Intergenerational Relations: European Perspectives in Family and Society 9781447300991

Citation preview

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES in family and society

Edited by Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS European perspectives on family and society Edited by Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

First published in Great Britain in 2013 by Policy Press North American office: University of Bristol Policy Press 6th Floor c/o The University of Chicago Press Howard House 1427 East 60th Street Queen’s Avenue Chicago, IL 60637, USA Clifton t: +1 773 702 7700 Bristol BS8 1SD f: +1 773-702-9756 UK e:[email protected] Tel +44 (0)117 331 4054 www.press.uchicago.edu Fax +44 (0)117 331 4093 e-mail [email protected] www.policypress.co.uk © Policy Press 2013 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN 978 1 44730 098 4 hardcover The right of Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring to be identified as editors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors and contributors and not of The University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design by Policy Press Front cover: image kindly supplied by Stacie Andrea Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International, Padstow Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners.

Contents List of figures and tables Notes on contributors

v vii

Introduction 1 Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring Part I: Conceptual issues regarding intergenerational relations one Demographic ageing, labour market regulation and intergenerational relations Amílcar Moreira two Intergenerational solidarity in families: interplay between the family and the state Kairi Kasearu and Dagmar Kutsar

13 15

25

three

Intergenerational ambivalence: beyond solidarity and conflict Kurt Lüscher and Andreas Hoff

39

four

Intergenerational policy and the study of intergenerational relationships: a tentative proposal Kurt Lüscher

65

Part II: Multigenerational and cross‑cultural perspectives five Intergenerational congruence of attachment: limitations of findings Katarzyna Lubiewska

83 85

six

Value transmission between parents and their adolescent children: the process and its outcomes. A psycho-social perspective Daniela Barni, Rosa Rosnati and Sonia Ranieri

101

seven

Value orientations and perception of social change in post-communist Romania Mihaela Friedlmeier and Alin Gavreliuc

119

eight

Intergenerational conflict: the case of adult children and their parents 131 Beate Schwarz

nine

Grandparent–grandchild relations in a changing society: different types and roles Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

147

ten

Family change theory: a preliminary evaluation on the basis of recent cross-cultural studies Boris Mayer

167

iii

Intergenerational relations Part III: Applied issues and practical focus eleven How does family sociology contribute to the definition and measurement of a concept of family care for elderly persons? Amandine J. Masuy

189 191

twelve

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society: socio-demographic determinants of intergenerational support to elderly parents Susana Coimbra, Luísa A. Ribeiro and Anne Marie Fontaine

205

thirteen

Family caregiving for older people from a life-span developmental point of view Thomas Boll and Dieter Ferring

223

Where do we go from here? An epilogue concerning the importance of the of solidarity between generations Dieter Ferring and Isabelle Albert

241

Index

245

iv

List of figures and tables Figures 3.1 5.1

6.1 6.2 6.3 10.1

Tables 7.1 7.2

Intergenerational ambivalences: a dynamic model 43 Developmental changes in attachment over time, focus and methods of attachment assessment with underlying level of attachment system activation 94 Unidirectional perspective on family transmission of values 103 Bidirectional perspective on family transmission of values 105 Multidirectional perspective on family transmission of values 110 Family model cluster memberships across cultures and generations based on data provided in Mayer et al (2012) 181

Portraits of intergenerational values 124 Intergenerational and gender comparison of perceived social changes 126

v

Notes on contributors Editors Isabelle Albert is a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, in the area of generations and development across the life-span. Her research interests include the intergenerational transmission of values and family relations in a cross-cultural perspective. Dieter Ferring is Professor of Developmental Psychology and Geropsychology, and Head of the Integrative Research Unit on Social and Individual Development at the University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg. His main research areas and publications cover life-span development and ageing, including intergenerational relations, informal and formal caregiving for older people, coping and regulation of subjective well-being in old age, as well as technology use and ageing.

Authors Daniela Barni is a Researcher in Social Psychology at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy. Her research interests focus on intergenerational relationships and transmission of values. Thomas Boll is a Researcher and Lecturer in life-span developmental psychology at the University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg. His research interests and publication domains include intergenerational relations in adulthood, subjective well-being in older adults and caring for older people. Susana Coimbra is an Assistant Professor at the University of Porto, Portugal. Her research interests include socio-economic status, and gender differences on self-efficacy, resilience and intergenerational solidarity. Anne Marie Fontaine is a Full Professor at the University of Porto, Portugal. Her research work has been in the areas of family studies, gender and motivation. Mihaela Friedlmeier is an Assistant Professor for developmental and crosscultural psychology at the Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, USA. Her research interests include intergenerational relationships across the lifespan, parenting, and social change.

vii

Intergenerational relations

Alin Gavreliuc is an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, Dean of the Faculty of Sociology and Psychology from West University of Timisoara, Romania. His expertise is in social psychology and cross-cultural psychology. Andreas Hoff is Professor of Social Gerontology at Zittau/Goerlitz University of Applied Sciences in Germany and was previously Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Oxford, UK. He has extensive research experience in intergenerational relationships in the family, the wider community and society. Kairi Kasearu is a Lecturer in Sociology at the Institute of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Tartu, Estonia. Her research interests are in the field of family and intergenerational relations studies. Dagmar Kutsar is an Associate Professor in Social Policy at the Institute of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Tartu, Estonia. She has extensive research experience in family and childhood sociology, and associated policies, social indicators and social reporting. Katarzyna Lubiewska is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Developmental Psychology, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland. She received her doctorate in psychology from the same university, and additional training in Diakonia Politechnik, Finland, and Konstanz University, Germany. Her research has mainly focused on four areas, attachment formation, intergenerational relations, cross-cultural psychology, and psychological assessment. She participated as a country-leader in the cross-cultural project Value of Children and Intergenerational Relations. Kurt Lüscher is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Konstanz, Germany, and former director of the research programme ‘Society and Family’. (See also: www.kurtluescher.de.) Amandine J. Masuy is a Doctor in Social Sciences from the Université Catholique de Louvain and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Since April 2013, she is Science Attaché at the Institut wallon de l’Evaluation, de la Prospective et de la Statistique. Since 2006, she has carried out quantitative research over the determinants and the evolution of informal elderly care in Belgium. Boris Mayer is a Lecturer in Psychological Research Methods at the University of Bern, Switzerland and received his doctorate in Cross-Cultural Psychology at the University of Konstanz, Germany. His research interests focus on the development of adolescents and families in different cultural contexts.

viii

Notes on contributors

Amílcar Moreira is a Researcher at the Institute of Ageing of the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where he is currently developing a project on the ‘Political Economy of Ageing Labour Markets’. Previously, he worked as a Post-doctoral Researcher in Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, and Oslo University College, Norway. His research revolves around the interaction between social and employment policies in the regulation of labour markets for older workers and social assistance recipients. Sonia Ranieri is a Researcher in Social Psychology at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy. Her research interests include intergenerational relationships and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence. Luísa A. Ribeiro is a Researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo and at the University of Porto, Portugal. Her research interests include interpersonal and family relationships, attachment in adulthood, and cognitive and social development. Rosa Rosnati is an Associate Professor in Social Psychology at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy. Her research interests focus on family relationships, value transmission, and adoption. Beate Schwarz is Area Head of Developmental and Personality Psychology at the School of Applied Psychology of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland. Her research interests focus on adolescent development, family psychology, and cross-cultural psychology.

ix

Introduction Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

Connecting generations in society and families: the interplay of societal change and family adaptation Intergenerational relations have gained a prominent place in the public discourse and in social science research in the last years. This is, at least partly, due to the drastic socio-demographic changes related to falling fertility rates and higher life expectancies in many countries all over the world (UNFPA, 2011), which have had significant consequences for relations between generations in society and families.The most obvious impact of these developments on families is probably that it is now more likely that family members of different generations will live contemporaneously and spend an increased amount of life time together (see, for example, Lauterbach, 1995), meaning, for instance, that grandparents (or even great-grandparents) are more likely to see their grandchildren grow up.At the same time generations are becoming smaller in size, with the result that individuals have fewer siblings or cousins than in the past, a phenomenon that has been depicted as the ‘beanpole’ family by Bengtson et al (2003; see also Uhlenberg and Kirby, 1998; Chapter Nine). Apart from increasing the importance of intergenerational relations within families, the increased proportion of older compared to younger members of society also has effects on many (financial and practical) facets of the social security system, including health care, elder care and labour policy (see also Chapter One).These developments, which are particularly highly pronounced in Europe, confront societies with unprecedented challenges such as increasing costs in the public sector along with a growing demand for support services for the elder population in need (Ferring, 2010). General unanimity prevails regarding the key role of intergenerational family solidarity in dealing with the various challenges of socio-demographic change which are seen on the societal level (see also Daatland et al, 2009, for an overview). This is in spite of the claim of a decline of the family, that was put forward by several researchers during the last century.The expectation of such a decline was linked to a decrease in traditional family patterns due to growing divorce and separation rates, lower marriage rates, greater geographic distances between adult family generations and higher labour market participation of women. In fact, today a multitude of alternative family forms can be found in most Western societies, but intergenerational family relations still fulfil many important tasks, even if the ways in which they do so might have changed (see also Silverstein and Bengtson, 1997).

1

Intergenerational relations

Tasks and functions of the family and their importance for society Not only does the family pick up a large part of old-age support provision (see also Chapter Eleven; Chapter Thirteen), but at the same time, older generations often provide essential support for younger ones – for instance, older parents may support their adult children financially, or in practical ways by caring for grandchildren, and so on (for example, Attias-Donfut et al, 2005).These intergenerational exchanges of support are crucial both for families as well as for society as a whole, which would otherwise be confronted with a cost explosion. It seems that both family and state complement each other and might thus – ideally – prevent each other from an overload of duties (Motel-Klingebiel et al, 2005; see also Chapter Two). A further essential task of the family, relevant for society as a whole, lies in its role as primary socialisation agent (Trommsdorff, 2009).To start with, the family provides the individual with his or her first experiences of affective bonding, and this is where patterns for later social relations are learned (see also Chapter Five). Furthermore, the family mediates between society and individual in the process of value transmission and thus assures the passing on of social and cultural heritage from one generation to the next (for example, Schönpflug, 2009; Trommsdorff, 2009; see also Chapter Four). Certainly, value transmission is not unidirectional; rather, younger and older generations will influence each other regarding certain value orientations (for example, Kuczynski et al, 1997), and both might also be influenced by the predominant value climate of the societal context – also referred to as Zeitgeist (see, for example, Boehnke, 2001). Accordingly, transmission of values is at best not absolute but relative, assuring continuity between generations and leaving room for attitudes and beliefs to adapt in line with changed living conditions (see also Albert et al, 2013; Chapter Six). This all sets the basis for mutual understanding, shared values and the ability to live together peacefully, and is thus important not only for the individual and the family but also for society as a whole. How families tackle the multiple tasks which they must undertake depends on several aspects such as the socio-cultural and historical context in which they live, the personal preferences of the individuals that constitute the family, as well as ‘family cultures’ which are characterised by specific beliefs and norms (for example, Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Rothbaum et al, 2000; Manzi et al, 2006; see also Chapter Ten). This is the starting point of the present volume, which brings together researchers from various disciplines providing macro- and micro-level perspectives on the multidisciplinary field of intergenerational relations with a strong focus on Europe. In an integrated approach, the various chapters take into account the study of intergenerational relations at different levels and also refer to interactions between these levels, and implications for policy and practice are proposed. Further, a life-course perspective is taken as chapters concentrate on different generational constellations in different family phases and at different life stages of the family members, thus dealing with intergenerational relations both of younger as well

2

Introduction

as of ageing families. Before starting to introduce the different chapters, these aspects will be shortly outlined.

Considering different levels of analysis of intergenerational relations Intergenerational relations have been studied starting from different levels of analysis – such as focusing on society, family or the individual.These different levels interact with each other; this means, for instance, that the family is embedded in a specific context, which on the one hand may influence how families tackle specific tasks and which, on the other hand, is shaped by members of society (see, for example, Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 1998;Trommsdorff, 2006). Socio-economic conditions in a society may create certain needs in individuals which may be met by the family – for instance, in the current economic crisis, young adults may, for a longer time than in the past, be dependent on material support from their families, stay at the parental home longer and so on (see, for example, Chauvel, 2006).This certainly has an effect on the quality of their intergenerational family relations (see also Chapter Eight; Chapter Twelve). At the same time, economic constraints and resources – also depending on different welfare state regimes – might make a family choose a particular solution regarding support for elderly family members in need or care for young children (see also Chapter Two). The family thus adapts to conditions resulting from living in a specific socio-cultural context, while their choices also have an impact on policy decisions. In fact, when looking at relations between generations at the societal level, it should be remembered that members of different generations are also members of families. Their experiences within their own families might have an impact on how they see intergenerational relations in general (for example, their opinions regarding intergenerational exchange, opinions regarding sustainability and justice and their normative beliefs), and this again might also affect policy decisions such as regarding which services should be provided by the state (see also Chapter Four).

Life-course perspective A life-course perspective is indicated when studying intergenerational relations (for example, Baltes et al, 1980; Elder, 1994). Care and support between generations constitute lifelong tasks in families, but directions of support flows change depending on life course specific needs and resources (for example,Attias-Donfut et al, 2005; see also Chapter Nine; Chapter Eleven; Chapter Twelve).The regulation of exchange of support and reciprocity might gain special importance between adult children and their ageing parents (see, for example, Lang et al, 2009). In the relations between younger children and their parents, a further key issue is the renegotiation between autonomy and relatedness (see, for example, Greenfield et al, 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2007; see also Chapter Eight), a major developmental task faced in adolescence and emerging adulthood that remains important over the whole life span. 3

Intergenerational relations

Considering the stage in the life course is also crucial when studying societal level effects on the individual and on the family, as was demonstrated by Elder’s seminal study on Children of the Great Depression (1974) regarding the effects of the economic crisis of the 1930s on different age cohorts, namely, parents and their children.Today, the impact of socio-economic change on family and individual is relevant more than ever, and Elder’s work gains actuality once again when looking at the latest difficulties in the European economy. Although socio-economic problems affect members of different generations differently, and even if at first sight socio-economic changes might seem more important for one generation than another, within families generations are interconnected, and individuals of one generation might also be affected by difficulties experienced by family members of another generation (for example, economically well-off parents whose children are unemployed; see also Chapter One; Chapter Three; Chapter Twelve). Regarding intergenerational relations, the effect of rapid socio-economic change may be a return to – respectively reinforcement of – the family, as well as provoking a gap between generations regarding value orientations and core beliefs (see Chapter Seven). In this context, policy decisions become extremely important by providing opportunities for work, responding to needs of families and individuals and shaping the context in which intergenerational relations occur.

The present volume This volume provides an update on the state of the art of research in the multidisciplinary research field of intergenerational family relations by combining macro (socio-cultural context) with micro (family and individual) perspectives from sociology, psychology and economics.The chapters focus on different aspects – some starting from the macro-level perspective of society, some starting from a micro-level perspective looking at the individual as part of the family which is again embedded in society and culture – but they all take into consideration the interconnectedness between levels as well as the importance of a life-course perspective. The main focus is on Europe but a cross-cultural outlook beyond Europe is offered as well. The authors concentrate on concepts, theories and research paradigms emerging from the different disciplines. In addition, empirical findings from larger (mostly European) studies are integrated and summarised in order to illustrate research activities that have emerged from the different theoretical approaches. The book also addresses implications for research, policy and practice, and suggestions for future directions are provided. The chapters are grouped around three thematic sections. Starting from a rather general view, the contributions in Part  I provide a conceptual framework for the whole volume by introducing and discussing central conceptual issues regarding current research on intergenerational family relations in different disciplines. Starting from a macro perspective, these chapters provide new insights on the interplay between the societal context and intergenerational family relations. 4

Introduction

Chapter One, by Amílcar Moreira, broaches current socio-demographic changes and tackles the possible consequences of demographic ageing for labour market policy, an issue that – according to the author – has been rather neglected by academics and policy-makers so far. By reviewing the relevant literature, the author provides important insights regarding how people’s preferences in key areas such as employment policy, welfare redistribution and intergenerational transfers are dependent on individual age. Thereby, he emphasises that individual age does not only set one’s own position in the labour market but also determines one’s position in the family life-cycle. This, in turn, can have an influence on personal preferences regarding labour market regulation, depending last but not least also on the quality of one’s intergenerational relationships. In Chapter Two, Kairi Kasearu and Dagmar Kutsar give an overview of the concept of intergenerational solidarity (see, for example, Bengtson and Roberts, 1991) and the current debate regarding the interplay between state and family as providers of support. Thereby, they pay particular attention to processes of crowding-in and crowding-out and their potential effects on intergenerational family solidarity (see, for example, Künemund and Rein, 1999). The authors present theoretical considerations emerging mainly from the field of sociology and social policy, and summarise relevant empirical results. An alternative view to the intergenerational solidarity model is provided by Kurt Lüscher and Andreas Hoff, who give a detailed overview of the concept of intergenerational ambivalence and its reception in the research literature in Chapter Three. They start from a short historical outline regarding the societal context in which the rather positively biased concept of intergenerational solidarity was first introduced, and then present the concept of intergenerational ambivalence, which was put forward in order to combine positive and negative aspects of intergenerational relationships as it allows for the simultaneous study of solidarity and conflict. Apart from summarising earlier theorising and conceptualisations, they also provide new thoughts regarding an enlargement of the concept by presenting an elaborated definition of intergenerational ambivalence. In Chapter Four, Kurt Lüscher offers a definition of intergenerational policy, integrating aspects of social policy and the theoretical and empirical analysis of intergenerational relationships. Regarding the bases of intergenerational policy, he first defines the concept of generation and introduces the notion of generative socialisation, thereby underlining that different generations are cross-linked to each other. He then focuses on normative principles and principles of justice underlying a definition of intergenerational policy, and presents social programmes and activities. In his conclusion, he underlines how important it is that intergenerational policy should take into account the interests of future generations. The contributions in Part II look more closely at more specific issues with regard to research on intergenerational relations, taking into account multigenerational and cross-cultural perspectives. The authors focus on selected aspects of relationships between family generations at different points in the life course, starting from parent-child relations in early childhood, continuing 5

Intergenerational relations

through adolescence and young adulthood to relations between elderly parents and their adult children as well as between grandchildren and their grandparents. The need to consider the effects of the socio-cultural context in which families live is underlined and the importance of a cross-cultural perspective is explicitly discussed by enlarging the focus beyond the Western family model. Chapter Five, by Katarzyna Lubiewska, concentrates on the issue of attachment, and – more precisely – its transmission and congruence between generations. Attachment refers to emotional security and is a key aspect of intergenerational family relations which is established early in life and sets the stage for individual well-being as well as for later relationship quality between family members (for example, Bowlby, 1969). As such, the question of whether and how attachment is transmitted from one generation to the next has a high relevance in research on intergenerational relations. In the light of heterogeneous research evidence regarding the intergenerational congruence of attachment, the author discusses the importance of developmental processes and the eco-cultural context as well as measurement issues. She advocates a culturally informed perspective in the study of attachment and closes by underlining that compatibility of attachment styles between parents and children may be more adaptive than congruence within the parent-child dyad. This view is continued by Daniela Barni, Rosa Rosnati and Sonia Ranieri in Chapter  Six. They concentrate on the role of the family as the primary socialisation agent and place where the intergenerational transmission of values occurs, especially focusing on adolescence. After a brief overview of psychosocial research concerning the process of intergenerational value transmission within the family as well as its outcomes – often measured as parent–child value similarity –, they suggest an alternative view by introducing the concepts of ‘choice’ and ‘continuity’. They propose continuity as an alternative outcome of a successful transmission as it links different generations to each other, specifying that – although continuity may imply a certain degree of parent-child similarity in values – more attention should be given to the role of continuity for the quality of intergenerational relations. Chapter Seven, by Mihaela Friedlmeier and Alin Gavreliuc, expands on the value issue, discussing the effects of rapid social and political change for the value preferences of members of different generations using the example of Romania, a country which has undergone a major transition in a relatively short time frame following the collapse of communism. Their focus is on different generations, ranging from adolescents to young adults as well as older adults. The authors emphasise that individuals are differently affected by historical changes, depending on their age and point in the life course when these changes occur. By reporting their own and others’ empirical findings, the authors first elaborate whether and how the communist system affected the basic values of its citizens and, second, they examine the impact of profound socio-economic transitions on the values held by individuals, looking at how members of different generations experience such a rapid social change. 6

