch as a selection process may have been
operating. People with a favorable orientation
toward retirement are more likely to seek out
information on retirement (Simpson et al.,
1966b). This explanation is supported by the
fact that when all retirees from companies with
counseling programs were compared with all
retirees from companies without programs,
few significant differences were noted.
METHOD
In an attempt to overcome the methodologi-
cal difficulties of previous studies and to
provide much needed evidence on the impact
of preretirement programs on the actual retire-
ment experience of participants, an experi-
mental design was employed. This study is a
longitudinal update of an earlier project
(Glamser & DeJong, 1975). The design in-
cluded experimental groups which participated
in either a group discussion program or an
individual briefing program and a control
group. In 1973 subjects were identified from
the work force of the six Pennsylvania plants
of a major glass container manufacturer with
production facilities in 11 states. Three plants
are at one location in the central part of the
state, and three are in the southwest corner of
the state. At both locations there are two major
plants separated in distance by about 1 mile.
In the western location a smaller plant is
adjacent to one of the larger ones. In the central
location, the smaller plant was between the
two larger ones.
All of the company's 132 Pennsylvania-
based male employees age 60 and over were
included in the initial mailing list for the study
and over one-half responded to the pretest.
The median age of respondents was 62, while
the mean years of school completed was ten.
246 GLAMSER
Over 90% of the respondents owned their
homes and 91% were married. The range of
occupations represented was quite broad—
from engineers and chemists to machinists,
machine operators, and semi-skilled packers.
Much of the industry's work is of an assembly-
line nature, and a majority of the workers are
employed in semi-skilled positions.
The specific programs evaluated were: (1) a
group discussion program patterned closely
after the one developed at the University of
Michigan Institute of Gerontology and (2) an
individual briefing program designed to be
typical of the preretirement efforts of many
companies. All of the older workers in a given
plant were assigned to one of the three groups
prior to any actual contact, although each
group was not the same size because of
differing plant sizes and the need to enhance
group interaction in the discussion program.
The decision as to which plants were assigned
to which group was based solely on the number
of older workers at the plant. The manufac-
turing process is identical at both locations
and workers are not systematically assigned
to the various plants. Twenty-six workers
(from one plant) were assigned to the group
discussion program, a total of 66 (from three
plants) were assigned to the individual briefing
program, and 40 (from two plants) were ex-
posed to no programs, and thus comprised the
control group. The actual rates of response
and program participation may be seen in
Table 1. As noted above, all of the subjects
in a given plant were assigned to the same
group to minimize reactive and other contam-
inating effects. Although the programs were
not mandatory, workers were given the im-
pression that participation was expected.
Thus, program participation was about double
that normally experienced with purely vol-
untary programs.
The group discussion program included
eight meetings held over a 1-month period with
sessions lasting approximately 90 min each.
These sessions were led by the author and
included the following topics: the meaning of
work and retirement, Social Security and
Medicare, retirement income, financial
planning, health, leisure, family and friends,
and living arrangements. A company official
assisted at the income session to explain com-
pany benefits and to answer questions pertain-
ing to company policy. Similarly, an employee
Table 1. Response Rates and Retirement
Program Participation.
Group Individual Control
Discussion Briefing Group
Population Size in 1973 26 66 40
Pretest Response 62% 55% 45%
(16) (36) (18)
Program Participation 62% 71% 100%
(16) (47) (40)
Population Size in 1979 23 54 33
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
Pojttest Response 87% 64%
76%
(20) (41) (21)
of the Social Security Administration attended
the third session to explain the various benefits
available to retirees. For each of the sessions
a reading assignment from Hunter's Prepara-
tion for Retirement (1973) was given in ad-
vance. Free copies of the book were provided,
and the entire book was covered during the
program. To maximize involvement of the
participants, separate sessions were held for
salaried and hourly wage personnel. The for-
mat employed at the sessions was a combina-
tion of the facilitated interaction and
presentation/audience models of preretire-
ment education. The emphasis was upon indi-
vidual retirement concerns and small group
discussion of issues raised by the leader or
participants. Because the men had known each
other for many years they were quite relaxed
and discussion of the issues raised flowed
freely. The program was loosely structured
with the participants exercising a great deal
of influence on the directions that the sessions
took.
Participants assigned to the individual
briefing program visited their plant personnel
office for an explanation of the company's
retirement benefits. They were also given four
booklets dealing with retirement planning,
income, health, and leisure activities. The
briefing was handled by the regular plant
personnel manager and lasted approximately
30 min. Obviously, tfye individual briefing
program involved far less time and intensity
as well as a different method than the group
discussion program. However, such programs
are common and therefore the inclusion of
such a program in this evaluation was deemed
useful.