Introduction

Beate Schwarz then focuses in Chapter Eight on another important aspect of family relationships, namely, intergenerational conflicts, in particular looking at the relations between adult children and their parents. The author starts with the observation that conflict between parents and their children during adolescence, a stage when a major developmental task consists in balancing the needs for connectedness and autonomy in the parent–child relationship, has been intensively investigated (Grotevant and Cooper, 1985; Youniss and Smollar, 1985). She then argues that from a theoretical perspective, there are reasons to expect intergenerational conflict across the life-span, even though with respect to conflict between middle-aged children and their parents, some authors have used the term ‘demilitarized zone’ (Hagestad, 1987). The author provides a definition of the term ‘conflict’, summarises research from the US and Europe regarding conflicts between young adult and middle-aged children and their parents and discusses different contents of conflicts as well as conflict resolution styles. Our own contribution (Albert and Ferring, Chapter  Nine) enlarges the perspective to relations between non-adjacent generations by giving an overview on research regarding grandparent–grandchild relations from childhood to early adulthood. We start with reflections on the public image of grandparents as well as on changes in grandparenthood due to the socio-demographic developments of the last decades. After providing general facts and numbers regarding today’s grandparents, an overview of earlier research on grandparental types and roles, as well as on functions and meanings of grandparents and grandchildren for each other in different stages of their lives, is presented. Further, the applicability of concepts such as intergenerational solidarity and ambivalence for the study of grandparent-grandchild relations is discussed. A prospective view on future developments regarding current issues (for example, postponement of parenthood, the role of grandparents as custodial parents, the effects of socio-economic developments, changed gender roles, the impact of new communication technologies on grandparent–grandchild relations) is given. To conclude Part  II, Boris Mayer (Chapter  Ten) cautions against a cultural viewpoint that is too narrow, advocating a cross-cultural perspective which includes different family models beyond the European and Western context. The author focuses thereby on the family change theory brought forward by Kagitcibasi (1996, 2007). This approach aims to explain how processes of societal change affect the family on different levels of analysis. Starting from the assumption that in Western individualistic societies, an independent family model is prevalent, this theory suggests that traditional interdependent cultures in the process of modernisation may not necessarily develop towards the same family model; instead, an alternative family model is proposed, namely, a ‘family model of emotional interdependence’. In this family model, emotional interdependencies in the family continue to be high, whereas material interdependencies decline and personal autonomy increases. This chapter provides a critical review of existing cross-cultural empirical research to test and validate the theory of family change, and the author outlines where the strengths and problems of this research lie. 7

Intergenerational relations

After the conceptual and theoretical chapters, Part  III closes the circle by concentrating on applied issues of intergenerational relations with a practical focus on one specific, essential task within families – intergenerational care and support. Amandine Masuy deals in Chapter Eleven with the issue of a concept of family care for elderly persons, by reviewing literature from family sociology regarding the definition as well as the measurement of this concept. After an introduction of family care in the perspectives of medical science and social policy, family care for older adults is delineated in comparison to care for children. Measurement issues regarding informal care are then raised and an alternative definition is suggested that tries to integrate subjective and objective elements. Also, the possible consequences of providing ‘too much care’ in the sense of an overload on the individual and society are discussed. In Chapter Twelve Susana Coimbra, Luísa A. Ribeiro and Anne Marie Fontaine provide a critical overview of research regarding intergenerational solidarity exchanges in Western societies. Apart from examining general macro-systemic and structural features of intergenerational solidarity, the authors look at the current worldwide financial crisis and its consequences for the relations between generations. In particular, differences between families with higher and lower socio-economic status as well as gender effects are discussed with regard to intergenerational solidarity and support. The final chapter, by Thomas Boll and Dieter Ferring (Chapter Thirteen), picks out the central theme of family members as the most important informal carers for older people.They start with a review of past research regarding the caregiver burden and its detrimental impacts on family carers’ health, as well as looking at more recent research on caregiver gains and its positive effects on health and quality of care. Following this, the authors elaborate an action- and emotiontheoretical approach to outline the positive and negative consequences of the caregiving situation for family carers taking into account their goals, emotions and action tendencies.They conclude that concepts from life-span developmental psychology are suited for a more comprehensive analysis of family caregiving and should therefore be applied in future research.

A last word Closing, we would like to thank all colleagues who contributed directly or indirectly to this book. Parts of this publication have been financed by a grant from the National Research Fund of Luxembourg to the second editor; this support is highly appreciated.We would like to address special thanks to Dr Thomas Boll and Dr Tom Michels for their valuable contributions to recent and on-going research on intergenerational relations in our research group. It has been a great experience to work together with junior and senior researchers from Europe who are united in their interest in intergenerational relations. We are convinced that relations between generations in family and society will be of crucial importance for the development of European societies with respect to many criteria. The 8

Introduction

contributions within this book show that these criteria comprise, among others, the distribution of resources, questions of resource fairness between generations, the exchange of mutual support as well as – in the end – social cohesion and social peace.The contributions also show that generations at the family level influence the notion of generations at the macro-level as they are in return object to socioeconomic changes at this superordinate level. All of this thus underlines the need for a detailed life-span oriented approach that addresses generational relations at different levels of the socio-ecological context and from different disciplinary perspectives. Only such a comprehensive theoretical and empirical approach will render knowledge that will help to promote this valuable resource – generations in family and society. References Albert, I., Ferring, D. and Michels, T. (2013) ‘Intergenerational family relations in Luxembourg: family values and intergenerational solidarity in Portuguese immigrant and Luxembourgish families’, European Psychologist, vol  18, no  1, pp 59–69. Attias-Donfut, C., Ogg, J. and Wolff, F.-C. (2005) ‘European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, no 3, pp 161–73. Baltes, P.B., Reese, H. and Lipsett, L. (1980) ‘Lifespan developmental psychology’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol 31, pp 65–110. Bengtson,V.L., Lowenstein, A., Putney, N.M. and Gans, D. (2003) ‘Global aging and the challenge to families’, in V.L. Bengtson and A. Lowenstein (eds) Global aging and its challenge to families, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, pp 1–24. Bengtson,V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. Boehnke, K. (2001) ‘Parent-offspring value transmission in a societal context: suggestions for a utopian research design with empirical underpinnings’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 32, pp 241–55. Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss: attachment, vol. 1, London: Hogarth. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P.A. (1998) ‘The ecology of developmental processes’, in W. Damon and R.M. Lerner (eds) Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: theoretical models of human development (5th edn), New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, pp 993–1023. Chauvel, L. (2006) ‘Les nouvelles générations devant la panne prolongée de l’ascenseur social [online]’, Revue de l’OFCE, vol  96, pp  35–50. Available at: http://www.louischauvel.org/ofceralentissementgenerationnel5.pdf.

9

Intergenerational relations

Daatland, S.O., Slagsvold, B. and Lima, I.A. (2009) ‘Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: a comparative exploration’, in United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ed) How generations and gender shape demographic change. Towards policies based on better knowledge, Geneva: United Nations, pp 127–38. Elder, G.H. (1974) Children of the Great Depression: social change in life experience, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Elder, G.H. (1994) ‘Time, human agency, and social change: perspectives on the life course’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol 57, no 1, pp 4–15. Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Intergenerational relations in an ageing society: emerging topics in Europe’, Journal of Intergenerational Relations, vol 8, pp 101–4. Greenfield, P.M., Keller, H., Fuligni,A. and Maynard,A. (2003) ‘Cultural pathways through universal development’, Annual Review of Psychology, no 54, pp 461–90. Grotevant, H.D. and Cooper, C.R. (1985) ‘Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence’, Child Development, no 56, pp 415–28. Hagestad, G.O. (1987) ‘Parent-child relations in later life: trends and gaps in past research’, in J.B. Lancaster, J.Altmann,A. Rossi and L. Sherrod (eds) Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, pp 405–33. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996) Family and human development across cultures: a view from the other side, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kagitcibasi, C. (2007) Family, self, and human development across cultures: theory and applications (2nd edn), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S. and Schell, K. (1997) ‘Value socialization in a bidirectional Context’, in J.E. Grusec and L. Kuczynski (eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: a handbook of contemporary theory, New York, NY: Wiley, pp 23–50. Künemund, H. and Rein, M. (1999) ‘There is more to receive than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out’, Ageing and Society, vol 19, pp 93–121. Lang, F.R.,Wagner, J. and Neyer, F.J. (2009), ‘Interpersonal functioning across the lifespan: two principles of relationship regulation’, Advances in life course research, vol 14, pp 40–51. Lauterbach, W. (1995) ‘Die gemeinsame Lebenszeit von Familiengenerationen [The shared life time of family generations]’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, vol 24, no 1, pp 22–41. Manzi, C., Vignoles, V.L., Regalia, C. and Scabini, E. (2006) ‘Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 68, pp 673–89. Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H.-J. (2005) ‘Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses’, Ageing & Society, vol 25, pp 863–82.

10

Introduction

Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K. and Weisz, J. (2000) ‘The development of close relationships in Japan and the United States: paths of symbiotic harmony and generative tension’, Child Development, vol 71, 1121–42. Silverstein, M. and Bengtson, V.L. (1997) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families’, American Journal of Sociology, vol 103, pp 429–60. Schönpflug, U. (2009) ‘Epilogue: toward a model of cultural transmission’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission: psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 460–77. Trommsdorff, G. (2006) ‘Parent-child relations over the life-span. A cross-cultural perspective’, in K.H. Rubin and O.B. Chung (eds) Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations. A cross-cultural perspective, New York: Psychology Press, pp 143–83. Trommsdorff, G. (2009) ‘Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission: psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 126–60. Uhlenberg, P. and Kirby, J.B. (1998) ‘Grandparenthood over time: Historical and demographic trends’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport: Greenwood, pp 23–39. UNFPA (2011) State of world population, available at: http://www.unfpa.org/ webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2011/EN-SWOP2011FINAL.pdf. Youniss, J. and Smollar, J. (1985) Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

11

Part I Conceptual issues regarding intergenerational relations

13

one

Demographic ageing, labour market regulation and intergenerational relations Amílcar Moreira

Introduction Since the 1980s, in the United States there has been a debate as to the implications of demographic ageing for the nature and extent of the welfare state (see Kohli, 2005).This debate was triggered by the claim – raised by Preston (1984) and others – that, in a context of economic scarcity, older people consume a disproportionate share of public resources (on pensions, healthcare and care services), and that this is done at the expense of the younger generations.This, according to Turner (1989, p 591), will generate a ‘politics of resentment’ against older people. While it has produced a vivid debate in the political and academic arenas, this claim has yet to be fully validated by empirical evidence.1 Some studies do seem to validate the idea of a ‘clash of generations’. Based on data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Smith (2000) argues that support for public spending on retirement benefits is higher in individuals aged over 65 – even if this does not apply to all countries surveyed. Based on data from Germany, Wilkoszewski (2009) argues that support for pension provision increases with age. In contrast, support for policies that involve transfers from the old to the young (such as lower taxes for parents, financial assistance to parents who give up their jobs or a substantial increase in child benefits) decreases with age.2 However, other studies seem to question, if not contradict, these findings (see also Chapter Twelve). Based on data from a Eurobarometer survey (conducted in 2001), Kohl (2003) argues that the differences of opinion between age groups are well below the level that generational conflict advocates would suggest. Based on data from the Swedish Welfare State Surveys, Svalfors (2008) argues that although support for policies targeted at younger people (child benefits, childcare and so on) is lower in those aged between 65 and 74, support for policies targeted towards the elderly is high across all age groups. As can be seen in the previous paragraphs, much of this debate has concentrated on the redistributive function of the welfare state (see also Chapter Two). However, the existing literature seems to neglect the possible impact of demographic ageing in an important function of modern welfare states: the regulation of the 15

Intergenerational relations

functioning of labour markets.This lack of attention is somewhat surprising. First, because the way that labour markets are regulated can impact on their performance (see Nickell and Layard, 1999), which then impacts on the sustainability of the welfare state. Second, because demographic ageing can impact on key areas of the functioning of labour markets, namely, the formation of wage equilibrium (Mosca, 2009) and job creation/destruction dynamics that determine the level of unemployment (Hetze and Ochsen, 2005), which again can condition the sustainability of modern welfare states. This chapter will show that, because it conditions the individuals’ position in economic and family lifecycles, age can have a significant role in shaping individual preferences with regard to how the functioning of the labour market should be regulated. It will begin by demonstrating that the literature on preferences for redistribution provides a fertile ground for exploring the role of age in explaining variations in how labour markets are regulated. It will then go on to explore the ways in which age can influence preferences with regard to three key issues in how labour markets are regulated: the protection of the right to employment, the protection of the unemployed and the structure of wage systems or human capital investment policies. Finally, the mechanisms by which age can influence the formation of preferences for labour market regulation will be discussed.3

Regulating the functioning of labour markets: a brief review Looking through the existing literature, two bodies of research that are relevant for explaining variations in the way labour markets are regulated can be identified. These are the political economy literature and the literature on preferences for redistribution.

The political economy literature The political economy literature is, of course, broad (see Caporaso and Levine, 1992). This section looks specifically at the key standpoints in the literature that focuses on the regulation of labour markets.4 Reviewing the literature on this topic, two rather distinct points of view can be identified.The first, which is epitomised in the ‘Varieties of Capitalism’ (VoC) approach, is based on the premise that the rules and institutions that regulate the functioning of the labour market are the product of cooperation between individuals/social groups. VoC departs from two key assumptions.The first is that firms are central actors in capitalist economies and that, in order to prosper, they must engage with other spheres of the economy/society – financial markets, trade unions, education and training systems, innovation systems and so on. The second is that both capital (that is, business) and labour (that is, workers) are internally diverse, and that this diversity shapes the direction of welfare development (Hall and Gingerich, 2004; Korpi, 2006). According to Estévez-Abe et al (2001), the ability of firms to compete in international markets depends on the combination of skills in the 16

Labour market and intergenerational relations

workforce, whether general or firm/sector-specific. If firms want to compete in markets that require a high level of firm/sector-specific skills – which expose workers to higher risks (dependence on a restricted set of employers, exposure to risk of technological unemployment5) – they need to put in place the insurance mechanisms, namely, higher levels of employment protection or unemployment protection, that create an incentive for workers to invest in those skills. When these institutional arrangements are not in place, workers will tend to invest in general skills. In line with this, Hall and Soskice (2001) differentiate between two types of capitalist regimes, each articulating a specific relation between production and social protection regimes. Thus, on the one side, there are coordinated market economies – best exemplified by Germany – where production relies mostly on specific skills and thus there is great support for welfare development. On the other side, there are liberal market economies – best exemplified by the US – where production relies mostly on general skills and there is less support for welfare state development (Hall and Gingerich, 2004; Korpi, 2006). In contrast with VoC, a number of standpoints depart from the assumption that the different models of labour market regulation are the product of the conflict of interests between different individuals/social groups.The most notorious example of this is the ‘Power-Resources6 Approach’ (PRA) favoured by Korpi (2006) and others. PRA departs from the assumption that capitalist societies are marked by an imbalance between business, which relies on financial capital and control over means-of-production as power resources, and labour, which can only rely on its human capital as a power resource. In order to reduce this imbalance, the labour force tries to organise itself through collective action and into political parties. This will impact the nature and functioning of the institutions that regulate the functioning of labour markets (that is, employment protection legislation, unemployment benefits, wage-setting institutions and so on). For instance, according to Korpi (2006, p 80), the increased power of organised labour leads to the introduction of ‘neocorporatist’ institutional arrangements – such as social and economic councils, where representatives of both business and trade unions negotiate the level of wages for a given sector or the entire economy – aimed at regulating the functioning of the labour market. Moreover, the smaller the disadvantage of organised labour with regard to capital, and the stronger the hold of left-wing parties (traditionally more aligned with the interests of organised labour) over the government, the more likely that the outcomes of tripartite bargaining processes will favour the interests of organised labour – which would further explain the expansion of welfare policies (Korpi, 2006). Another example of this ‘conflict-oriented’ approach to labour market regulation can be found in Rueda’s (2007) ‘Insider-Outsider’ model.7 Rueda (2007, pp 14–15) starts from the premise that labour can be divided into insiders and outsiders. The first group is composed of workers who, as a product of employment protection legislation, the action of unions and the high turnover 17

Intergenerational relations

cost that their skills represent for their employers, are not exposed to a significant unemployment risk.The second group is composed of unemployed persons and workers with lower levels of employment protection, lower salaries and lower social security rights. Given their greater exposure to the risk of unemployment, outsiders will support income replacement policies and policies that facilitate employment creation, notably lower employment protection. Insiders, on the other hand, will favour stronger employment protection and oppose labour market policies that promote the competition for jobs from outsiders in the labour market, which would increase pressure for reduction in salaries (low-wage competition) (Rueda, 2007).

The literature on preferences for labour market regulation In the same way as the literature on preferences for redistribution (see the Introduction to this chapter), the literature on individuals’ preferences for labour market regulation provides contradictory evidence on the impact of age on the formation of individual preferences. Thus, a study of voting behaviour in referendums on social policy reforms in Switzerland,8 conducted by Bonoli and Häuserman (2009), suggests that people over 65 are more likely to support a reduction of employment protection and of unemployment protection, than those aged 18 to 39. Not only that, they are also less likely to support working-time reductions than younger voters (Bonoli and Häuserman, 2009). On the other hand, Busemeyer et  al (2009) find that, although individuals between 30 and 59 and in work are more likely to support higher spending on unemployment benefits than those who are already retired, age effects are generally low – except in Sweden and Norway, Japan and the USA where age effects are more visible. Based on data from an ISSP survey module on ‘The Role of Government’ (covering 23 countries), Fraile and Ferrer (2005) argue that support for cuts in the level of unemployment benefits spending actually decreases with age. Based on the same data, but using a more advanced method of statistical analysis,9 Blekesaune and Quadagno (2003) also find a positive relation between age and support for welfare policies towards the unemployed. However, the effect of the age variable becomes statistically insignificant after controlling for the importance of equalitarian ideology in society.

Exploring the role of age in shaping variations in the regulation of labour markets While brief, this review provides some key insights regarding the role of age in shaping variations in the way labour markets are regulated. The most obvious is that, given that the political economy literature has broadly neglected it, the literature on preferences for redistribution provides a much more fertile ground

18

Labour market and intergenerational relations

for exploring the role of age (as an individual and a demographic phenomenon) in shaping different models of labour market regulation. Nonetheless, the literature on preferences for redistribution has some important shortcomings. First of all, the existing literature fails to provide a comprehensive (and consistent) picture of how different aspects of labour market regulation can be the object of age-based preferences. Not only that, the existing literature fails to provide a detailed framework for understanding the role of age in the formation of preferences for labour market regulation. On the one hand, despite covering some relevant socio-economic variables – such as income, education or labour market status (see Blekesaune and Quadagno, 2003; Fraile and Ferrer, 2005; Busemeyer et al, 2009) – the existing literature has failed to control for the influence of other variables.These variables include the type of skills owned by workers (see Hall and Gingerich, 2004) or the position regarding the relation between capital and labour (see Korpi, 2006) – which the political economy literature suggests might influence the individuals’ preferences for labour market regulation. On the other hand, the existing studies seem to neglect that age also determines the individual’s position in the demographic/family life-cycle, and that this can also influence individual preferences in the economic sphere (see Irwin, 1996). A good example of this can be found in Wilkoszewski’s (2009) study of the factors that shape support for intergenerational transfers. Here, the author shows that childless respondents are less likely to support policies that involve a transfer of money or provide more time to younger generations, and are more supportive of increasing upward transfers – that is, pensions (2009). Similarly, the existence of grandchildren seems to increase support for policies that transfer money and time to younger generations (2009).

Age-based preferences for the regulation of labour markets This section will examine the way in which different aspects of labour market regulation can be the object of age-based preferences. A good example can be found in the choice between seniority-based vs productivity-based wage systems in organisations. In face of the prospect of a decline in productivity (Skirbekk, 2003), older workers would be expected to favour seniority-based systems, of which they are the main beneficiaries. On the other hand, younger workers would be expected to favour productivity-based systems, which allow them to take advantage of their productivity differential. Another example can be found in the choice over the level of employment protection in the labour market. Evidence suggests that, while having a positive impact on the employment levels of older workers (Bassanini and Duval, 2006), strong employment protection may have detrimental effects for younger workers – notably higher unemployment and lower employment levels (see Scarpetta, 1996; Jimeno and Rodriguez-Palenzuela, 2003).Therefore, younger workers would be

19

Intergenerational relations

expected to be more supportive of flexible labour markets, while older workers would support stronger employment protection. Another relevant area concerns the policies for assisting the unemployed. For instance, in line with Bonoli and Häuserman’s (2009) findings, retired persons – as they are no longer exposed to the risk of unemployment – would be expected to be more supportive of cuts, or the strengthening of conditionality, in unemployment benefits than young (active) individuals. In the same way, retired persons would be expected to be less supportive of public investment in active labour market policies (ALMP) – such as hiring incentives, job-creation schemes, training programmes and so on – than active workers. A final area concerns policies of human capital investment, namely, training. The literature suggests that the gains of investment in human capital decreases with the approaching of retirement age (see Echevarria, 2003). Therefore, older workers would be expected to be less supportive of government investment in training than younger workers. Of course, the nature (and strength) of age-based preferences will vary with the intrinsic nature of each area of labour market regulation and, as Kangas’s (1997) seminal study shows,10 by how gains and costs are made visible to individuals in different age groups.Thus, age-based preferences would be expected to be stronger in areas where the distribution of gains (and) costs along age lines is more visible.

Understanding the importance of age in shaping preferences for labour market regulation The previous section showed that a number of key areas of labour market regulation might be the object of age-based preferences. However, this is insignificant if we are not able to explain the mechanisms by which age plays a role in the formation of individual preferences for labour market regulation. Reflecting on the relevant literature, the present author would argue that this happens in two ways. First, age conditions an individual’s position in the economic cycle.As mentioned earlier, an individual’s age can determine his/her position towards the labour market (active versus inactive/retired) and his/her position in the distribution of risks (unemployment) and rewards (wages, employment protection, human capital related premiums) in the labour market – which then helps to structure his/her preferences as to the design of relevant labour market institutions. Second, age can condition (if not determine) the individual’s position in the family life-cycle, which (as mentioned earlier) can influence preferences in the economic sphere. Thus, an older person’s preference with regard to the level of protection that must be granted unemployed persons might be influenced by the existence of an unemployed partner, son/daughter or grandson/granddaughter. In the same way, the existence of a young unemployed worker in the household can influence the parents’ preference for the level of employment protection. Such attitudes might reflect what Wilkoszewski (2009, p  11) labels ‘dynastic altruism’, where parents and grandparents support transfers that do not benefit 20

Labour market and intergenerational relations

them directly, but that benefit their descendants. Alternatively, they might instead reflect a broader conception of self-interest, which is determined by reference not to the individual, but to the family unit as a whole. However, more than just the pattern of family relations, individual preferences might be influenced by the frequency and quality of contacts between generations within the family. For instance, a study conducted by Goerres and Tepe (2010) suggests that a higher frequency of visits to children increases the odds that older people support the idea that the government should provide childcare to those who need it. In light of this, the impact of the presence of young unemployed persons in the family on older family members’ preferences may be expected to be mediated by the frequency and quality of intergenerational (face-to-face) interactions.

Conclusion As mentioned at the start of this chapter, in contrast to the literature on the politics of redistribution, the impact of demographic ageing on the politics of labour market regulation has received little attention from academics (and policymakers). This chapter has tried to tackle this (rather neglected) issue. First, we have seen how some key areas of labour market regulation – namely, the structure of wage systems, employment protection policies, the policies for the protection of the unemployed or the level of investment in training – might be the object of conflicting preferences between young and older workers and/ or between older (retired) and younger (active) generations. However, as demonstrated in the subsequent sections, this approach, which is based on the assumption that the role of age in shaping preferences for labour market regulation, neglects the fact that age also plays a role in shaping (if not determining) the individual’s position in the family life-cycle, which can influence preferences in the economic sphere, too. In light of this, further research into how demographic ageing can have an impact on the way labour markets are regulated must be based on a broad understanding of how age impacts on an individual’s preferences for labour market regulation that recognises the influence of both economic and family/demographic criteria in defining an individual’s self-interest. Notes This is due to the important methodological shortcomings and limited comparability of the existing studies. For a more comprehensive review of the literature on this topic see Wilkoszewski (2009) and Goerres and Tepe (2010).

1

However, we should bear in mind that these results are based on a country where intergenerational conflicts are particularly evident (see Busemeyer et al, 2009). 2

Admittedly, there is literature that suggests that individuals’ behaviour (in this case political choices) does not immediately reflect their attitudes (see Azjen and Fishbein, 1980). However, for the sake of simplicity, we will be working under the assumption (on 3

21

Intergenerational relations which the literature on attitudes to the welfare state is based) that individuals’ attitudes are a good prediction of their political behaviour. While acknowledging its importance, the role of industrial dialogue institutions in shaping the modes of labour market regulation will not be discussed here.

4

The term ‘technological unemployment’ is used to mean unemployment that is prompted by changes in the technology used in production processes. 5

That is, the characteristics that provide actors with the ability to punish or reward others (Korpi, 2006, p 172). 6

Another variant of this ‘conflict-oriented’ approach can be found in Pierson’s (2007), highly influential, ‘New Politics of the Welfare State’ (NP). While PRA focuses on how trade unions pursue their interests through societal bargaining and democratic politics, NP focuses on the strategies pursued by advocates of welfare retrenchment and how these are conditioned by electoral preoccupations and institutional configurations.While useful in understanding the processes that shape reforms in old age and healthcare policies, this framework is less useful for understanding the processes that shape the regulation of labour markets.

7

As Bonoli and Häuserman (2009) rightly mention, there is a drawback to such an approach as voter turnout is socially structured, which of course limits the representativeness of the sample on which this study is based. 8

In contrast with Fraile and Ferrer (2005), who try to capture national/societal effects with a simple logit model, Blekesaune and Quadagno (2003) use a two-level model, which provides better estimates about the effects of macro-level variables in explaining variations in preferences for labour market regulation. 9

As Kangas (1997) shows, more general questions on redistribution tend to solicit altruistic responses, while more questions which are more specific about who gets what – and at what costs for whom – tend to produce more selfish attitudes.

10

References Ajzen, I. and Fishbein. M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Bassanini, A. and Duval, R. (2006) ‘Employment patterns in OECD countries: reassessing the role of policies and institutions’, Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, no 35, OECD. Blekesaune, M. and Quadagno, J. (2003) ‘Public attitudes toward welfare state policies. A comparative analysis of 24 nations’, European Sociological Review, vol 19, no 5, pp 415–27. Bonoli, G. and Häuserman, S. (2009) ‘Who wants what from the welfare state?’, European Societies, vol 11, no 2, pp 211–23.

22

Labour market and intergenerational relations

Busemeyer, M., Goerres,A. and Weschle, S. (2009) ‘Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing‘, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 19, pp 195–212. Echevarria, C. (2003) ‘Life expectancy, retirement and endogenous growth’, Economic Modelling, no 21, pp 147–74. Estévez-Abe, M., Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘Social protection and the formation of skills: a reintegration of the welfare state’, in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds) Varieties of Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 145–83. Fraile, M. and Ferrer, M. (2005) ‘Explaining the determinants of public support for cuts in unemployment benefits spending across OECD countries’, International Sociology, vol 20, no 4, pp 459–81. Goerres,A. and Tepe, M. (2010) ‘Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare State: a comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries’, European Journal of Political Research, vol 49, no 6, pp 818–51. Hall, P. and Gingerich, D. (2004) Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the macroeconomy: an empirical analysis, Discussion Paper 04/5, Köln: Max-PlanckInstitut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Hall, P. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘An introduction to varieties of capitalism’, in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds) Varieties of capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 1–68. Hetze, P. and C. Ochsen (2005) ‘How aging of the labor force affects equilibrium unemployment’, Thünen-Series of Applied Economic Theory Working Papers, no 57. Irwin, S. (1996) ‘Age related distributive justice and claims on resources’, British Journal of Sociology, vol 47, pp 68–92. ISSP (2006) 2006 ISSP module on role of government, available at: http://info1.gesis. org/dbksearch/file.asp?file=ZA4700_bq.pdf. Jimeno, J. and Rodriguez-Palenzuela, J. (2003) ‘Youth unemployment in the OECD: demographic shifts, labour market institutions, and macroeconomic shocks’, FEDEA Working Papers,no 2002–15, FEDEA. Kangas, O. (1997) ‘Self-interest and the common good: the impact of norms, selfishness and context in social policy opinions’, Journal of Socio-Economics, vol 26, no 5, pp 475–94. Kohl, J. (2003) ‘Principles of distributive justice in pension policies. Cross-national variations in public opinion’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the ISA Research Committee 19, Toronto: August 2003. Kohli, M. (2005) Aging and justice, Research Report 74 of the Research Group on Aging and the Life Course (FALL), Berlin: Free University of Berlin. Korpi, W. (2006) ‘Power resources and employer-centered approaches in explanations of welfare states and varieties of capitalism: protagonists, consenters, and antagonists’, World Politics, vol 58, no 2, pp 167–206. Mosca, I. (2009) ‘Population ageing and the labour market: evidence from Italy’, Labour, vol 23, no 2, pp 371–95.

23

Intergenerational relations

Nickel, W. and Layard, R. (1999) ‘Labor market institutions and economic performance’, in O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (ed) Handbook of labor economics, Elsevier (Edition 1), vol 3, no 3, pp 3029–84. Pierson, P. (2007) ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, in R.Vij (ed) Globalization and welfare: a critical reader, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp 147–60. Preston, S. (1984) ‘Children and the elderly: Divergent paths for America’s dependents’, Demography, vol 21, pp 435–57. Rueda, D. (2007) Social democracy inside out: government partisanship, insiders, and outsiders in industrialized democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scarpetta, S. (1996) ‘Assessing the role of labour market policies and institutional settings on unemployment: a cross-country study’, OECD Economic Studies, no 26. Skirbekk,V. (2003) ‘Age and individual productivity: a literature survey’, MPIDR Working Papers, WP 2003-28. Smith, T. (2000) Public support for governmental benefits for the elderly across countries and time, Paris: OECD. Svalfors, S. (2008) ‘The generational contract in Sweden: age-specific attitudes to age-related policies’, Policy & Politics, vol 36, no 3, pp 381–96. Turner, B.S. (1989) ‘Aging, status politics and sociological theory’, British Journal of Sociology, vol 40, pp 588–606. Wilkoszewski, H. (2009) ‘Age trajectories of social policy preferences support for intergenerational transfers from a demographic perspective’, MPIDR Working Paper 2009-34, Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

24

two

Intergenerational solidarity in families: interplay between the family and the state Kairi Kasearu and Dagmar Kutsar

Introduction In recent years, the issue of intergenerational solidarity and relations between generations has gained a lot of attention in academic spheres (for example, Albertini et al, 2007; Saraceno, 2008). The interest of scholars has emerged in response to demographic changes (such as longevity, decreased fertility) and initiated from public concern.This is a broad research area and contains different levels, ranging from intergenerational family relations at the micro level to the wide spectrum of relations between generations at the macro level. However, these two levels are closely related: intergenerational relations within families are formed and shaped by the cultural context and the position of different generations in society.Thus, if we consider intergenerational solidarity in the framework of the welfare state, three actors emerge: families, market and the state. In recent decades, mostly in western European countries, the interplay between state interventions and family obligations in caregiving has gained much attention (Kohli, 1999; Attias-Donfut and Wolff, 2000; Daatland and Herlofson, 2003; Albertini et al, 2007; Saraceno, 2008; Blome et al, 2009). As stated by Martin (2004, p 14), ‘the “family question” has thus become a component of the “social question” and indeed occupies an increasingly important place in the debate on the crisis and evolution of social protection systems’. This raises the question of allocations between private and public protection, and the respective roles of the state, the market and the family in welfare provision to individuals. This chapter is based on the idea that different types of welfare state and kinship regimes shape and maintain the cultural, normative and practical context in which intergenerational relations take place. According to Saraceno (2008), welfare state policies are to a large degree not only policies of age and of obligations between social generations, for example, through pension and school systems, but they are also forms of regulating obligations within family generations, through measures concerning maternity and parental leaves, child benefits, access to education, to social assistance and social care, and through legal definitions of ‘family obligations’. Thus, the welfare state frames the context in which intergenerational relations are embedded. However, the higher involvement of the welfare state in welfare 25

Intergenerational relations

provision to individuals may challenge the institution of the family as a caregiver and, as a backlash, the ties between the family members and the generations they represent will get weaker.This is described as the crowding-out hypothesis, whereby the state displaces family obligations and support (Cox and Jakubson, 1995; Künemund and Rein, 1999; Martin, 2004; Reil-Held, 2006), thus weakening the intra-familial bonds. The contrary view is that even if state intervention will reduce the family care intensity, rather the opposite – crowding-in – will occur: emotional ties between family generations will become even more important, and closeness and solidarity between generations will increase (Daatland, 2001; Reil-Held, 2006; Künemund, 2008).The authors who support crowding-in usually look at two generations of adults (elderly parents and their grown-up children) as family caretakers and recipients while not mentioning the third generation – the underage children and adolescents. They also do not discuss whether state intervention will either crowd-in or crowd-out the underage children, for instance, whether the well-developed public childcare system will reduce the care-taking load placed on grandparents, thus decreasing the contact between grandparents and grandchildren (see also Chapter Nine). Surely, due to ‘longer years of shared lives’ (Uhlenberg, 1996), the multigenerational approach gains more importance. Moreover, the changes in the social security system and social policy may have a diverse influence on different social groups. Harald Künemund (2008) has pointed out that the changes in welfare state, for example a reduction in state spending on the elderly, leads to different effects on intergenerational relations in different social groups by exaggerating already existing social inequalities. For instance, the shift from state-provided public services to state payments for care-dependent persons may result in higher social class differences by increasing the family involvement among social groups with lower socioeconomic status (see Saraceno, 2010). As an example, in the Netherlands, the introduction of co-payments for public services led to a new situation for families: low-income families increased their family care provision while high-income families increasingly turned to the market for care services (Knijn, 2001). The aim of the current chapter is to discuss intergenerational solidarity in the framework of the welfare state with a specific focus on crowding-in and crowding-out phenomena while keeping in mind at least three familial generations.

Dimensions of intergenerational solidarity Var ious approaches have considered intergenerational solidarity as a multidimensional construct. A distinction should be made between, first, intergenerational solidarity of family members representing different generations and, second, intergenerational relations and solidarity of generations as social groups.The latter is important to keep in mind from the perspective of social justice by redistribution of social goods (see, for example, Qvortrup, 1991; Busemeyer et  al, 2009). Namely, in the situation of an overall ageing Europe, where – according to Eurostat – the child (0–14 years) population forms only 15% of the 26

Intergenerational solidarity in families

total population and the old age dependency ratio is 25.9%,1 general solidarity between generations is gaining importance. Solidarity is the most influential factor determining political decisions on how the social wealth is redistributed not only in terms of money but also in terms of services provision, for instance, more financial resources for children (public childcare, family allowances) or for the elderly (higher state pensions, day care centres and elderly homes). Surely, political decisions are framed by social values, attitudes and everyday practices of families on one hand and the type of the welfare state on the other. It should be taken into consideration that the interaction between the welfare state and individual behaviour of the families is dual. On one hand, it is assumed that the form of the welfare state shapes the behaviour patterns of the families, on the other hand, by following its own developmental path, it also responds to changes occurring within the family institution. This chapter will not focus on intergenerational solidarity issues on the macro level but instead it will look at their emergence on the family level. More specifically, it will examine whether the welfare state crowds-in or crowds-out the different types of intergenerational solidarity in the family framework. The answer to the question of whether the welfare state will crowd-in or crowd-out the family support depends on how intergenerational solidarity is measured. For instance, Vern Bengtson and Robert Roberts (1991) distinguish six dimensions of family level intergenerational solidarity. The present chapter draws on Marc Szydlik’s approach (2000) and applies three dimensions of solidarity: functional (financial and instrumental transfers and aid), affective (emotional closeness) and associative solidarity (contact frequency and proximity). The dimensions of solidarity are not always internally related, the increase or decrease of one dimension is not always accompanied by an increase or decrease in other dimensions of solidarity. It is suggested that the welfare state will essentially crowd-out the dimension of functional solidarity in more generous welfare states (Künemund, 2008, p 110). The level of incidence and intensity is affected by the need for different kinds of support, which in turn is shaped by the overall structural and socio-political context.There is less empirical support with regard to the negative association between the welfare state and associative and affective solidarity. For instance, the decrease in face-to-face contacts in the northwestern European cultural area (Höllinger and Haller, 1990) can be replaced by an increase in more indirect methods of contact, like e-mails and other electronic media devices (for example, Hurme et al, 2010). The question remains as to whether these new methods of keeping contact have a similar effect to face-to-face contacts in terms of associative and affective intergenerational solidarity and support thus the crowding-in instead of the crowding-out perspective.

Welfare state framing intergenerational solidarity The relation between the state and the family is manifold and mostly explained by different types of welfare regimes. Since the groundbreaking work of 27

Intergenerational relations

Esping-Andersen (1990), the concept of the welfare state has been widely applied to explain differences, from family formation issues to aspects of pension systems and social security. Although the categorisation of most important capitalist economies into three welfare regimes has been criticised and, in recent years, these systems have been under pressure to reform, they can still be applied as a starting point for the discussion.The criticism is mostly drawn from the approach of the ideal type. Namely, no standard regime type exists (Kasza, 2002) and as Kohl (1993) concludes, the approach of Esping-Andersen does not make any systematic distinction between ideal types and actual countries; rather, the countries are assigned to the various types. There is also a strong debate on whether Eastern European countries form a separate type of a welfare regime or whether they could be assigned to the existing ones (Deacon, 2000; Aidukaite, 2004; Schubert et al, 2009). Despite these weaknesses, the present authors consider that European countries more or less represent certain welfare regimes, and these welfare regimes are characterised by their own logic while relating the state and the family as a social institution. This allows researchers to expect that familial solidarity between generations is shaped by this context and, accordingly, that countries will display different patterns.Thus, at the macro level one can distinguish between structural, institutional and cultural factors (Albertini et al, 2007).According to Albertini et al (2007), structural factors combine demographic aspects of households and families, labour force structure and income and wealth distribution between generations. Secondly, intergenerational solidarity is affected by institutional factors, for example child and elderly care systems, pension and health care systems and employment policies (see also Chapter One).Thus, the state influences the familyprovided help through the way it organises and provides services to individuals and also through general economic and social policies, which shape the material and social conditions within which individual families find themselves (Walker, 1996, p 28). Finally, cultural factors such as general family, gender and generation values, religiosity, cultural norms and traditions form the basis for intergenerational solidarity (see also Chapter Ten). To conclude, the pattern of familial solidarity between generations is embedded into the societal and cultural context. Regarding social care services, European countries have very diverse policies (Anttonen and Sipilä, 1996). This could be seen as a negotiation between the state and the family about by whom, how much and in what manner social care is provided to secure the well-being of the individual.Thus, a social care package contains both formal and informal care, private and public, family and nonfamily provided, and the internal balance of the package differs across countries, social groups and individual families (Kalmijn and Saraceno, 2008). Also EspingAndersen (1999), in his more recent work, extends his approach by pointing to the family position related to different social and political contexts. In a familialistic system, public policy supposes that households must carry the principal responsibility for their members’ welfare and, in contrast, in a defamilialised regime public policy tries to unburden the household and to 28

Intergenerational solidarity in families

diminish individuals’ welfare dependence on the personal family network (EspingAndersen, 1999). In addition to the two forms mentioned, Linda Hantrais (2004) brings in the refamilialised system in which state intervention revives the family obligations. In the beginning of the current decade, the Scandinavian countries, considered as belonging to the socio-democratic welfare regime, were described as representing a defamilialising political system where the state has reduced the care obligation of the family by creating a broad system of social services, thus producing a shift from private to public care services. Other countries such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands belong to the second cluster, the partly defamilialised. According to Hantrais (2004), the refamilialisation process has taken place in eastern European countries, where the family policy has been rhetoric: it declared the importance of the family institution and family values (see also Chapter Seven). However, in its implementations it has been purely pronatalist, while weakly institutionalised, coordinated and financed. During the establishment of a market-based economy in the early 1990s after the end of the Communist era, the role of the family as a provider of welfare increased, with great variety across the post-communist countries (Rys, 2001). Finally, the southern European countries represent the familialising political system, where the family is the main provider for the individual well-being of its members, supported by deeply seated cultural norms and traditions. Empirical findings indicate the divergence of familial solidarity between generations across countries. For instance, the intergenerational time and financial transfers are more frequent but less intense in the Nordic countries than in the southern European countries (Albertini et al, 2007), and the idea of the welfare state as main provider of care also follows the north–south gradient (Daatland and Herlofson, 2003; Haberkern and Szydlik, 2010). It could be expected that the patterns of different aspects of intergenerational relations, that is, transfers, solidarity, care provision, and so on, are more or less tracking the pattern of the welfare regimes. To conclude, the socio-cultural context shaping familial solidarity between generations can be characterised by two aspects: (1) the institutional arrangements and national policy aims, cultural norms and traditions that guide and shape concurrent social policy decisions, and (2) the idea that the interplay between the family and the state is not static but rather dynamic and may change over time. Moreover, one should take into account that the national institutional level is shaped by the EU-level directives and strategies, for example, related to women’s employment opportunities, child and elderly care intensity and services provision, and so on, which in turn affect the general pattern of intergenerational solidarity in the families. EU-level policy supports user orientation from public to private provision of services, where the increased focus on user empowerment is accompanied by the introduction of market-based regulatory mechanisms and the increased involvement of the private sector in service provision. Also, decentralisation, a trend towards transferring more responsibility to local 29

Intergenerational relations

levels in the organisation of social services, is seen as a priority.2 However, the implementation of the EU guidelines in national welfare state contexts and its outcomes vary from country to country.