Two months prior to the initiation of the
two programs, all subjects on the mailing list
 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS
received the pretest questionnaire designed
to measure retirement-related knowledge,
attitudes, and behavior as well as standard
demographic items. To minimize reactive
effects, only one postcard follow-up was
employed. The pretest data were used to
determine group comparability prior to
exposure to the programs. The groups were
known to be similar in terms of social, eco-
nomic, and occupational characteristics, but
it was necessary to examine them with respect
to retirement-related issues. Thus, the three
groups were compared on five variables:
(1) knowledge of retirement issues, (2) attitude
toward retirement, (3) commitment to work,
(4) attitude toward the company, (5) retirement
planning and preparation activities under-
taken. No statistically significant differences
were found as was reported in an earlier paper
(Glamser & DeJong, 1975).
The posttest measurement was conducted
by mailed questionnaire approximately 6 years
after completion of the preretirement programs
to allow time for the younger participants to
retire. The average length of time spent in
retirement by the respondents was 3.7 years
with a range of 5 months to 6 years. This wide
range and the substantial time in retirement
for some respondents constitute an obvious
limitation. However, multiple measurements
or individual measurements over a long period
of time were seen as introducing even greater
confounding variables. By this time the
original mailing list had suffered attrition in
the form of twenty deaths and two departures
from the company prior to retirement. Of the
remaining 110 men, 82 responded to the post-
test for a return rate of 75%. Given the
longitudinal nature of the study and the use
of mailed questionnaires, this compares favor-
ably with other studies. Because one respon-
dent was employed full time and one was
paralyzed by stroke, the usable sample size
was 80.
It should be noted that all subjects initially
assigned to the groups were included in the
posttest mailing even if they had not taken
part in their assigned program (which was the
case with about a third of the workers). Inas-
much as these nonattenders may differ from
the others (Simpson et al., 1966b), their
exclusion would probably bias the evaluation
in a positive direction with the self-selection
problem common to previous studies. Thus,
247
the analysis is probably conservative since the
findings include all retirees from study plants
who responded to the final mailing. However,
absence from the programs does not mean
the individual was totally immune to the treat-
ment. Many participants discussed the pro-
grams and shared materials with fellow
workers.
RESULTS
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
A major objective of preretirement programs
is to ease or expedite the transition to retire-
ment. Therefore, respondents were asked how
long it took them "to become used to being
retired." While this retrospective approach
is less than ideal and deals only with percep-
tions, its limitations are equally operative
within the groups. As can be seen in Table 2,
no systematic differences can be observed
in the responses of the workers assigned to
the three groups. Twenty-one percent of the
group discussion respondents reported an
adjustment period of less than a month as did
22% of the individual briefing respondents
and 21% of the control group. At the other
extreme, 26% of the discussion group reported
a period of 1 year or more as did 34% of the
briefing group and 21% of the control group.
While the other time categories show some
variations across the groups, no substantial
differences exist. Thus, it would appear that
neither program is associated with the reported
length of the adjustment period.
To determine the subjects' perceived level
of preparation for retirement, they were asked
"In general, how well prepared were you for
retirement?" Possible responses ranged from
"very well prepared" to "not prepared at all."
Table 2. Retirees' Self-Reported Time
to Adjust to Retirement.
Less Than 1-5 6-11 One Year
Month Months Months or More
Retirement Program % % % %
Group Discussion
(N=19) 21 32 21 26
Individual Briefing
(N=41) 22 27 17 34
Control
(N=19) 21 47 10 21
2
X = 3.17
d.f. = 6
p < .80
248
Table 3. Retirees' Reported Preparedness
for Retirement.
Very Well Fairly Well Not Well
Prepared Prepared Prepared
Retirement Program % %
Group Discussion
(N=19) 26.3 73.7
Individual Briefing
(N=41) 9.8 75.6
Control
(N = 20) 20.0 65.0
X •>•*"
d.f. = 4
p < .25
The data in Table 3 reveal no substantial
difference in the overall response pattern of
the three groups, although the subjects in the
discussion group report a mildly higher level
of preparation. Given the lack of statistical
significance, the author must conclude that the
retirees were being charitable by not reporting
that his program left them unprepared for
retirement.
Beyond these rather simple and limited
indicators of program impact would be mea-
sures of retirement adjustment. To this end
three attitudinal areas were explored—life
satisfaction, attitude toward retirement, and
job deprivation. Life satisfaction was mea-
sured via the Cantril (1965) ladder technique
wherein the subject places a mark on a ten-
rung ladder the extremes which are labeled
"best possible life" and "worst possible life."