Crowding-in and crowding-out in different socio-cultural contexts The emergence of the welfare state has shaped intergenerational relations in different domains, ranging from household composition and caregiving to the contact frequency between family members. These changes have raised the question of whether the increasing contribution of the welfare state will challenge the intimate and close relations between familial generations, and whether this can be seen as a weakening or strengthening of intergenerational solidarity in families. In the field of sociology, social policy and ageing studies, these issues have gained much attention, and two contradictory standpoints have emerged. First, in a theoretical way it was assumed that the increasing contribution of the welfare state in people’s lives will crowd-out the family-provided support and, thereby, reduce the emotional closeness between generations. However, empirical analyses have not found much support for this approach; rather, they have come up with insights that, in the sphere of intergenerational relations, the welfare state will contribute to the phenomenon of crowding-in (Künemund, 2008). Or, as concluded by Motel-Klingebiel et al (2005), the family-provided help and welfare state services can act in a cumulative way and take the shape of so-called ‘mixed responsibility’. According to this approach, the welfare state will take over care responsibilities and thus family members have more opportunities to maintain their close relationships without perceiving them as obligatory. For instance, the SHARE3 data indicated that care services do not discourage nor fully substitute private relationships; rather, care responsibilities are divided among different providers (Keck, 2008). However, this study brought up an important conclusion: a strong imbalance between grown-up children in picking up informal care responsibilities weakens the relationships between parents and their non-care giving children. Hence, the crowding-out may happen inside the family group and may not be merely the outcome of the interplay between private and public care. Moreover, as stated above, crowding-in and crowding-out depend on the type or dimension of solidarity under consideration: whether it takes place in the functional, affective or associative dimension of solidarity (that is, the dimensions defined by Szydlik, 2000) and to what degree. However, the crowding process may vary from generation to generation, for example with crowding-in affecting one generation and crowding-out another. The second issue is the process of crowding-in and crowding-out of different dimensions of intergenerational solidarity across welfare regimes.The universalistic Nordic welfare model carries the principle of equal opportunities whereby ‘the arrangements in social-democratic regimes are accessible to all the citizens regardless of their social status and few, if any, additional conditions apply if the 30

Intergenerational solidarity in families

covered events occur’ (Bannink and Hoogenboom, 2007, p 21). It is state-centred and at the same time relies on co-operation with families in creation of the socalled equal opportunities ‘dual earner/dual carer model’, according to which ‘men and women engage symmetrically in both paid work and unpaid caregiving’ (Gornick and Meyers, 2003, p 92). At first glance, the state–family distribution of family care responsibilities seems to be balanced and the welfare state intervention does not lead to a crowding-out effect of familial solidarity. On the other hand, Häikiö and Anttonen (2011) point out that if the combination of formal and informal care is prioritised, the informal carers fulfil double roles: they are service users and service providers at the same time. For instance, it is mainly women who are responsible for care, which means that they are service providers who negotiate with local authorities on behalf of persons needing care but at the same time they are citizens who have rights to social support. Thus, Häikiö and Anttonen (2011, p 186) state that the dual position of carers challenges Nordic social policies resting on the principle of universalism and reveals new inequalities emerging among the informal carers. Namely, public resources are more easily available for resource-rich than for resource-poor carers. Welfare services, such as childcare, elder care and disability care, are organised in the Scandinavian welfare model in a decentralised way, which means that the main responsibility for the social services rests with highly autonomous local governments.This could lead to local diversity in service provision and is explained as a sign of geographical inequality. Strong municipal autonomy may be seen as a threat to a universal and equitable social service system (Rauch, 2008).Yet on the other hand, this could be interpreted as the advantage of decentralised welfare provision, as geographical variations may be regarded as evidence of successful responsiveness to the needs of the local population (Powell and Boyne, 2001). Notwithstanding, recent analyses have shown that even in Sweden in the case of elder care ‘the earlier strong local path dependency has faded out and, therefore, the concepts “welfare municipality” and “local social policy” appear to be less accurate than heretofore’ (Trydegård and Thorslund, 2010, p 508). The authors stress that compared to the 1990s the change from decentralised to higher centralisation in welfare distribution in Sweden is not explained by the alteration of the steering instruments of the central state or national policy, legislation or state grants. The municipalities still have freedom to decide on their priorities. The decreasing differences between municipalities are explained by the fact that a process of regulation is occurring through municipal comparisons and benchmarking of quality indicators, which may influence both the provision and the quality of services (Trydegård and Thorslund, 2010).Thus, the universal approach, whereby all citizens are treated equally and the individual social welfare is provided by the state is, in actuality, not as clear-cut as the mainstream view describes it. However, policy still supports functional independence of family members and thus, it could be supposed that in respect of functional solidarity, crowding-out is taking place. At the same time the other two dimensions of solidarity may become even more important and may strengthen the crowding-in process. In case of childcare, the 31

Intergenerational relations

lack of public day care for children goes along with low maternal employment, which means that the mother is a full-time carer and there is only limited demand for grandparents’ support; however, if the mother is employed, she has to rely on grandparents as caregivers on a regular basis (Hank and Buber, 2009; see also Chapter Nine). Thus, in welfare states with well-developed services, the ‘mixed responsibility’ thesis finds support (Motel-Klingebiel et al, 2005, p 865), whereby family members concentrate on informal voluntary and less timeconsuming support while the state provides more regular care and services (for example, Brandt et al, 2009).The public investments might crowd-in grandparents’ willingness to be involved in childcare but crowd-out the intensity of time transfers (Igel and Szydlik, 2011). However, on a critical note, the Scandinavian model, which strongly relies on family–state cooperation, does not pay extra attention to children and youth where family support is missing (for example, to youth from public care or children and youth with severely problematic family backgrounds). In the latter case, a sharp increase in the welfare state’s intervention is the most functional. Even if this would lead to crowding-out effects with lowering potentials of intergenerational solidarity in the family, this can still be regarded as a ‘good escape’ for the underage family generation. In the case of the liberal regime, defamilialisation is also taking place, but the difference to the universalistic regime is based on the provider of welfare. In the liberal regime, the allocation is based upon market value, and the market is the primary coordinating mechanism. Although the liberal regimes are seen as defamilialised systems, internally they could increase stratification. As stated by Leitner (2003, p 357) ‘… market driven care provision makes defamilialisation a class biased issue since only the better-off can afford to be defamilialised or the quality of defamilialisation varies considerably by income’. Regarding intergenerational solidarity, it could be supposed that a polarisation is occurring: on the one hand, in better-off families the functional solidarity will be crowded-out by market-based social services and at the same time the affective and associative solidarity will be crowded-in. However, on the other hand, financially deprived families are more functionally interdependent. For instance, support from elders may serve as a key resource for adult children who lack personal and social resources in their mid-life (McIlvane et al, 2007). In this case, the elderly parents may feel obligated to help their grown-up children and thus it could challenge the affective solidarity between family members. Crowding-out of affective solidarity may occur in the familialised regime, in which the family members are assumed to be the main care and support providers. In the Mediterranean countries, for instance, young people stay with their families longer than ever before and longer compared to other European countries, and in case of need for parental support, co-residence is the solution (Kohli and Albertini, 2008), thus increasing the potential of solidarity growth in both the associative and affective dimensions. In addition to cultural and family values, the housing policy and situation of labour market has had its influence (see also Chapter Twelve). Based on the findings in Italy, Poggio (2008) claims that the intergenerational 32

Intergenerational solidarity in families

transmission of in-kind and financial resources is still an important family strategy to access the housing market. This means that the solidarity in these countries (beside family-oriented values) is more or less originating from the institutional and societal arrangements. Moreover, political invisibility of youth disconnected from family support promotes extremely high risks of social exclusion in these countries. Kalmijn and Saraceno (2008) showed that in support-giving to elderly parents, the children are more important in familialistic countries in that they respond more strongly to the needs of their parents than in other countries. Thus, in ‘less developed welfare systems, the help given to the elderly may be motivated by the need of the recipients, so that an expansion of the welfare system will cause crowding-out to some degree’ (Künemund, 2008, p 112). Where elderly parents require care, a higher load placed on the family may result in less voluntary support and weaken ties between the generations (Brandt et al, 2009). For instance, co-residence as a support strategy may be characterised as a sign of a strong intergenerational bond but at the same time it is intrusive in its nature (Kohli and Albertini, 2008). In Greece, the grandparents have a significant role in childcare provision, and grandparents typically consider this to be both enjoyable and the best option for the child (Svensson-Dianellou et al, 2010). In the context of a society where very few older women are employed, the role of caregiver is one important way in which they can gain social status and have a valued role in the society. On the other hand, the absence of childcare facilities may push older, less educated women out of the labour market into caring for grandchildren, and one consequence is that their contributions to their social insurance funds will be inadequate (SvenssonDianellou et al, 2010), thus reducing the amount of their pension. If more women enter the labour market this will challenge the family-based childcare system and, thus, may influence intergenerational relations (see also Chapter Nine). However, regarding the proximity and contact frequency between generations, intergenerational relations in the Mediterranean countries are closer than in the Northern countries (Hank, 2007), suggesting that the development of the public welfare system has to face traditional family values which are deeply embedded in local culture. Regarding the post-communist countries, the collapse of the Soviet Union shifted the paternalistic care of the Soviet ideology to family self-reliance strategies (Ferge, 2001). As expected, it was women who had to provide the informal care work, which meant also an increasing intensity of intergenerational care and support provided by women. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the development of the new social protection system, overall economic growth, increasing rates of social and geographic mobility and migration, changing leisure patterns and other developmental factors have introduced potentials for crowding-out of family-based informal networking in terms of mutual assistance. As an outcome, in the case of Estonia, the role of relatives and family members in informal support networks has significantly decreased (Kasearu and Kutsar, 2010). The establishment of a new care provision system has been a key factor 33

Intergenerational relations

here. Moreover, in post-communist countries, the interplay between demographic trends and labour market changes may challenge intergenerational functional solidarity. Due to the rising retirement age of women (in the 1980s it was 55, now 65) on the one hand, and the demographic pattern of a lower age of women at childbirth seen in the 1980s on the other, nowadays grandmothers in eastern European countries are relatively young and mostly employed full-time, which means they have limited time available for taking care of grandchildren. The increasing involvement of grandmothers in gainful employment suggests that the need to balance work and family commitments will become a multigenerational family matter (Wang and Marcotte, 2007; Hank and Buber, 2009) and will not only change intergenerational solidarity but also increase the need for changes in childcare policies (Gray, 2005).

Conclusions In summary, the level of crowding-in or crowding-out may depend on the development phase of a welfare state (Künemund, 2008) and is initiated by larger social changes. The interplay between state and family responsibilities and individual expectations towards the care system could be challenged by different contextual factors. For instance, in the context in which the level of public provision is reduced, overcrowding in other spheres can occur (Künemund, 2008). The state is regarded as being responsible for providing resources and in this case if the state reduces its part, private donations may not cover the gap because of the overall expectations towards state obligations. This situation may also prevail in the context of rapid social changes, where the social security system needs to be built up, as was the case after the collapse of the totalitarian system of the Soviet bloc countries. In this case, intergenerational support is based on individual need. Beside the socio-political and demographic changes, the problem of ageing societies has intensified the need for a modification of the welfare state.As Pavolini and Ranci (2008) concluded regarding social care, in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and UK, a new type of government policy has emerged, which is designed to restructure rather than to reduce welfare programmes and, consequently, the divergence between countries is diminishing. Pavolini and Ranci claim that the new public policies in these countries explicitly recognise and sustain family caregiving and do not see it as a taken-for-granted activity.Thus, it could be expected that crowding-in is taking place in these welfare states, which on the one hand gives more autonomy and responsibility to the citizens and on the other hand supports greater flexibility to the systems of service provision. Moreover, as pointed out by Bannink and Hoogenboom (2007), the welfare state is continuously changing and its development is not necessarily path dependent; instead, the autonomous institutional change in welfare states is possible and expected because of the continuous creation of factors that are producing the pressure to reform.The constantly changing welfare states may gradually redefine

34

Intergenerational solidarity in families

family functions, values and cultural norms and thus shape the intergenerational solidarity in families. Notes This EUROSTAT indicator is the ratio between the total number of elderly persons of an age when they are generally economically inactive (aged 65 and over) and the number of persons of working age (from 15 to 64). 1

Commission of European Communities (2008) Biennial Report on social services of general interest – COM (2008) 418. 2

SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe), http://www.shareproject.org. 3

References Aidukaite, J. (2004) The emergence of the post-socialist welfare state, the case of the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Stockholm: Söderörns högskola. Albertini, M., Kohli, M. and Vogel, C. (2007) ‘Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns – different regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 17, pp 319–34. Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. (1996) ‘European social care services: is it possible to identify models?’, in M.Alestalo and P. Kosonen (eds) Welfare systems and European integration, Tampere: University of Tampere, pp 35–59. Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F.-C. (2000) ‘Complementarity between private and public transfers’, in S. Arber and C. Attias-Donfut (eds) The myth of generational conflict, London/NewYork: Routledge, pp 47–68. Bannink, D. and Hoogenboom, M. (2007) ‘Hidden change: disaggregation of welfare state regimes for greater insight into welfare state change’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 17, pp 19–32. Bengtson,V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. Blome, A., Keck, W. and Alber, J. (2009) Family and the welfare state in Europe: Intergenerational relations in ageing societies, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Brandt, M., Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. (2009) ‘Intergenerational help and care in Europe’, European Sociological Review, vol 25, no 5, pp 585–601. Busemeyer, M.R., Goerres, A. and Weschle, S. (2009) ‘Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 19, no 3, pp 195–212. Cox, D. and Jakubson, G. (1995) ‘The connection between public transfers and private interfamily transfers’, Journal of Public Economics, vol 57, pp 129–67. Daatland, S.O. (2001) ‘Ageing families and welfare systems: comparative perspectives’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol 34, pp 16–20. 35

Intergenerational relations

Daatland, S.O. and Herlofson, K. (2003) ‘“Lost solidarity” or “changed solidarity”: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity’, Ageing and Society, vol 23, pp 537–60. Deacon, B. (2000) ‘Eastern European welfare states: the impact of the politics of globalization’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 10, no 2, pp 146–61. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Princeton, New York: Princeton University Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social foundation of postindustrial economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferge, Z. (2001) ‘Welfare and “ill-fare” systems in Central-Eastern Europe’, in R. Sykes, B. Palier and P.M. Prior (eds) Globalization and European welfare states, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave, pp 127–52. Gornick, J. C. and Meyers, M.K. (2003) Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood and employment, New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. (2010) ‘State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European countries’, Ageing and Society, vol 30, pp 299–323. Hank, K. (2007) ‘Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: a European comparison’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 69, pp 157–73. Hank, K. and Buber, I. (2009) ‘Grandparents caring for their grandchildren. Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 30, no 1, pp 53–73. Hantrais, L. (2004) Family policy matters: Responding to family change in Europe, Bristol: The Policy Press. Höllinger, F. and Haller, M. (1990) ‘Kinship and social networks in modern societies: a cross-cultural comparison’, European Sociological Review, vol  6, pp 103–24. Häikiö, L. and Anttonen,A. (2011) ‘Local welfare governance structuring informal carers’ dual position’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol 31, no 3–4, pp 185–96. Hurme, H., Westerback, S. and Quadrello, T. (2010) ‘Traditional and new forms of contact between grandparents and grandchildren’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, no 3, pp 264–80. Igel, C. and Szydlik, M. (2011) ‘Grandchild care and welfare state arrangements in Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 21, pp 210–24. Kalmijn, M. and Saraceno, C. (2008) ‘A comparative perspective on intergenerational support’, European Societies, vol 10, no 3, pp 479–508. Kasearu, K. and Kutsar, D. (2010) ‘Informal support networks in a changing society – are family-based networks being ‘crowded-out’?’, Studies of Transition States and Societies, vol 2, no 2, pp 56–73. Kasza, G. J. (2002) ‘The illusion of welfare “regimes”’, Journal of Social Policy, vol 31, no 2, pp 271–87.

36

Intergenerational solidarity in families

Keck,W. (2008) ‘The relationship between children and their frail elderly parents in different care regimes’, in C. Saraceno (ed) Families, ageing and social policy: intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 147–69. Keck, W. and Blom, A. (2008) ‘Is there a generational cleavage in Europe? Agespecific perceptions of elderly care and of the pension system’, in J. Alber, T. Fahey and C. Saraceno (eds) Handbook of quality of life in the enlarged European Union, London: Routledge, pp 73–99. Knijn, T. (2001) ‘Care work: Innovations in the Netherlands’, in M. Daly (ed) Care work: the quest for security, Geneva: ILO, pp 159–74. Kohl, J. (1993) ‘Der Wohlfahrtsstaat in vergleichender Perspektive, Anmerkungen zu Esping-Andersen’s “Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism”’, Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, vol 39, no 2, pp 67–82. Kohli, M. (1999) ‘Private and public transfers between generations’, European Societies, vol 1, no 1, pp 103–22. Kohli, M. and Albertini, M. (2008) ‘The family as a source of support for adult children’s own family projects: European varieties’, in C. Saraceno (ed) Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 38–58. Künemund, H. (2008) ‘Intergenerational relations within the family and the state’, in C. Saraceno (ed) Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 105–22. Künemund, H. and Rein, M. (1999) ‘There is more to receive than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out’, Ageing and Society, vol 19, pp 93–121. Leitner, S. (2003) ‘Varieties of familialism. The caring function of the family in comparative perspective’, European Societies, vol 5, no 4, pp 353–75. Martin. C. (2004) ‘The rediscovery of family solidarity’, in T. Knijn and A. Komter (eds) Solidarity between sexes and the generations, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 3–17. McIlvane, J.M., Ajrouch, K.J. and Antonucci, T.C. (2007) ‘Generational structure and social resources in mid-life: influence on health and well-being’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 63, no 4, pp 759–73. Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H.J. (2005) ‘Welfare states do not crowd out the family: Evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses’, Ageing and Society, vol 25, pp 863–82. Pavolini, E. and Ranci, C. (2008) ‘Restructuring the welfare state: reforms in long-term care in Western European countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 18, pp 246–59. Poggio,T. (2008) ‘The intergenerational transmission of home ownership and the reproduction of the familistic welfare regime’, in C. Saraceno (ed) Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 59–85.

37

Intergenerational relations

Powell, M., and Boyne, G. (2001) ‘The spatial strategy of equality and the spatial division of welfare’, Social Policy and Administration, vol 35, no 2, pp 181–94. Qvortrup, J. (1991) ’Childhood as a social phenomenon – An introduction to a series of national reports’, EUROSTAT Report 46/1991. Rauch, D. (2008) ‘Central versus local service regulation: accounting for diverging old-age care developments in Sweden and Denmark, 1980–2000’, Social Policy and Administration, vol 42, no 3, pp 267–87. Reil-Held, A. (2006) ‘Crowding out or crowding in? Public and private transfers in Germany’, European Journal of Population, vol 22, pp 263–80. Rys, V. (2001) ‘Transition countries of central Europe entering the European Union: some social protection issues’, International Social Security Review, vol 54, no 2–3, pp 177–89. Saraceno, C. (ed) (2008) Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Saraceno, C. (2010) ‘Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: a bigenerational perspective’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 20, no 1, pp 32–44. Schubert, K., Hegelich, S. and Bazant, U. (2009) The handbook of European welfare systems, London: Routledge. Svensson-Dianellou, A., Smith, P.K. and Mestheneos, E. (2010) ‘Family help by Greek grandparents’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol  8, no  3, pp 249–63. Szydlik, M. (2000) Lebenslange Solidarität? Generationenbeziehungen zwischen erwachsenen Kindern und Eltern [Lifelong solidarity? Intergenerational relations between adult children and parents], Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Trydegård, G.-B. and Thorslund, M. (2010) ‘One uniform welfare state or a multitude of welfare municipalities? The evolution of local variation in Swedish elder care’, Social Policy and Administration, vol 44, no 4, pp 495–511. Uhlenberg, P. (1996) ‘Mortality decline in the twentieth century and supply of kin over the life course’, Gerontologist, vol 36, pp 681–85. Walker, A. (1996) ‘Intergenerational relations and the provision of welfare’, in A. Walker (ed) The new generational contract, London: UCL Press, pp 10–36. Wang, Y. and Marcotte, D.E. (2007) ‘Golden years? The labor market effects of caring for grandchildren’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 69, pp 1283–96.

38

three

Intergenerational ambivalence: beyond solidarity and conflict1 Kurt Lüscher and Andreas Hoff

New challenges for theory and research Intergenerational family and kin relationships have increasingly become a focus of social science research since the 1980s. There are several reasons for this development, with the most frequently mentioned reason being demographic change. Changes in population structure, however, are embedded in broader social, economic and cultural changes and therefore specific attention should be paid to intergenerational relationships in family and society (as the title of this book suggests). However, these changes do not follow a linear trajectory. On the contrary, there are multiple contradictions and distortions that also refer to the meanings commonly ascribed to intergenerational relations. To put it simply: intergenerational relations can no longer be taken for granted. For example, a considerable number of women – and even more men – decide against parenthood, or become parents comparatively late in their lives. Separation, divorce, new family types and reconstituted families contribute to the increasing plurality of private forms of life. All these are expressions of accelerated and at the same time contradictory dynamics of post-modern lifestyles, which include intergenerational relations, both at the family and societal level. These circumstances present new challenges for the social scientific analysis of intergenerational relationships, such as covering the wide range of contemporary intergenerational relations. Questions to be asked in this context include the following: are there any overarching concepts suitable for analysing the contradictory dynamics of intergenerational plurality in post-modern society? Are there theoretical concepts which represent people’s day-to-day experiences but which nonetheless allow distance for reflection? Are there concepts suitable for challenging the pitfalls of intergenerational rhetoric2? These questions delineate the scope of this chapter. The concept of ‘intergenerational ambivalence’ will be proposed as an instrument for resolving these issues. This chapter first provides a guide to the historical context in which the concepts of intergenerational solidarity and intergenerational ambivalence emerged, before supplying a brief conceptual history of intergenerational ambivalence.The next section of the chapter provides a comprehensive review of the intergenerational ambivalence discourse in the international research literature. 39

Intergenerational relations

By contrast, the following section focuses on the conceptual advancement of intergenerational ambivalence. Beginning with a critical review of the 2002 debate on intergenerational solidarity, conflict and ambivalence in the Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF), the reader will be introduced to several more recent contributions that further develop the concept. In concluding, a brief outlook on the future is presented by proposing an elaborated understanding and definition of ambivalence.

‘Solidarity’ versus ‘ambivalence’ – the origins of a debate The emergence and popularity of theoretical concepts has to be seen in historical context. Some sociological concepts reflect their ‘Zeitgeist’.Therefore, the societal context in which the concept of intergenerational solidarity emerged and why it was received with such immense popularity will be outlined briefly.This insight is crucial for understanding (a) the motivations underlying the development of the intergenerational ambivalence concept, and (b) why the concept has often been perceived as a challenge or even a threat to the commonly accepted superiority of intergenerational solidarity, both as a theoretical notion and a private conviction. The latter may be the case because for many people ambivalence has a negative connotation; for others, it lacks the positive normative reference that the notion of solidarity has.

Historical context During the 1980s, social scientists rediscovered the extended family. This can be seen as a backlash against the predominance of the idea of the married couple and their children as the family ideal of the 1950s and 1960s. The idealisation of this family image resulted from efforts to present the traditional division of labour of both sexes as a complementary relationship in which women accepted primary responsibility for raising children while men earned the family livelihood. This went hand in hand with a generalisation of trends in the American middle class that resulted in the growing popularity of an ideal image: the nuclear family living with a house and garden in suburbia. This image also influenced European sociology, which looked to American social science for orientation after the Second World War. American sociology was experiencing its heyday both nationally and internationally. However, the idealisation of the nuclear family also provoked criticism. This critique was partly based on empirical evidence showing that this ideal was not in line with the reality of family life in other social groups, for instance ethnic minority families or families in rural areas. In general, kinship relations beyond the nuclear family were somewhat underestimated.The extended family network gained importance again following the development of modern telecommunication technology, which allowed frequent contact to be maintained across wide geographical spaces. Finally, the student movement of the late 1960s voiced a harsh criticism of the moral idealisation of the family.The 40

Intergenerational ambivalence

books by Berger and Berger (1983) The War over the Family and Coontz (1992) The Way We Never Were represent the polarities of this controversy in the North American literature.A similar line of argument can be found in an edited collection by Lüscher, Schultheis and Wehrspaun (1988) entitled The ‘Postmodern’ Family, which documents reflections on these issues in the Continental European context. However, the rediscovery of the extended family was not purely the result of an ideological controversy between elderly/middle-aged and younger generations about their normative convictions in general and family values in particular. Demographic change, particularly an extended lifespan and increasingly longevity, created new realities in American and European families. People could now safely expect to live healthy lives well into old age. As a consequence, grandparent– grandchild relationships have changed considerably, with grandparents being able to engage with grandchildren in more active ways and having the prospect of seeing their grandchildren growing up to have children of their own (greatgrandchildren) (Hagestad, 1988; Szinovacz, 1997; Uhlenberg and Kirby, 1998; see also Chapter Nine). This followed the rediscovery of grandparenthood by American sociology in the mid-1980s (see, for example, the seminal work by Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986; for France, see Attias-Donfut and Segalen, 1998). Moreover, there was mounting evidence on both sides of the Atlantic that grandparents had a stabilising role during times of crisis, such as the process of divorce/separation or when parents could not fulfil their parenting role – as illustrated by the example of ‘custodian grandparents’ (Fuller-Thompson et al, 1997; Drew and Smith, 1999; Ferguson, 2004; Harper, 2005).

Solidarity vs ambivalence – alternative or complementary explanations? By the 1980s and 1990s, the concept of intergenerational solidarity (Bengtson and Roberts, 1991) had become the predominant one for explaining intergenerational relations in the family.The specific relationship between ageing parents and their adult children became the main focus of research on intergenerational relations – and almost exclusively articulated by sociologists. The popularity of the solidarity concept was also fuelled by a mismatch between public rhetoric of intergenerational conflict, and empirical evidence showing that older people support younger generations substantially – both financially and by providing (grand)childcare (see, for example, Kivett, 1985; Attias-Donfut, 1995; Bass and Caro, 1996; Baydar and Brooks-Gunn, 1998; Silverstein et al, 1998; Kohli, 1999; see also Chapter Twelve). In short, intergenerational solidarity communicated a ‘positive message’ incorporating traditional family norms and values. The availability of appropriate surveys, in particular longitudinal data, gave the impression that contemporary intergenerational relations could be described differently.The American sociologist Vern L. Bengtson and his research team at the University of Southern California have to be credited for much of the pioneering work on intergenerational solidarity. It was based on their ‘Longitudinal Study of Generations’, a multi-generational and multi-disciplinary investigation of families, 41

Intergenerational relations

ageing, and social change that commenced in 1983. Based on this unique database, Bengtson and colleagues proposed a solidarity concept that explicitly outlined three (Bengtson et al, 1976) and later six plausible dimensions (Bengtson and Roberts, 1991) that could be measured in easily applicable ways. However, this period of hegemony came to an end towards the end of the 1990s amid mounting criticism that intergenerational solidarity overemphasised the positive aspects of intergenerational relationships and overlooked the negative, conflicting ones (for example, elder abuse). Intergenerational conflict became a popular theme in public debates, particularly in reference to the metaphorical ‘intergenerational contract’ between the generation of contemporary workers and the current pensioner generation on which the welfare state of continental Europe rests. As reflected in the emergence of alternative approaches including intergenerational conflict (see also Chapter Eight), this situation was the trigger for introducing the idea of ambivalence into the debate.3 As early as in 1992 the Austrian family sociologist and gerontologist Leopold Rosenmayr (1992) pointed out that intergenerational family relations can be experienced as being ambivalent. However, the international academic debate on intergenerational ambivalence really took off with the publication of an article by Kurt Lüscher and Karl Pillemer in the Journal of Marriage and the Family (Lüscher and Pillemer, 1998). They began by pointing out that there were two different – yet parallel – lines of argument in the academic literature for explaining intergenerational family relations in later life.The first stressed the importance of solidarity, as explained above; the other focused on elder abuse, which appeared to be in contradiction with solidarity. Lüscher and Pillemer (1998) argued that the notion of ambivalence would bring both lines of argument together by combining both the inherently positive and negative elements of intergenerational relationships.They proposed a general concept by using the term ‘intergenerational ambivalence’ in order ‘to designate contradictions in relationships between parents and adult offspring that cannot be reconciled’ (Lüscher and Pillemer, 1998, p 416). They also distinguished ‘two dimensions: (a) contradictions at the level of social structure, evidenced in institutional resources such as statuses, roles or norms and (b) contradictions at the subjective level, in terms of cognitions, emotions and motivations’. This distinction was taken up by many others in the form of a juxtaposition between psychological and sociological ambivalence, having the advantage of plausibility.Yet it could be argued that the real power of the concept lies in its potential to connect both dimensions. This point – and the issue of an elaborated definition of intergenerational ambivalence – will be discussed further later in this chapter. The next milestone in developing the ambivalence concept was a public debate on using the three alternative concepts for the study of intergenerational relationships: intergenerational solidarity, intergenerational conflict and intergenerational ambivalence. This discussion, in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, was initiated in 2002 by (then) editor Alexis Walker (see JMF, 2002, pp 557– 601). In his contribution to the 2002 JMF debate, Lüscher suggested an analytical 42

Intergenerational ambivalence

module in the form of a four-field diagram (Lüscher, 2002, pp 588ff), based on work done by the Konstanz research group on ‘Society and Family’ (see Lüscher and Pajung-Bilger, 1998; Lettke and Lüscher, 2001).This proposal provided a method of connecting the institutional and the psychological dimension (as mentioned in the previous paragraph).The proposed module was later extended, in particular to underline the dynamic aspects of coping with ambivalences.These were modelled along two dimensions – subjective and institutional – and pictured as oscillating between two contradictory poles within each dimension: ‘convergence’ and ‘divergence’ depicted the subjective dimension, and ‘reproduction’ and ‘innovation’ represented the institutional dimension. Intersecting both dimensions resulted in four sub-dimensions: solidarity (‘to preserve consensually’), emancipation (‘to mature reciprocally’), atomisation (‘to separate conflictingly’) and captivation (‘to conserve reluctantly’). In the revised module, it is hypothesised that ‘solidarity’ suggests concealing ambivalence by stressing common feelings, orientations and goals of belonging and togetherness. Ambivalences have not disappeared but here become latent. Figure 3.1: Intergenerational ambivalences: a dynamic model Convergence

Solidarity

Reproduction

Emancipation

To preserve consensually

To mature reciprocally

To conserve reluctantly

To separate conflictingly

Captivation

Innovation

Atomisation

Divergence Spiral: Symbolising the dynamic temporal dimension Subjective (personal) dimension: Convergence vs. Divergence Institutional dimension: Reproduction vs. Innovation 43

Intergenerational relations

In contrast, ‘emancipation’ goes hand-in-hand with openly acknowledging ambivalences and accepting them as essential elements of relationship dynamics. This includes their potential to develop new forms of common action in socially creative respects.Those who pursue the pathways of ‘atomisation’ more generally deny the existence of ambivalences. Lastly, the mode of ‘captivation’ most likely goes together with a continuous struggle over ambivalences which often cannot be expressed adequately in words.As a result, the specific communication-pragmatic elements are given separate attention, enabling the analysis to be enriched from the meta-perspective of the sociology of knowledge. Several research articles have confirmed the usefulness of this module (for example, Lüscher and Lettke, 2004; Lorenz-Meyer, 2004; Rappoport and Lowenstein, 2007; Burkhardt et al, 2007; Letiecq et al, 2008). Referring to the general literature on the concept of ambivalence, specifically its reception by Merton and Barber (1963), the present authors have carried out a thorough study from the perspective of this theory. Other crucial theoretical contributions to developing the ambivalence concept can be observed in Weigert (1991), Smelser (1998) and Junge (2000). Each of them refers to the history of the concept, commencing with the creation of the term ‘ambivalence’ by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1910. Bleuler first defined the concept, associating it with the analysis of ‘negativism’, for example the incapacity that emerges when emotions, cognitions or volitions contradict each other (Bleuler, 1910, p 1). Soon thereafter he published an essay where he expanded the notion of ambivalence in order to include ordinary experiences (Bleuler, 1914). An overview of the history of this concept and its astounding reception in many disciplines as well as its inclusion in everyday language can be found in Lüscher (2009). The contrast of ambivalence to solidarity (and vice versa) does not occur by chance. It results from a common understanding of ‘ambivalent’ being something undesirable. As a result, ambivalences are often concealed or suppressed. Yet the analytical understanding of ambivalence is different because ambivalence is a concept that enables researchers to focus on both conflict and solidarity at the same time. It actually allows researchers to consider conflict and solidarity within one and the same relationship, at the same time or in the same situation. Hence, both perspectives are sociologically of the same value.

Intergenerational ambivalence in the international research literature This section will provide an overview of the large number of research articles that have utilised the intergenerational ambivalence concept since 1998.Although intergenerational solidarity has remained popular in the research community, the 2000s are characterised by widespread acceptance of multiple theoretical approaches for explaining intergenerational relationships. Intergenerational ambivalence is one such approach. An impressive number of articles and chapters applying intergenerational ambivalence in research have been published over the 44

Intergenerational ambivalence

past decade or so.The present authors found more than 100 articles in a ‘Web of Science’ search covering the period between 1998 and 2011. A selection of these articles representing typical patterns of using the concept will be presented below. In particular, two phases have been observed in the application of the concept.

Intergenerational ambivalence as an alternative to intergenerational solidarity During the first phase, which started in 1999 but extends until the present day, intergenerational ambivalence was seen as an alternative, opposing concept to intergenerational solidarity for the study of intergenerational relations. In this context, intergenerational ambivalence was discussed in relation to intergenerational family relations more broadly (see, for example, Lowenstein, 1999; Tesch-Römer, 2001; Daatland and Herlofsen, 2003; Katz, 2009; Silverstein et al, 2010). Most of these publications are characterised by an orientation towards traditional theoretical approaches, such as intergenerational solidarity.They discuss the ambivalence concept without applying it to their research (see, for example, Connidis, 2003a; Jacobs, 2003; Holdsworth, 2004; Shapiro, 2004; Stimpson et al, 2005; Daatland and Lowenstein, 2005; Steinbach, 2008). Unfortunately, the authors of these articles tend to employ the common understanding of ambivalence in its negative connotation, thus favouring the approach of seeing it in contradiction to solidarity. This negative undertone of ambivalence can also be found in attachment theory where one out of four or five attachment styles between mother (or another primary caregiver) and child is described as ‘ambivalent’ (see also Chapter Five). Moreover, attachment theory tends to overemphasise the consequences of (mis) attachment during childhood.Yet ambivalences often emerge during adulthood in response to such childhood experiences, thereby resulting in new behavioural patterns. More recent attempts to link intergenerational ambivalence to attachment theory (Merz et al, 2007; Shemmings, 2006) indicate that a more balanced view is emerging.

Broadening the range of the ambivalence perspective empirically Indications that a new phase has begun appeared in the early to mid-2000s. Intergenerational ambivalence was now being applied to empirical research, informing a number of hypothesis-guided research projects. Karen Fingerman’s research group led the way in this respect, mainly by applying intergenerational ambivalence to variations of the parent–child relationship (Fingerman and Hay, 2004; Fingerman et al, 2006; Fingerman et al, 2008; Hay et al, 2007). Others used both the intergenerational solidarity-conflict and the intergenerational ambivalence model to test their respective predictive power (see, for example, Beaton et al, 2003; Lowenstein, 2007; Coleman and Ganong, 2008). Other publications included intergenerational ambivalence as a dependent or independent variable 45

Intergenerational relations

(for example, Fingerman et al, 2006; Ganong and Coleman, 2006; Peters et al, 2006; Reschke et al, 2006; Burkhardt et al, 2007; Connidis, 2007; Duner and Nordstrom, 2007; Hay et al, 2007; Lowenstein, 2007; Pillemer et al, 2007; Ha and Ingersoll-Dayton, 2008; Letiecq et al, 2008; Lewis, 2008; Dolbin-MacNab and Keiley, 2009; Katz, 2009; Michels et al, 2011). In what follows, popular themes of study in recent research that uses the intergenerational ambivalence concept will be highlighted. Parent–child relationship The initial aim of using the concept for studying parent–child relations in later life still attracts the most attention (see, for example, Lorenz-Meyer, 2001; Beaton et al, 2003; Phillips et al, 2003; Willson et al, 2003; Izuhara, 2004; Obradovic and Cudina-Obradovic, 2004; Spitze and Gallant, 2004; Perrig-Chiello and Höpflinger, 2005; Fingerman et al, 2006, 2008; Ganong and Coleman, 2006; Peters et al, 2006; Zygowicz, 2006; Burkhardt et al, 2007; Duner and Nordstrom, 2007; Hay et al, 2007; Coleman and Ganong, 2008; Ha and Ingersoll-Dayton, 2008; Birditt et al, 2009, 2010; van Gaalen et al, 2010). A sub-theme of the parent–child relationship was caregiving by adult children to their ageing parents (Jacobs, 2003; Willson et  al, 2003; Obradovic and Cudina-Obradovic, 2004; Pridalova, 2007; Duner and Nordstrom, 2007). Other dimensions of intergenerational support exchange (financial transfers and instrumental, emotional or cognitive support) were also addressed in relation to intergenerational ambivalence (Izuhara, 2004; Lewis, 2008; White et al, 2008). Gender perspective Other studies adopted an explicit gender perspective, focusing exclusively on the mother–daughter relationship (Fingerman, 2001; Roer-Strier and Sands, 2001; Martini et al, 2003; Reschke et al, 2006).According to Fingerman (2001), daughters are much more likely to experience ambivalence than their mothers. Pillemer focused exclusively on mothers’ ambivalent relations with adult offspring (Pillemer and Suitor, 2002; Pillemer, 2004). Comparing mothers and fathers, however, Willson et al (2003) found no evidence that women experienced intergenerational ambivalence more frequently than men. Likewise, Ward (2008) as well as Ward et al (2009) compared mothers’ and fathers’ levels of ambivalence towards multiple children. They found that while mothers’ relationships with their children were generally more positive, mothers and fathers did not differ in perceiving their relations towards their children as negative. The most diverse account of factors influencing mothers’ ambivalence towards their adult children has been provided by Pillemer et al (2007), finding mothers later in life to be less ambivalent towards married children. Similarly, sharing the same values as well as poor health of the mother resulted in lower levels of ambivalence in the mother–child relationship. On the other hand, respondents reported higher levels of ambivalence towards 46