Attitude toward retirement was measured by
responses to a five-item Likert scale which
allowed the traditional five responses ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This
scale, which had been employed in an earlier
phase of this study (Glamser, 1976), allows
for a range of possible scores of five to 25 with
the higher scores indicating a more positive
attitude toward retirement. Some minor
changes were made to allow its use with per-
sons currently retired. The third attitudinal
measure was the job deprivation scale designed
by Thompson (1958) and later used by Simpson
et al. (1966c). A five response form of the four-
item scale was employed to produce a possible
score of from four to 20 with higher scores
indicating deprivation.
Mean attitude scores by program are pre-
sented in Table 4. As was the case with the
other variables, the retirement programs
GLAMSER
Table 4. Mean Life Satisfaction, Attitude
Toward Retirement, and Job Deprivation.
Life Retirement Job
Retirement Program Satisfaction Attitude Deprivation
%
Group Discussion
(N=19) 7.06 18.05 12.89
0.0
Individual Briefing
(N=41) 6.64 18.15 12.68
14.6
Control
(N=20) 7.26 18.15 12.30
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
15.0
Probability .59 .99 .88
appear to have had no impact upon these
measures of life satisfaction, retirement
attitude, or job deprivation. In fact, the scores
are nearly identical in some cases. The retire-
ment programs, even the comprehensive group
discussion program, appear to have had no
long-term effect on the average levels of
measures of retirement adjustment. However,
this does not mean that specific individuals
were not helped or that initial adjustment to
retirement was not affected. The most stressful
period of retirement adjustment is likely to be
the first month or so, a period not tapped by
this research design.
Another important limitation is the fact that
most of these retirees saw retirement in posi-
tive terms while they were working. From their
perspective retirement was the way out of a
stressful and demanding situation. Commit-
ment to work was generally low, especially
among hourly employees. In fact, only 41%
of the respondents waited until age 65 to retire.
Thus, a retirement program cannot be ex-
pected to improve attitudes that are already
positive.
DISCUSSION
To date there is little evidence that retire-
ment preparation programs have a significant
or substantial impact upon the subsequent
retirement experience of the participants. Does
this mean such programs are of no value? This
author thinks not. During the 1973 data col-
lection phase of the study, almost 90% of the
sample indicated that they believed that the
company should sponsor some kind of program
to prepare workers for retirement. Upon
program completion, a solid majority of the
 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS
participants in both groups reported feeling
better as a result of the program, and nearly
90% felt that their respective program was
helpful as a way of preparing for retirement.
The data from 1979 are also supportive.
Approximately 84% of the retirees believed
that companies should have programs to pre-
pare workers for retirement. This would seem
to indicate that older workers desire assistance
in preparing for retirement, and that they
appreciate such assistance when it is rendered.
Thus, the true value of retirement preparation
programs may lie in the help that can be
provided when it is needed—during the
preretirement stage.
Of course, it must be recognized that this
study is limited. Larger samples and more
frequent or earlier measurements are neces-
sary. Perhaps more sensitive measures and a
focus on individuals would produce different
results. However, it may be prudent to shift
the focus of retirement preparation programs
and their rationale somewhat to the preretire-
ment period. It has been amply demonstrated
that retirement preparation programs can have
an immediate effect upon the participants with
respect to knowledge and behavior (Fitz-
patrick, 1979; Glamser & DeJong, 1975; Tiberi
et al., 1978). Thus, it is reasonable to design
and evaluate programs in terms of what can be
accomplished during the time preceding
retirement. This would include meeting the
emotional needs of the worker as well as his
or her practical needs. As Tiberi, et al. have
demonstrated, the type of program employed
is an important factor in the employee's
emotional response—a dependent variable
ignored by most evaluators. As noted earlier,
some approaches may actually create
problems.
Another consideration is the fact that no
retirement preparation program that involves
a small, one-shot investment in time and effort
is likely to have a long-term effect on personal
adjustment and life satisfaction. It is quite
possible that a well-designed program which
involves the older employee over a period of
years would have a substantial impact upon
retirement adjustment. Yet, brief superficial
programs are likely to remain the norm in
retirement preparation. Thus, whether or not
a truly intensive and comprehensive program
could produce favorable long-term outcomes
is probably a moot question for the foreseeable
249
future. There is also the very real possibility
that workers with the greatest need for pre-
retirement education and counseling are often
the ones who avoid participation. Any program
which is voluntary will have this fundamental
problem.
In spite of the apparently negative results
of this study, it is clear that retirement prepa-
ration programs can have a number of positive
effects for workers and employers. While
attitudes toward retirement may have changed
for the better since the initial development
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
of such programs, workers facing retirement
generally exhibit some very real concerns
about such things as income, health, and family
relations. They desire and appreciate employer
sponsored programs that meet their needs for
information and emotional support. When this
observation is coupled with the possible
benefits to employers of such efforts, one must
predict that the growth of retirement prepara-
tion programs will and should continue.