Intergenerational ambivalence

children with problems as well as children with whom exchange of support was perceived as imbalanced. Finally, King (2004) applied a gender perspective to the concept of intergenerational ambivalence in a theoretical and unique study of adolescence and creativity. Grandparent–grandchild relationship Intergenerational ambivalence was also used to shed light on the grandparent– grandchild relationship. Some argued that this relationship is more likely to be governed by the ‘intergenerational stake hypothesis’ (Giarrusso et al, 1995; Hoff, 2007; see also Chapter Eight) due to this specific relationship being much less prone to tensions than parent–child relationships. Nonetheless, grandparentgrandchild relationships can also entail ambivalent characteristics (Kemp, 2004; Letiecq et  al, 2008; Dolbin-MacNab and Keiley, 2009). Particularly in situations where grandparents assume a parental role – as custodial grandparents – intergenerational ambivalence can become a common feature (Letiecq et al, 2008). Ambivalences can result from the diverging loyalties grandchildren feel towards their grandparents vis-à-vis their parents (Dolbin-MacNab and Keiley, 2009; see also Chapter Nine). Dissolving and reconstituted families Dissolving and reconstituted families arguably provide an ideal playing field for considering ambivalence. Parents are likely to perceive their relationship with stepchildren as more negative than their relationship with their biological children (Ward et  al, 2009). Unsurprisingly, children of divorced parents are highly likely to experience ambivalence in relation to the absent parent, usually their father (Radina, 2003). The concept was also deemed to account for the variance between divorcees from different social groups (Connidis, 2003b) as well as for ‘new family forms’, including single mothers (Sarkisian, 2006) and gay and lesbian couples (Connidis, 2003a). Intergenerational ambivalence was also used to explain unresolved marital issues of middle-aged parents who reported that disagreements with their parents and parents-in-law had adverse effects on their marital relationship (Beaton et al, 2003). Widmer (2010, also Widmer and Lüscher, 2011) combined ambivalence with a configuration approach to the reconstitution of families. Social structures One of the most contested areas was how to apply the concept to social structures. Following pioneering work by Connidis and McMullin (2002), a Singaporean research team (Teo et al, 2003) argued that intergenerational ambivalence can help to explain how social structures create tensions in intergenerational relationships and how these change over time. Others suggested that the interaction between 47

Intergenerational relations

social structures and individual role norms created tensions (Willson et al, 2003; Turner et al, 2006). More research is needed to clarify the interaction between social structures, intergenerational relations and ambivalence. Intercultural application Although the intergenerational ambivalence concept was initially developed in the context of Western societies, it has now begun crossing cultural boundaries. Recent examples from Singapore and Japan include studies on the potential of intergenerational ambivalence for explaining the rise in tensions between currently young or middle-aged children and their ageing parents, who expect care and reverence in line with traditional Confucian norms of filial piety (Teo et al, 2003; Izuhara, 2004). Further, the concept has been applied to explaining the situation of Turkish immigrants to the United States (Senyuerekli and Detzner, 2008) and Cambodian refugees (Lewis, 2008). Likewise, it has been used to analyse the predicament of Mexican migrant workers in the US and the difficulties they face in maintaining and supporting their families back in Mexico (Grzywacz et al, 2006). A very specific angle was chosen by a South African research project looking into changes in the mother–daughter relationship as a consequence of ‘religious intensification’ (Roer-Strier and Sands, 2001). Summary Summarising this phase in the reception of the concept, each facet of ambivalence is becoming evident in the application to the various ways of living intergenerational relationships. Although there still appears to be some unease about stating the prevalence of ambivalent intergenerational relationships, the experience of ambivalence in these relationships is increasingly seen as ‘normal’. Ambivalence experiences are increasingly seen as challenges in lived intergenerational relationships.These in turn have been approached by employing the concept pragmatically.

Conceptual challenges and debates In this section articles that have contributed to the conceptual advancement of the intergenerational ambivalence concept will be discussed in more detail. The 2002 JMF debate on intergenerational solidarity, conflict and ambivalence had a lasting effect on the academic reception of the ambivalence concept. The first part of this section will elaborate on that reception, reflecting with hindsight on developments over the past decade.The second part is devoted to discussing several more recent theoretical applications of the intergenerational ambivalence concept.

48

Intergenerational ambivalence

Reflections on the 2002 JMF debate The first significant contribution to the intergenerational ambivalence debate that emerged following Lüscher and Pillemer’s (1998) article was the 2002 JMF special issue edited by Alexis Walker involving some of the leading scholars involved in theorising intergenerational relations. Criticising Lüscher and Pillemer (1998), Connidis and McMullin (2002) attempt there to advance the concept by linking intergenerational ambivalence to ‘critical theory’ and feminist thought. Although broadening the perspective in this way is very valuable, it is somewhat unfortunate that the authors did not provide a comprehensive justification for their position, such as making reference to the classical proponents of critical theory like Adorno, Horkheimer and Habermas. Critical theory has nonetheless shown substantial interest in the (damaged) subject, as expressed in The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al, 1950). In that book, Frenkel-Brunswik identifies an inability to tolerate ambiguity that, in her point of view, is equivalent to ambivalence. More importantly, Connidis and McMullin (2002) focus on ‘the interplay of individual action, human agency, and structured social relations’ (p 563). They ought to be commended for highlighting the crucial importance of social structures in constraining the individual’s negotiation of social relationships (Connidis and McMullin, 2002, p 558). But the link between intergenerational ambivalence and social structures is more complex than they suggest. While Connidis and McMullin (2002) maintain that ‘in practice, family members are too often left to deal with problems that are structurally created and that, therefore, can be solved only through fundamental change in structured social relations’ (p 566), in the present authors’ opinion the arena for resolving ambivalences cannot be restricted to the macro-level of social structures.The seminal article on agency by Emirbayer and Mische (1998) illustrates how the concept of agency can help to overcome this limitation. This applies particularly in temporal dynamics, that is, the dynamics of social situations and the interplay between subjective and social notions of time (see also Joas, 1996). Furthermore, Connidis and McMullin’s (2002) line of argument implies a differentiation between psychological and sociological ambivalence.The present authors feel that this dichotomy – although it is plausible – distracts attention from the real potential of the ambivalence concept: its capacity for connecting the ‘social’ and the ‘psychological’ and thus overcoming the conventional opposition between sociological and psychological perspectives. Finally, the present authors also do not agree with their interpretation of ambivalence as a ‘burden’. If ambivalence is solely presented in that matter, the concept is used normatively and its analytical potential cannot be exploited. Nonetheless, Connidis and McMullin’s (2002) major contribution in highlighting the social-structural implications of the intergenerational ambivalence concept must be acknowledged. Bengtson et al (2002) in their contribution to the 2002 JMF debate attempted to immunise their concept of intergenerational solidarity against criticism in various respects that will not be reviewed in detail here. In their article, they 49

Intergenerational relations

admit that contradictory attitudes and behaviour are implicitly contained in their measures (Bengtson et al, 2002, p 571), but these were not really specified. Indeed, a measurement method which assesses something simply as ‘applicable’ and ‘not applicable’ is not suitable for grasping tensions between simultaneous contradictions within one and the same dimension. They also argue (from a position of assumed strength) that their intergenerational solidarity concept incorporates vital aspects of intergenerational ambivalence:‘Our perspective is that the recent advocacy of ambivalence as a central concept in intergenerational studies has provided an opportunity for the solidarity paradigm to widen its explanatory breadth’ (Bengtson et al, 2002, p 573). They make it quite clear that, from their perspective, solidarity is superior to the rival concepts of intergenerational conflict and ambivalence. In spite of their generosity, they dismiss what is (in the view of the present authors) a crucial theoretical and methodological insight: only the ambivalence perspective enables the observer to see the simultaneous co-existence of those experiences that represent solidarity and conflict. It is precisely such a perspective that allows us to focus on the dynamics of negotiating relationships and to utilise the heuristic benefit of the ambivalence concept for a processual understanding of identity and agency. Curran (2002) makes reference to caring processes in her contribution to the debate.This is reflected in her ad hoc definition of ambivalence as ‘the simultaneous presence of both caring and uncaring feelings and behaviours’ (Curran, 2002, p 579). She thereby indicates the relevance of ‘agency’. Furthermore, she proposes accountability and embeddedness as mechanisms explaining the emergence of ambivalence, which might also help to account for the occurrence of social action and social change. Moreover, she recommends additional efforts to investigate and conceptualise the consequences of treating ambivalence differently.

Recent contributions to the systematic analysis of intergenerational ambivalence Despite the growing popularity of the intergenerational ambivalence concept in international research, conceptual advances have remained scarce in recent years. Contributions debating the usefulness of the concept support our view that it has an important potential for addressing more complex issues (Lüscher and Lettke, 2004; Scabini and Marta, 2006; Biggs, 2007; Pillemer and Suitor, 2008; Ward, 2008; Ward et al, 2008, 2009).5 In a critical comparison of the predictive power of both the intergenerational ambivalence and solidarity models, Biggs (2007) acknowledges the conceptual value of ambivalence as a ‘mature’ concept for studying intergenerational relationships – without panicking about the existence of conflict. He differentiates a ‘psychodynamic approach’ for explaining intergenerational relations by moving from the private to the public and, conversely, a ‘social-structural approach’ for explaining intergenerational relations by moving from the public to the private. This can be seen as an advance over the former ‘psychological vs. sociological’ 50

Intergenerational ambivalence

ambivalence dichotomy, one which takes into account the dynamic nature of ambivalence experiences. Biggs (2007, p  704) links the success of the intergenerational solidarity model to the emergence of a ‘social gerontological approach’ to solidarity underscoring ‘the protective value of generations’. For him, that explains why Bengtson and colleagues overemphasised the ‘integrative role of family structures’ in their intergenerational solidarity model, as well as why the intergenerational solidarity concept has become so popular in the social gerontology community. Moreover, Biggs (2007) argues that, by linking the family-based lineage concept of generations with that of historical generations, Bengtson ‘effectively eclipses conflict’ (p  705) inasmuch as intergenerational differences are interpreted as social change. Furthermore, proposing solidarity as the main coping mechanism for families in times of crisis does not leave any space for conflict within the family. Biggs consequently sees the emergence of intergenerational ambivalence as a reaction to the dualism of solidarity and conflict and as an attempt to overcome their rivalry. According to him, this returns intergenerational ambivalence to one of the origins of social gerontology: psychodynamic analysis ‘which consists of becoming aware of simultaneously opposing emotions toward the same object and being able to live with it’ (Lorenz-Meyer, 2001; cited in Biggs, 2007, p 706). He continues: ‘Ambivalence does not, then, reflect indecision or paralysis but a mature step toward acknowledging a more complex world of multiple perspectives and emotional resilience’. In an innovative application of the intergenerational ambivalence construct to the transition of an older parent from home care to institutional care, Rappoport and Lowenstein (2007) associate intergenerational ambivalence with feelings of guilt and shame. More specifically, they directly link the two core dimensions of experiencing ambivalence, the subjective and the institutional, with guilt and shame. While guilt and shame are distinct, they are also connected – something that also applies to the micro- and macro-levels of ambivalence (Rappoport and Lowenstein, 2007, p 16).They reason that ‘guilt feelings can be viewed as an overt representation of a covert and hidden subjective ambivalence, specifically when having to make a decision whether to institutionalise a close ageing relative (for example, a parent) or when the onset of care-giving occurs. Feelings of shame can be used in specific care-giving situations as a representation of structural ambivalence … Shame is well-suited for representing structural ambivalence, which has to do with social norms, while guilt is better suited for representing subjective ambivalence, which has to do mainly with personal feelings and thoughts’ (Rappoport and Lowenstein, 2007, p 14; see also Chapter Thirteen). Rappoport and Lowenstein (2007) do not only develop a convincing theoretical argument for associating guilt and shame with ambivalence but also test it empirically. However, they encounter some methodological challenges along the way, such as the difficulty of operationalising an underlying ambivalence. While they contend that guilt and intersubjective ambivalence are positively correlated,

51

Intergenerational relations

they fail to measure this directly. Even though guilt, a term frequently used in ordinary language, can be measured directly, ambivalence cannot. At the close of this chapter, an elaborated definition of intergenerational ambivalence consisting of several elements using the theoretical-methodological characterisation as a ‘sensitising construct’ will be proposed. Against this backdrop, it is useful to touch briefly upon a controversy between Ward, Deane and Spitze (2008) and Pillemer and Suitor (2008) in response to an article by Ward (2008) published in the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. There Ward suggested considering the multiple relationships between a mother and her children, concluding that ‘[t]here may be collective ambivalence entailed in mixed feelings across multiple children’ (Ward, 2008, p 240). He argues further that this ‘collective ambivalence’ had a negative effect on mothers’ well-being. Based on this conclusion,Ward argues that the scope of the intergenerational ambivalence concept has to be extended. In his view, this ‘collective ambivalence’ is ‘more aggregate than structural’ (Ward et al, 2008, p 397), suggesting that its indicators represent ‘inconsistencies’ rather than ‘contradictions’. The present authors would interpret Ward’s argument as being that inconsistencies in the relationships between multiple children and their mother make the experience of ambivalence more likely. It is commonly assumed that the family system is normatively oriented towards ‘harmony’. Inconsistencies are seen as contradicting this normative orientation and are thus interpreted as being ambivalent. The downside of Ward’s approach is that it disregards the dynamic of oscillation between poles as well as its relevance for ‘agency’. Pillemer and Suitor (2008), by contrast, argue that ambivalence diminishes well-being.Yet the dynamic, pragmatic aspects and the openness of the ambivalence concept remain underdeveloped.This perspective is already visible in their theoretical discussion of the concept which is supposed to grasp the complexity of relationships (Pillemer et  al, 2007). But that complexity is dynamic, paradoxical and contradictory in contemporary post-modern societies. It is constantly changing and often provisional – one of the reasons for the current popularity of the ambivalence idea. Regrettably, Pillemer and Suitor (2008, p 395) restrict the concept:‘The most important single characteristic of ambivalence is a contradictory assessment or response toward the same object’. Thus, ambivalence is reduced to being a mere ‘variable’ that needs to be measured, that is quantified, when the relationship to the individual actor is not sufficiently illuminated.The same applies to experiences and processes in the search for meaning when these are confronted by polarity, contrariness and variation. Oscillation – that is the dynamics of dealing with contrariness – is not explicitly considered by them. We find ourselves unable to agree with either Ward (2008) or Pillemer and Suitor (2008). Instead, we view their arguments as confirming the need to explore the potentials of the ambivalence concept and establish an expanded definition for practical analysis. However, such theoretical work will not suffice. If we really want to formulate a new theoretical approach, we should consider why people experience ambivalence in the first place. Explaining this in detail, however, would 52

Intergenerational ambivalence

exceed the scope of this chapter. But for now we want to suggest, in line with current social science theory, what direction a fruitful elaboration might take.

Where to go? Towards an elaborated understanding and definition of ambivalence The review of the research literature in the previous sections demonstrates that the concept of intergenerational ambivalence has become a widely accepted framework for the study of intergenerational relationships. However, the concept’s theoretical, empirical and practical implications and explanatory power needs further exploration to exploit its potential fully. For the sake of brevity, attention should be focused on the status of the concept and concerns for an elaborated definition. A number of authors – including the present authors (in earlier publications) – have suggested seeing intergenerational ambivalence as a ‘sensitizing concept’, referring to an idea by Blumer (1954) which is nowadays commonly accepted by sociologists, often in connection with explorative research designs and in qualitative methodology (see, for example, Mayring, 2002; Lamnek, 2005; Flick et al, 2007). Blumer’s intention (shared by the present authors) is to recall the virtue of curiosity and express a degree of scepticism towards the idea of thinking only in terms of standardised variables. This has been discussed elsewhere (Lüscher 2011a).Yet the notion of a ‘sensitising concept’ – granted its pragmatic plausibility – is not fully appropriate for studying intergenerational ambivalence inasmuch as it overlooks the need for coherent theoretical foundations. To overcome this, these foundations can be elaborated by extending their horizon and thus seeing intergenerational ambivalence as an application of the broader idea of ambivalence and how it is used in other disciplines. These range from philosophy to political science and from post-modernism – as a perspective on present social and cultural conditions – to the analysis of past (and present-day) works of art, literature and music.6 This perspective confirms the ubiquity of certain types of human ‘experience’.The first is the common thinking in polarisations and their linguistic enhancement. It goes together with the second type: those experiences labelled as floating, oscillating and (perhaps most precisely) vacillating within temporally limited actions and interactions. These in turn involve two elements frequently referred to in the study of intergenerational relations, such as tensions between autonomy and dependence, between freedom and control, between closeness and distance, between sympathy and disgust, and between (simultaneous) love and hatred. In daily life, they take on concrete form in tasks such as caring, sharing financial resources and struggling for one’s ‘fair share’ of an inheritance. Hidden behind this is the awareness of fundamental differences, a major theme in post-modern and (post-)structuralist thinking. In addition, vacillation refers to the challenges of being faced with multiple options, that is, uncertainty. Dealing with the continuous and often contradictory dynamics of basic differences is associated with an ability to behave and to (inter) 53

Intergenerational relations

act meaningfully. In other words, issues of ‘agency’ and capability are emphasised. As demonstrated above, these concepts are referred to (at least partially) in the study of intergenerational ambivalence. However, the concept’s full potential has perhaps not yet been uncovered. For the present authors, the three notions of polarisation (or basic difference), vacillation and agency are at the heart of the process of constituting the self or personal identity as well as dealing with its different facets. Interestingly enough, such references to identity formation can rarely be found in analyses of intergenerational ambivalence.This is surprising given the close analytical and empirical association between the organisation – and conduct – of intergenerational relations and processes of socialisation.6 If an attempt is made to integrate these – admittedly brief – considerations on the fundamental dimensions of ambivalence, a more elaborated definition can be offered for discussion: ambivalence refers to experiences that occur while searching for the significance of facts, events, other persons, social relationships, tasks and institutions as these pertain to facets of the self or personal identity and one’s agency. These experiences thereby oscillate temporarily or permanently between polar contradictions in feeling, thinking, wanting, or social structures. These oscillations, in turn, can be asymmetrical or imbalanced, thus also reflecting the impact of power. In conclusion, this differentiated understanding of ambivalence is suggested as a possible avenue for developing further the analysis of intergenerational relations. This is done in light of increasing acceptance for the perspective of intergenerational ambivalence. Much has been achieved already, yet the crucial theoretical, empirical and practical importance of the concept has only begun to flourish given the fundamental significance of intergenerational relations in human development, particularly in the context of rapidly ageing societies. Notes Kurt Lüscher gratefully acknowledges financial support provided by the “Cultural Foundations of Integration”, Center of Excellence at the University of Konstanz, established in the framework of the German Federal and State Initiative of Excellence (see also: www.kurtluescher.de). Much of the earlier work on this chapter was done while Andreas Hoff was Senior Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Oxford (see also http://www.ageing.ox.ac.uk/people/andreas-hoff).We would like to express our gratitude to Caroline Johnen and Stefanie Trautwein for her highly efficient editorial support and to David Brenner for his equally efficient assistance in correcting our Germanic English. Furthermore, we would like to thank the participants of the international workshop ‘Changing Intergenerational Relationships as Europe and Asia Age’ at the Oxford Institute of Ageing, University of Oxford, on 9–10 December 2010 for the inspiration they provided. Special thanks go to Sarah Harper and Kate Hamblin for organising the workshop – and to Bleddyn Davies for alerting us to the English concept of ‘vacillation’.

1

54

Intergenerational ambivalence ‘Intergenerational rhetoric’ reflects the public discourse on how intergenerational relations ought to be lived and assessed. A characteristic of intergenerational rhetoric is its antagonistic attitude between idealisation (solidarity) and threat (conflict). Intergenerational differences are frequently dramatised, and metaphors are important elements of intergenerational rhetoric (Lüscher et al, 2010, p 27).

2

See, for example, Marshall et al (1993) and the pioneering work by the French sociologists Roussel and Bourguignon (1976). The important contributions to the field by AttiasDonfut (1995, 2003) will be discussed later.

3

Another important line of work on intergenerational ambivalence concerns methodological issues. These issues are beyond the scope of this chapter. However, an up-to-date review of relevant methods has been carried out by Suitor et al (2011). This review pays particular attention to the difference between qualitative and quantitative measures of intergenerational ambivalence (though they use an interpretation of the concept which is different from the perspective taken here). For an earlier review of methods, see Lüscher and Lettke (2004).

4

Many articles contain (more or less systematic) references to key authors such as Bleuler, Freud, Simmel (who, however, did not use the term), Merton, and Bauman – to mention only a few. For the present authors’ own recent attempts to locate and to apply the concept from an interdisciplinary perspective, see Lüscher (2009) and Lüscher (2011b).

5

For a discussion of this issue, see also the presentation of the concept of ‘generative socialisation’ in Chapter Four.

6

References Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, N.R. (1950) The authoritarian personality, New York: Harper and Brothers. Attias-Donfut, C. (ed) (1995) Les solidarités entre générations [Solidarities between generations], Paris: Nathan. Attias-Donfut, C. (2003) ‘Family transfers and cultural transmissions between three generations in France’, in V.L. Bengtson and A. Lowenstein (eds) Global ageing and challenges to families, Hawthorne and New York: De Gruyter, pp 214–52. Attias-Donfut, C. and Segalen, M. (1998) Grands-parents. La famille à travers les générations [Grandparents:The family across generations], Paris: Éditions Odile Jacob. Bass, S.A. and Caro, F.G. (1996) ‘The economic value of grandparent assistance’, Generations, vol 20, pp 29–33. Baydar, N. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998) ‘Profiles of grandmothers who help care for their grandchildren in the United States’, Family Relations, vol 47, pp 385–93. Beaton, J.M., Norris, J.E. and Pratt, M.W. (2003) ‘Unresolved issues in adult children’s marital relationships involving intergenerational problems’, Family Relations, vol 52, pp 143–53. Bengtson, V.L. and Roberts, R.E. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families. An example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. 55

Intergenerational relations

Bengtson,V.L., Olander, E.B. and Haddad, A.A. (1976) ‘The “generation gap” and aging family members.Toward a conceptual model’, in J.E. Gubrium (ed) Time, roles and self in old age, New York: Human Sciences Press, pp 237–63. Bengtson, V.L., Giarusso, R., Mabry, B. and Silverstein, M. (2002) ‘Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence. Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships?’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, pp 568–76. Berger, B. and Berger, P.L. (1983) The war over the family. Capturing the middle ground, London: Hutchinson. Biggs, S. (2007) ‘Thinking about generations: Conceptual positions and policy implications’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 63, pp 695–711. Birditt, K.S., Fingerman, K L. and Zarit, S.H. (2010) ‘Adult children’s problems and successes: Implications for intergenerational ambivalence’, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, vol 65B, pp 145–53. Birditt, K.S., Miller, L.M., Fingerman, K.L. and Lefkowitz, E.S. (2009) ‘Tensions in the parent and adult child relationship: links to solidarity and ambivalence’, Psychology and Aging, vol 24, no 2, pp 287–95. Bleuler, E. (1910) ‘Zur Theorie des schizophrenen Negativismus [Contributions to the theory of schizophrenic negativism]’, Psychiatrisch-Neurologische Wochenschrift [Psychiatric-Neurological Weekly], pp 171–76, 184–87, 189–91, 195–98. Bleuler, E. (1914) Die Ambivalenz [Ambivalence], Zürich: Schultheiss and Co, pp 95–106. Blumer, H. (1954) ‘What is wrong with social theory?’, American Sociological Review, vol 18, pp 3–10. Burkhardt, A., Rudorf, S., Brand, C., Rockstroh, B., Studer, K., Lettke, F. and Lüscher, K. (2007) ‘Ambivalences in the relationship of parents towards their schizophrenic or substance dependent adult child: a comparison to their relationships with healthy siblings and to ordinary parent-child relationships’, Psychiatrische Praxis, vol 34, pp 230–38. Cherlin, A.J. and Furstenberg, F.F. (1986) The new American grandparent. A place in the family, a life apart, New York: Basic Books. Coleman, M. and Ganong, L. (2008) ‘Normative beliefs about sharing housing with an older family member’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 66, pp 49–72. Connidis, I.A. (2003a) ‘Bringing outsiders in – Gay and lesbian family ties over the life course’, in S. Arber, K. Davidson and J. Ginn (eds) Gender and ageing: changing roles and relationships, London: Open University Press, pp 79–94. Connidis, I.A. (2003b) ‘Divorce and union dissolution: reverberations over three generations’, Canadian Journal on Aging, vol 22, pp 353–68. Connidis, I.A. (2007) ‘Negotiating inequality among adult siblings: two case studies’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 69, pp 482–99. Connidis, I.A. and McMullin, J.A. (2002) ‘Sociological ambivalence and family ties. A critical perspective’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, pp 558–67. Coontz, S. (1992) The way we never were. American families and the nostalgia trap, New York: Basic Books. 56

Intergenerational ambivalence

Curran, S.R. (2002) ‘Agency, accountability, and embedded relations.“What’s love got to do with it?”’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, pp 577–84. Daatland, S.O. and Herlofson, K. (2003) ‘“Lost solidarity” or “changed solidarity”: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity’, Ageing & Society, vol 23, pp 537–60. Daatland, S.O. and Lowenstein, A. (2005) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the family–welfare state balance’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, pp 174–82. Dolbin-MacNab, M.L. and Keiley, M.K. (2009) ‘Navigating interdependence: how adolescents raised solely by grandparents experience their family relationships’, Family Relations, vol 58, pp 162–75. Drew, L.M. and Smith, P.K. (1999) ‘The impact of parental separation/divorce on grandparent–grandchild relationships’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 48, pp 191–215. Duner, A. and Nordstrom, M. (2007) ‘The roles and functions of the informal support networks of older people who receive formal support: a Swedish qualitative study’, Ageing & Society, vol 27, pp 67–85. Emirbayer, M. and Mische,A. (1998) ‘What is agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, vol 103, pp 962–1023. Ferguson, N. (2004) Grandparenting in divorced families, Bristol and Avon: Policy Press. Fingerman, K.L. (2001) Aging mothers and their adult daughters: a study in mixed emotions, New York: Springer. Fingerman, K.L. and Hay, E.L. (2004) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence in the context of the larger social network’, in K. Pillemer and K. Lüscher (eds) Intergenerational ambivalences. New perspectives on parent-child relations in later life, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 133–50. Fingerman, K.L., Chen, P.-C., Hay, E.L., Cichy, K.E. and Lefkowitz, E.S. (2006) ‘Ambivalent reactions in the parent and offspring relationship’, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, vol 61B, pp 152–60. Fingerman, K.L., Pitzer, L., Lefkowitz, E.S., Birditt, K. S. and Mroczek, D. (2008) ‘Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents. Implications for the well-being of both parties’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 63B, pp 362–71. Flick, U., Kardorff von, E. and Steinke, I. (2007) ‘Was ist qualitative Forschung? [What is qualitative research?]’, in U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff and I. Steinke (eds) Qualitative Forschung (5th edn), Reinbek: Rowohlt, pp 13–29. Fuller-Thomson, E., Minkler, M. and Driver, D. (1997) ‘A profile of grandparents raising grandchildren in the US’, The Gerontologist, vol 37, pp 406–11. Ganong, L. and Coleman, M. (2006) ‘Obligations to stepparents acquired in later life: relationship quality and acuity of needs’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 61B, pp 80–88.

57

Intergenerational relations

Giarrusso, R., Stallings, M. and Bengtson,V.L. (1995) ‘The “intergenerational stake” hypothesis revisited: parent-child differences in perceptions of relationships 20 years later’, in V.L. Bengtson, K.W. Schaie and L.M. Burton (eds) Intergenerational issues in aging: Effects of social change, New York: Springer, pp 227–63. Grzywacz, J.G., Quandt, S.A., Early, J., Tapia, J., Graham, C.N. and Arcury, T.A. (2006) ‘Leaving family for work: ambivalence and mental health among Mexican migrant farmworker men’, Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, vol 8, pp 85–97. Ha, J.-H. and Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (2008) ‘The effect of widowhood on intergenerational ambivalence’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol  63B, pp 49–58. Hagestad, G.O. (1988) ‘Demographic change and the life course: some emerging trends in the family realm’, Family Relations, vol 37, pp 405–10. Harper, S. (2005) ‘Understanding grandparenthood’, in Johnson, M. (ed) Handbook of age and ageing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 422–28. Hay, E.L., Fingerman, K.L. and Lefkowitz, E.S. (2007) ‘The experience of worry in parent-adult child relationships’, Personal Relationships, vol 14, pp 605–22. Hoff, A. (2007) ‘Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent–grandchild and parent–child relationships in Germany’, Ageing & Society, vol  27, no  5, pp 643-65. Holdsworth, C. (2004) ‘Family support during the transition out of the parental home in Britain, Spain and Norway’, Sociology, vol 38, pp 909–26. Izuhara, M. (2004) ‘Negotiating family support? The “generation contract” between long-term care and inheritance’, Journal of Social Policy, vol 33, pp 649–65. Jacobs, T. (2003) ‘Paying for informal care: A contradictio in terminis?’, European Societies, vol 5, pp 397–417. Joas, H. (1996) The creativity of action, trs J. Gaines and P. Keast, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. JMF (2002) ‘Symposium on ambivalence in intergenerational relationships’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 64, pp 557–601. Junge, M. (2000) Ambivalente Gesellschaftlichkeit [Ambivalent sociality], Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Katz, R. (2009) ‘Intergenerational family relations and subjective well-being in old age. A cross-national study’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 74, pp 79–90. Kemp, C. (2004) ‘“Grand” expectations: the experiences of grandparents and adult grandchildren’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, vol 29, pp 499–525. King,V. (2004) Die Entstehung des Neuen in der Adoleszenz. Individuation, Generativität und Geschlecht in modernisierten Gesellschaften [The emergence of innovation in adolescence: individuation, generativity and gender in modernized societies],Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kivett, V.R. (1985) ‘Grandfathers and grandchildren: patterns of association, helping, and psychological closeness’, Family Relations, vol 34, pp 565–71. Kohli, M. (1999) ‘Private and public transfers between generations: linking the family and the state’, European Societies, vol 1, pp 81–104. 58

Intergenerational ambivalence

Lamnek, S. (2005) Qualitative Sozialforschung [Qualitative Social Research] (4th edn), Weinheim: Beltz. Letiecq, B.L., Bailey, S.J. and Dahlen, P. (2008) ‘Ambivalence and coping among custodial grandparents’, in B.J. Hayslip and P.L. Kaminski (eds) Parenting the custodial grandchild: Implications for clinical practice, New York: Springer, pp 3–16. Lettke, F. and Lüscher, K. (2001) ‘Wie ambivalent “sind” familiale Generationenbeziehungen? [How ambivalent “are” intergenerational relationships?]’, in J. Allmendinger (ed) Gute Gesellschaft? Verhandlungen des 30. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie, Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp 519–40. Lewis, D.C. (2008) ‘Types, meanings and ambivalence in intergenerational exchanges among Cambodian refugee families in the United States’, Ageing & Society, vol 28, pp 693–715. Lorenz-Meyer, D. (2001) The politics of ambivalence. Towards a conceptualisation of structural ambivalence in intergenerational relations, London: London School of Economics. Lorenz-Meyer, D. (2004) ‘The ambivalences of parental care among young German adults’, in K. Pillemer and K. Lüscher (eds) Intergenerational ambivalences. New perspectives on parent-child relations in later life, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 225–52. Lowenstein, A. (1999) ‘Intergenerational family relations and social support’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol 32, pp 398–406. Lowenstein,A. (2007) ‘Solidarity, conflict and ambivalence: testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members’, Journals of Gerontology. B – Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, vol 62, pp 100–7. Lüscher, K. (2002) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence: further steps in theory and research’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 64, pp 585–93. Lüscher, K. (2009) ‘Ambivalenz: Eine soziologische Annäherung [Ambivalence: a sociological approach]’, in W. Dietrich, K. Lüscher and C. Müller (eds) Ambivalenzen erkennen, aushalten und gestalten, Zürich: TVZ, pp 17–67. Lüscher, K. (2011a) ‘Ambivalence – a “sensitizing construct” for the study and practice of intergenerational relationships’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 9, pp 191–206. Lüscher, K. (2011b) ‘Ambivalenz weiterschreiben: Eine wissenssoziologischpragmatische Perspektive. [Exploring ambivalence in the perspective of a pragmatic sociology of knowledge]’, Forum der Psychoanalyse, vol 27, pp 373–93. Lüscher, K. and Lettke, F. (2004) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence. Methods, measures, and results of the Konstanz Study’, in J. Pillemer and K. Lüscher (eds) Intergenerational ambivalences. New perspectives on parent-child relations in later life, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 153–79. Lüscher, K. and Pajung-Bilger, B. (1998) Forcierte Ambivalenzen. Ehescheidung als eine Herausforderung an die Generationenbeziehungen unter Erwachsenen [Forced ambivalences: divorce as a challenge for intergenerational relationships among adults], Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 59

Intergenerational relations

Lüscher, K. and Pillemer, K. (1998) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 60, pp 413–25. Lüscher, K., Schultheis, F. and Wehrspaun, M. (1988) Die “postmoderne” Familie. Familiale Strategien und Familienpolitik in einer Übergangszeit [The “post-modern” family: family strategies and policies in a time of transition], Konstanz: Universitätsverlag. Lüscher, K., Liegle, L., Lange,A., Hoff,A., Stoffel, M.,Viry, G. and Widmer, E. (2010) ‘Generations – Intergenerational relations – Generational politics: a trilingual compendium’, Bern, Switzerland: SAGW (available at: www.kurtluescher.de). Marshall,V.M., Matthews, S.H. and Rosenthal, C.J. (1993) ‘Elusiveness of family life. A challenge for the sociology of aging’, in G.L. Pladdox and M.P. Lawton (eds) Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, New York: Springer, pp 39–72. Martini,T.S., Grusec, J.E. and Bernardini, S.C. (2003) ‘Perceptions of help given to healthy older mothers by adult daughters: ways of initiating help and types of help given’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 57, pp 237–57. Mayring, P. (2002) Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung [Introduction to qualitative social research] (5th edn), Weinheim: Beltz. Merton, R.K. and Barber, E. (1963) ‘Sociological ambivalence’, in E.A.Tiryakian (ed) Sociological theory, values and sociocultural change. Essays in honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin, London: The Free Press of Glencoe, pp 91–120. Merz, E.-M., Schuengel, C. and Schulze, H.-J. (2007) ‘Intergenerational solidarity: an attachment perspective’, Journal of Aging Studies, vol 21, pp 175–86. Michels,T.,Albert, I. and Ferring, D. (2011) ‘Psychologische Ambivalenz in ElternKind-Beziehung [Psychological ambivalence in parent-child relationships]’, Diagnostica, vol 57, pp 39–51. Obradovic, J. and Cudina-Obradovic, M. (2004) ‘Psycho-social prerequisites for the care of the elderly’, Croatian Journal of Social Policy, vol 11, pp 177–92. Perrig-Chiello, P. and Höpflinger, F. (2005) ‘Aging parents and their middle-aged children: demographic and psychosocial challenges’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, pp 183–91. Peters, C.L., Hooker, K. and Zvonkovic, A.M. (2006) ‘Older parents’ perceptions of ambivalence in relationships with their children’, Family Relations, vol 55, pp 539–51. Phillips, J., Ogg, J. and Ray, M. (2003) ‘Exploring conflict and ambivalence’, in A. Lowenstein, and J. Ogg (eds) OASIS. Old-age and autonomy:The role of service systems and intergenerational family solidarity, Haifa: Center for Research and Study of Aging, pp 193–226. Pillemer, K. (2004) ‘Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em. Parents’ ambivalence about their adult children’, in K. Pillemer and K. Lüscher (eds) Intergenerational ambivalences. New perspectives on parent-child relations in later life, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, pp 115–132. Pillemer, K. and Suitor, J.J. (2002) ‘Explaining mothers’ ambivalence toward their adult children’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, pp 602–13.

60

Intergenerational ambivalence

Pillemer, K. and Suitor, J.J. (2008) ‘Collective ambivalence. Considering new approaches to the complexity of intergenerational relations’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 63B, pp 394–96. Pillemer, K., Suitor, J.J., Mock, S.E., Sabir, M., Pardo, T.B. and Sechrist, J. (2007) ‘Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: exploring ambivalence within later-life families’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 63, pp 775–91. Pridalova, M. (2007) Caregiving daughters and caregiving sons, Brno: Masaryk University Brno. Radina, M.E. (2003) ‘Daughters of childhood parental divorce and their relationships with their fathers in adulthood’, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, vol 38, pp 61–81. Rappoport, A., and Lowenstein, A. (2007) ‘A possible innovative association between the concept of inter-generational ambivalence and the emotions of guilt and shame in care-giving’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 4, pp 13–21. Reschke, K.L., Manoogian, M.M., Richards, L.N., Walker, S.K. and Seiling, S.B. (2006) ‘Maternal grandmothers as child care providers for rural, low-income mothers’, Journal of Children and Poverty, vol 12, pp 159–74. Roer-Strier, D. and Sands, R.G. (2001) ‘The impact of religious intensification on family relations: a South African example’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 63, pp 868–80. Rosenmayr, L. (1992) ‘Sexualität, Partnerschaft und Familie älterer Menschen [Sexuality, partnership and family among the elderly]’, in P.B. Baltes and J. Mittelstraß (eds) Zukunft des Alterns und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp 461–91. Roussel, L. and Bourguignon, O. (1976) La famille après le mariage des enfants [The family after the children marry], Paris: PUF. Sarkisian, N. (2006) ‘Doing family ambivalence. Nuclear and extended families in single mothers’ lives’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 68, pp 804–11. Scabini,A. and Marta, E. (2006) ‘Changing intergenerational relationship’, European Review, vol 14, pp 81–98. Senyuerekli, A.R. and Detzner, D.F. (2008) ‘Intergenerational relationships in a transnational context: the case of Turkish families’, Family Relations, vol 57, pp 457–67. Shapiro, A. (2004) ‘Revisiting the generation gap: exploring the relationships of parent/adult-child dyads’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 58, pp 127–46. Shemmings, D. (2006) ‘Using adult attachment theory to differentiate adult children’s internal working models of later life filial relationships’, Journal of Aging Studies, vol 20, pp 177–91. Silverstein, M., Giarusso, R. and Bengtson,V.L. (1998) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the grandparent role’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp 144–58.

61

Intergenerational relations

Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Lowenstein, A., Giarusso, R. and Bengtson,V.L. (2010) ‘Older parent – child relationships in six developed nations: comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 72, pp 1006–21. Smelser, N.J. (1998) ‘The rational and the ambivalent in the social sciences’, American Sociological Review, vol 63, pp 1–16. Spitze, G. and Gallant, M.P. (2004) ‘“The bitter with the sweet”. Older adults’ strategies for handling ambivalence in relations with their adult children’, Research on Aging, vol 26, pp 387–412. Steinbach, A. (2008) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and ambivalence: types of relationships in German families’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol 39, pp 115–27. Stimpson, J.P.,Tyler, K.A. and Hoyt, D.R. (2005) ‘Effects of parental rejection and relationship quality on depression among older rural adults’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 61, pp 195–210. Suitor, J.J., Gilligan, M. and Pillemer, K. (2011) ‘Conceptualizing and measuring intergenerational ambivalence in later life’, The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, vol 66, no 6, pp 769–81. Szinovacz, M.E. (1997) ‘Grandparents today: a demographic profile’, The Gerontologist, vol 38, pp 37–52. Teo, P., Graham, E., Yeoh, B.S.A. and Levy, S. (2003) ‘Values, change and intergenerational ties between two generations of women in Singapore’, Ageing and Society, vol 23, pp 327–47. Tesch-Römer, C. (2001) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and caregiving’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol 34, pp 28–33. Turner, M.J.,Young, C.R. and Black, K.I. (2006) ‘Daughters-in-law and mothersin-law seeking their place within the family. A qualitative study of differing viewpoints’, Family Relations, vol 55, pp 588–600. Uhlenberg, P. and Kirby, J.B. (1998) ‘Grandparenthood over time: Historical and demographic trends’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp 23–39. Van Gaalen, R.I., Dykstra, P.A. and Komter, A.E. (2010) ‘Where is the exit? Intergenerational ambivalence and relationship quality in high contact ties’, Journal of Aging Studies, vol 24, pp 105–14. Ward, R.A. (2008) ‘Multiple parent-adult child relations and well-being in middle and later life’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 63B, pp 239–47. Ward, R.A., Deanne, G. and Spitze, G. (2008) ‘Ambivalence about ambivalence: reply to Pillemer and Suitor’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol  63B, pp 397–98. Ward, R.A., Deanne, G. and Spitze, G. (2009) ‘The more the merrier? Multiple parent-adult child relations’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 71, pp 161–73. Weigert, A.J. (1991) Mixed emotions: Certain steps toward understanding ambivalence, Albany: State University of New York Press.