REFERENCES
Atchley, R. C. The sociology of retirement. Schenkman,
New York, 1976.
Cantril, H. The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers Univ.
Press, New Brunswick, 1965.
Charles, D. C. Effect of participation in a preretirement
program. Gerontologist, 1971, //, 24-28.
Donahue, W., Orbach, H. L., & Pollak, O. Retirement:
The emerging social pattern. In C. Tibbits (Ed.), Hand-
book of social gerontology. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1960.
Fitzpatrick, E. W. Evaluating a new retirement planning
program—results with hourly workers. Aging and
Work, Spring 1979, 87-93.
Friedmann, E. A., & Havighurst, R. J. The meaning of
work and retirement. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1954.
Glamser, F. D. Determinants of a positive attitude toward
retirement. Journal of Gerontology, 1976,5/, 104-107.
Glamser, F. D., & DeJong, G. F. The efficacy of prere-
tirement preparation programs for industrial workers.
Journal of Gerontology, 1975,30, 595-600.
Goudy, W., Powers, E., & Keith, P. Work and retirement:
A test of attitudinal relationships. Journal of
Gerontology, 1975, 30, 193-198.
Greene, M. R., Pyron, H. C , Manion, U. V., & Winkle-
voss, H. Preretirement counseling, retirement adjust-
ment, and the older employee. USDHEW, AoA,
Washington, Oct., 1969.
Hunter, W. W. Preparation for retirement of hourly wage
employees in Niagara Falls, New York. Division of
Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1957.
Hunter, W. W. A cross-national appraisal of preretire-
ment education. Division of Gerontology, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1965.
Hunter, W. W. Preretirement education for hourly-rated
250 GLAMSER

employees. Division of Gerontology, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1968.
Hunter, W. W. Preparation for retirement. Inst. of
Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan-Wayne State Univ.,
Ann Arbor, 1973.
Mack, M. J. An evaluation of a retirement planning
program. Journal of Gerontology, 1958,75, 198-202.
Maddox, G. L. Retirement as a social event in the United
States. In J. C. McKinney & F. T. deVyver (Eds.),
Aging and social policy. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York, 1966.
Miller, S. J. The social dilemma of the aging leisure
participant. In A. M. Rose & W. A. Peterson (Eds.),
(Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke Univ. Press,
Durham, NC, 1966. (a)
Simpson, I. H., Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Exposure
to information on, preparation for, and self evaluation
in retirement. In I. H. Simpson & J. C. McKinney
(Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke Univ. Press,
Durham, NC, 1966. (b)
Simpson, I. H., Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Orienta-
tion toward work and retirement. In I. H. Simpson &
J. C. McKinney, (Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke
Univ. Press, Durham, NC, 1966. (c)
Thompson, W. E. Preretirement anticipation and adjust-
ment in retirement. Journal of Social Issues, 1958,

Older people and their social world. F. A. Davis,
Philadelphia, 1965.
O'Meara, J. Retirement: Reward or rejection. The
Conference Board, New York, 1977.
Simpson, I. H.( Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Work
and retirement. In I. H. Simpson & J. C. McKinney
Downloaded from http://geronj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 4, 2016
14, 35-45.
Tiberi, D. M., Boyack, V. L., & Kerschner, P. A. A com-
parative analysis of four preretirement education
models. Educational Gerontology, 1978, 3, 355-374.
Ward, R. A. The aging experience. J. B. Lippincott,
New York, 1979.

pubjication is
available in
microform DIRECTOR OF
RESEARCH
i l - i
University-wide Institute on Aging seeks a
Director of Research. The successful can-
didate will be an experienced researcher in
any of the social, behavioral or biomed-
ical sciences, possess the demonstrated
ability to obtain grant support and qualify
for an academic appointment as full pro-
Please send me additional information.
fessor. Preference will be given to in-
dividuals who can document sensitivity to
University Microfilms the needs of low income minority urban
International elderly. The selected individual will coor-
dinate all research programs in aging,
300 North Zeeb Road direct personal research, serve on the Ex-
Dept. P.R. ecutive Committee of the Institute and
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 report to the Executive Director who in
U.S.A. turn reports to a University Vice Presi-
18 Bedford Row dent. Starting date and salary are
Dept. P.R. negotiable. Please send letter of applica-
London, WC1R4EJ tion plus resume with salary history in
England confidence to:
Name C-18, P.O. BOX 2066
Institution. Philadelphia, PA 19103
Street Equal Opportunity Employer
City
State -Zip