62

Intergenerational ambivalence

White, D.L., Walker, A.J. and Richards, L.N. (2008) ‘Intergenerational family support following infant death’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 67, pp 187–208. Widmer, E. (2010) Family configurations, Surrey, Burlington: Ashgate. Widmer, E.D. and Lüscher, K. (2011) ‘Les relations intergénérationelles au prisme de l’ambivalence et des configurations familiales. [Intergenerational relationships in the perspective of ambivalences and family configurations]’, Recherches familles, vol 8, pp 49–60. Willson, A.E., Shuey, K.M. and Elder, G.H.J. (2003) ‘Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 65, pp 1055–72. Zygowicz, S.D. (2006) Interpersonal complementarity and intergenerational ambivalence: Parent-adult child relationships, Arizona: Arizona State University.

63

four

Intergenerational policy and the study of intergenerational relationships: a tentative proposal Kurt Lüscher

Introduction In this chapter a proposal to conceptualise the idea of ‘intergenerational policy’ will be submitted for discussion.1 This is an idea that has recently been referred to in scholarly as well as in political writings, mostly with the reservation that it needs further clarification. It has to be understood that, given their fundamental importance for social and individual development, intergenerational relations are likely to have been institutionalised early in human history. This may have been the case, initially being seen as customs and practices, but then also becoming formulated law as states began to emerge. Thus seen, the phenomenon of intergenerational policy is nothing new.2 It has existed – at least implicitly – since time immemorial. At present, however, intergenerational relations receive special attention in the context of current demographic developments and its connections to the labour markets, the welfare state institutions and the educational system. Of particular interest are the linkages between private intergenerational relations and affiliations and those in the public context of social welfare under conditions of demographic transformations. Also, intergenerational dynamics and their potential for conflict have become key themes in the media.This is the breeding ground for the explicit formulation of an intergenerational policy. On more theoretical grounds, intergenerational policy can be seen as an element of the concern for a contemporary understanding of socio-cultural integration both in theory and in reality. In this way it is an issue at the crossroads between cultural theory and social practice and also, more specifically, between social policy and the theoretical and empirical analysis of intergenerational relationships (as documented in this volume). A systematic approach can be furthered by addressing three questions and issues, respectively: 1. Do intergenerational relationships bear in themselves qualities that provide a rationale for giving them special political attention under the conditions of contemporary social life? This question will be discussed under the label of 65

Intergenerational relations

‘foundations’, introducing the concept of ‘generative socialisation’ in connection with human development. 2. Which are the normative principles that can serve as criteria of such efforts? And in turn, which normative orientations (or values) may be strengthened by the idea of an explicit intergeneration policy? This issue will be examined under the heading ‘normative criteria’, referring especially to the idea of participatory justice and the right of personal development. 3. Can already existing social programmes and activities be given additional weight if they are connected to the idea of intergenerational policy, and which new programmes and activities may be proposed? In the section on programmes and activities some answers by ways of concrete examples will be provided. For all that, it should be considered that – as elsewhere in policy – convictions, interests, power and domination are at play in intergenerational policy. At the same time, these can also be arranged according to membership in a particular generation. It should equally be recalled that policies and politics are arenas for rhetorical debates.3 Generally speaking, it should also be remembered that ‘generation’ and ‘gender’ are inextricably linked. Nonetheless, there are also some important differences. Thus, although life expectancy for all people has increased, it is still differs between women and men. Accordingly, gender proportions vary among the elderly and among generations. With respect to the formation of intergenerational relations among relatives and in specific professional fields, something like a gender paradox can be identified that persists until the present. The day-to-day arrangement of (kinship) relations between the generations was and is regarded – to some extent even today – as primarily a job and a duty for women (see also Chapter Eleven). The formal rules, however, are still informed by men in many domains, as was traditionally the case. Intergenerational policy is well suited for giving additional momentum to gender equity and mainstreaming. On a more general level, both gender and generational policies can be subsumed under the analytical concept of ‘identity politics’ as an element of socio-cultural integration.4

Foundations: ‘generative socialisation’ and human development What is meant by ‘generations’ and ‘intergenerational relations’? First, in everyday life as well as in science and policy, the concept of generation is used to distinguish young and old. Second, people speak of generations in family and kinship, where individual affiliations are coupled with social roles such as ‘child’, ‘parent’, and ‘grandparent’. Third, there are historical and contemporary diagnostic attributions for particular generations, such as the ’68 Generation, the Baby Boomers, or – in terms of media familiarity – the ‘Internet generation’. Fourth, we speak of generational affiliations in terms of membership in 66

Intergenerational policy and relationships

organisations or belonging to a firm. Fifth, most forms of education are linked to intergenerational relations – between parents and children, between teacher and pupil, between master and apprentice and between mentor and protégé. What do these different notions and usages have in common? Lacking the space for a detailed outline of the history of the term, this chapter5 will take an unconventional approach by beginning directly by proposing a definition and adding some explanations afterwards. By the same token, it should be noted that it is a heuristic definition, in which what can (presumably) be observed is described with established concepts.6 The proposal is: The concept of generation refers to those facets of social identities that are connected to age, belonging to a demographic cohort, the duration of membership in an organisation or the experience of historical events, and concurrent processes of socialisation, implying that these aspects influence the thinking, feeling, wanting and acting of individual and collective actors.7 In this definition, a connection is highlighted between generation as well as intergenerational relationships and the constitution of identities. Or, phrased in a slightly different way, it is assumed that generational affiliations are constituting and expressing facets of the identity of individuals and – under certain conditions – also the identity of collectivities. This is a view that is different from the widespread focus on generations as social entities, often used in analogy to social classes.8 This relevance for the constitution of identities is obvious in the case of intergenerational relations within families and kinship. Formally, by birth, children are given a name and a social place in the succession of generations; moreover, their identities are built and shaped socially and culturally in the processes of socialisation. Since family and kinship are embedded in larger social and cultural ecology, for example communities, these social systems also have an impact on identity formation and consciousness in connection with processes of sociocultural integration and their contradictions. Although this emphasis on the connections between generation and identity may seem somehow unusual, a closer reading of the famous essay of Karl Mannheim – considered a major reference in generational theory9 – uncovers a (implicit) recourse to identity as well. This is the case in the last of Mannheim’s three stages towards a definition of generation. Here common consciousness is of key importance. An implicit reference to identity can also be assumed in the understanding of generations as ‘communities of experience’, as can be found in the historical sciences (Jureit, 2006). This argumentation may be expanded: under the social, political and cultural conditions of contemporary ‘post-modern’ sociality, individuals have multiple generational affiliations, each of which can form socially framed aspects of identity. The ‘consciousness’ or ‘experience’ of belonging to a generation in a segment of social life logically requires the idea of a difference from those who belong 67

Intergenerational relations

to another generation of the same category or the same system of relations. In the case of ‘parents’ and ‘children’, that is of the family, this can be observed yet again – just as with teachers and pupils in school. But it is also true, although less accentuated, for seniors and non-seniors in sports clubs and analogous roles in the workplace, as well as for adults and children in society. From this, it follows that any affiliation to a generation fundamentally implies a boundary from or – more precisely – a distinguishing from one or more other generations with respect to the characteristic facets of identity and their associated behaviours.That is one side.The other side contains a logical necessity of community and connectedness because generations are integrated in a cross-generational succession.This simultaneity of unity and diversity is a major structural feature of the concept of generation and may be considered an aspect of its specificity.The tension between the two in daily life can take the form of an oscillation between closeness and distance, between autonomy and dependence or between support and control. In this way, existing patterns of behaviours and of relationships can be confirmed and new ones can arise.These processes can be further analysed from the perspective of a theory of intergenerational ambivalence (see also Chapter Three). Because the concept of generation also includes the idea of a break, of discontinuity, it now appears that intergenerational relations can be seen not only as determined and definitive but also as ‘open’ in principle, and therefore as having the potential to be changed.10 In the practice of daily life, the constitution and articulation of identities comprises a mutual teaching and learning in social contexts. It thus finds concrete form in processes of socialisation that include not only micro-social but also macrosocial areas of life, because socialisation re-concretises socio-cultural structures in dynamic interactions. In view of intergenerational policy, it is important to regard and characterise these processes of socialisation not as unilateral transfers from parents to children, that is, from old to young. There are also possible influences of the children on the parents or – more generally – of the young on the old (see also Chapter Six). In addition, a third matter should be of concern: the mutual embeddedness in a sequence of generations.This can also be paraphrased dramatically as ‘ties of destiny’.This applies fundamentally in the arenas of private as well as public life.As a result, it also distinguishes the processes of socialisation in which generational membership and generation-specific ascriptions of identity are at work and have practical implications.To highlight this, it is useful to introduce a conceptual distinction and to speak of generative socialisation.11 The fact that intergenerational relations always involve a greater or lesser degree of socialisation is thus an insight that is useful as a reference point for justifying and practicing intergenerational policy or, more precisely, a possible concept of intergenerational policy. It can be distinguished from other kinds of conceivable ideas, such as those which would choose the approach of diagnosing inequality between generations.12 For the approach advocated here, the following proposition is crucial: Intergenerational policy is almost always linked to generative socialisation; in other words it is associated with processes of learning, of education and personality development. 68

Intergenerational policy and relationships

This approach is compatible with a socio-economic perspective by the understanding that the shaping of intergenerational relations encompasses the development and accumulation of Humanvermögen, which can be translated roughly as ‘human capacity’.The term ‘capital’ is avoided because Humanvermögen denotes not merely an asset that can be expressed in monetary value (as is the case with ‘capital’) but also the skills to master the requirements of daily life, intrinsic, to shaping relationships and networks and to conducting a responsible life. The central idea of intergenerational policy can thus be linked with those discourses which are aiming for a synopsis of the economic, socio-cultural and ecological aspects of individual and collective human capacity and agency.13 Still another characterisation views intergenerational policy as aiming to promote generativity, if the term is understood in a comprehensive manner. First, the demographic literature refers to generative behaviour, such as the readiness to become parents and the possibilities of realising this goal. Second, following a well-known proposition by Erik Erikson, this term has taken on developmentalpsychological relevance (Erikson, 1986). As one ages, according to Erikson, there is an increasingly significant commitment to look after the welfare of future generations, a task that can be explained in anthropological terms. However, it still seems reasonable to take a third step in the understanding of generativity.This means seeing generativity as a uniquely human ability that consists in the members of generations mutually being able to care about their welfare. It is not just a case of the elderly generation being concerned for the younger but also the reverse. It is incidentally noteworthy that there appears to be no other species in which the younger members of the community care for the older ones.Therefore, such mutual concern and responsibility can also be formulated as an ethical postulate. Viewed from this perspective, the idea of ‘generativity’ is not only a theme of the analytical foundation of intergenerational policy but also of its ethical and political justification. In addition, it is related systematically to the concepts of Humanvermögen and of ‘generative socialisation’. The later may also be seen as a key concept for the contemporary study of the processes of socio-cultural integration.

Normative criteria: justice and participation Intergenerational policy defined Based on the foregoing considerations, the following descriptive definition of intergenerational policy is proposed: Intergenerational policy includes all to institutionalise intergenerational relations between the priorities of the private sphere and a constitutional public sphere, as well as the generative processes of socialisation associated with them. Moreover, it should be clarified to what extent, intentionally or not, measures of other policy realms are important in shaping intergenerational relations. 69

Intergenerational relations

This definition focuses on the aforementioned understanding of intergenerational relationships. Based on these premises, the question then arises: on what idea can the programmatic of intergenerational policy be oriented as a general postulate? Here most authors refer back to the idea of justice including ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’. More recently, theoreticians of a theory of justice refer explicitly to its role for generational orders, most prominently Rawls (1971).14 Lacking space again for a detailed discussion, a brief argument only will be presented here, one that since ancient times has been recognised as a central theme of all discourses that relate to the organisation of human societies. The problem in the foreground is how goods and resources should be distributed and how a balance of interests should be achieved between social groups, between communities and between individuals and the state. In that process, two sides of justice can be distinguished: social regulation and individual virtue. This point is important in light of our reflections on intergenerational policy. Yet there is also an inner connection between individual behaviour and social structures in different walks of life. Accordingly, it can be said: ‘Justice […] denotes the basic rules of living together that are capable of ethical justification with respect to external cooperation and conflict [...]. [Justice] is the main standard for an ethical justification (or criticism) of the rules or forms of order in human interaction’ (Vogt, 1999, pp 189 f). Even today, Aristotle continues to be the most important reference for all theories of justice. According to present day understanding, we may distinguish two dimensions or categories. The first is procedural justice (iustitia legalis). Formulated in modern terms, it demands that the rules of social order be applied to all parties fairly and (in that sense) equitably. The second dimension is directed at the content and encompasses two forms of justice, namely: • Commutative justice (iustitia commutativa) implies that the equivalency of goodness is worth striving for in relation to the performance of those involved. In more recent political science and economics literature, this is also referred to as ‘performative justice’. • Distributive justice (iustitia distributiva) or ‘civil equality’. Here the state distributes justice according to the position, ‘value’, or merit of the person concerned. For this purpose, the term ‘needs-based justice’ has gained currency. The practical problem with both these concepts of justice is that they are inextricably linked with the interests of those who formulate them. In the words of the socio-ethicist Wolfgang Huber: ‘The notion of what justice is always depends on the perception of that injustice which should be overcome’. That is because ‘[i]njustice is a category that, to a great extent, is historically determined’. In a general sense, however, it can be understood ‘as a denial of recognition. It is declined or withdrawn where respect for human dignity is denied, where the 70

Intergenerational policy and relationships

right to life and bodily integrity is violated, where freedom of access is obstructed and where equality and social participation are denied by force. That is why, in their individual and social aspects, human rights are important indicators of such injustices’ (all quotes: Huber, 1996, p 184). In this way, the possibility is opened up for an enhanced understanding of intergenerational justice. It can now be linked to reflections about what constitutes processes of generative socialisation associated with generations and intergenerational relations and with their experiences and patterns. The point is to see the experience of and dealing with differences between people as an inescapable condition of individual and social development. This is particularly evident in those anthropologically significant differences that arise in distinctions between people of different generational affiliations. As a result, social conditions should be produced such that these precise differences might be used in individual and collective development.This in turn implies that distributive and commutative justices are conditions necessary for participatory justice.Yet, at the same time, this postulate allows conclusions to be drawn for distributive and commutative justice. These considerations permit us to make the following programmatic definition of intergenerational policy: Pursuing intergenerational policy implies creating social conditions that make it possible to form, now and in the future, private and public intergenerational relations and the processes of generative socialisation with the objective of benefiting the free development of personality in responsibility for others and for oneself as well as to do what is conducive to social cohesion and societal development. We have now viewed the framing conditions, that is the social structures and processes that are directly or indirectly relevant for intergenerational relations and the constitution of identities in societies. In the end, how these are formed is the responsibility of the individual, yet the individual must be capable of perceiving this responsibility in him or herself and vis-à-vis others. Making an appeal to human rights considerations is useful in order to pragmatically resolve such ambivalences in the postulate of intergenerational justice – ambivalences that may arise also from the tension between the interests of people living today and in the future. In human rights and its implied reference to human dignity, we can see an attempt to describe the positing of overarching norms within the scope of a long-term validity extending into the future. Consequently, it can be assumed that such arrangements of intergenerational relations among generations alive today should also be reasonable for future generations.

Excursus and/or illustration: what is the relationship between intergenerational policy and political decision making? If policy (and policy-making) is observed from the standpoint of implementing individual and collective interests, the question arises how generations (or their representatives) might assert themselves as political forces and actors. Discussions on this matter are not without controversy.There is a strong faction which claims that the older generation has gained importance over the past decades, parallel 71

Intergenerational relations

with the processes of ageing. It is alleged that, on the whole, social security systems and infrastructural facilities for the elderly benefit senior citizens at the expense of younger generations.Among others, this factor is correlated with the increasingly greater influence of seniors in political decision-making.15 To put a point on it: it has been hypothesised that the elderly are primarily interested in optimising short-term advantage and that their numerical weight is therefore detrimental to medium- and long-term projects (see also Chapter One). In this connection, the age composition of members of parliaments should also be taken note of. Accordingly, it has been proposed that the increasing numerical influence of the elderly in elections and referendums should be relativised by (for instance) restricting voting rights according to age. Since such changes would likely not be approved, others have considered raising the (proportional) voting power of the ‘non-seniors’. The idea of a ‘family franchise’ has also been repeatedly proposed. As problematic as these proposals are from the standpoint of democratic legal principles (‘age limits’?) and practical feasibility (‘family voting rights’?), it should not be overlooked that generation-specific participation in a society’s decisionmaking is an essential part of a generation’s political activity. On the subject of age restrictions, the active exercise of suffrage and political participation in government ministries and commissions, not to speak of regulations concerning retirement, should also be mentioned. Conversely, there have also been attempts to lower the voting age.When discussing the political rights of foreigners, it has been considered whether it would be appropriate to distinguish between immigrant generations. Looking at intergenerational policy in terms of shaping future living conditions, it is also important to note the existence of proposals that political commissions should be formed for dealing explicitly with future developments.16 Another important theme is how political parties, in their programmatic agendas, specifically address the various age groups in terms of electoral tactics. In particular, political parties will attempt to find strategies for appealing to the growing population of ‘those who are older’ (who tend to participate in voting and elections to a greater extent than younger people) and to those in the middle stages of life (who are heavily burdened).The central theme of intergenerational policy, emphasising the mutual dependency of the generations and the developing relationships between them, can provide an impetus for alternative strategies and social policies.

Programmes and activities Providers, arenas and topics Given the omnipresence of intergenerational relations, the beginnings of activities, measures and programmes can already be discerned in all policy domains: in family, education, health, labour market and environmental policy as well as (more generally) in the realm of social, cultural and legal policy. Particularly relevant at the present time are regulations making it possible for women – and more recently, 72

Intergenerational policy and relationships

men – to reconcile the demands of their career with those of private childcare and eldercare. There are numerous initiatives to promote such ‘intergenerational dialogue’. In the area of migration policy, attention has been paid to those problems which can arise in everyday life between different immigration generations, both at the family and community levels. In light of such programmes, the criticism is sometimes made that intergenerational policies are not effective. Against that, the objection can be made that the consequences of many policy measures for intergenerational relations are still frequently overlooked, especially when the effects are adverse. One example is the strict regulation of the retirement age, because the relevant laws ignore the fact that the decision to go into retirement is often related to the option of actively helping out younger people, as in the role of grandparent (see also Chapter Nine). Another example are statutes concerning the choice of performing military or alternative (civil) service. In terms of fiscal policy, the long-term intergenerational perspective is too often neglected when compared with short-term needs. In view of this disdain (or even disregard) of intergenerational relations and their significance, intergenerational politics thus has an advocacy function as well. But even more is at stake here. If we focus on participatory justice, on the continuous promotion of an independent and socially competent personality for all stakeholders in all areas of life – children as well as parents, the young as well as the elderly – then it becomes clear that intergenerational politics in practice resembles in many respects a cross-sectional or transversal policy. It is concurrently an aspect of institutionalised integration. To promote and raise public awareness of this potential is important for the practice of intergenerational politics. • Institutional actors in intergenerational policy are both governmental and nongovernmental providers. Intergenerational policy is therefore well suited to introduce new impetus into the debate over the so-called ‘limits of the welfare state’. Such momentum is particularly important in the domain of schooling, which nowadays often includes the job of caring and supporting children from disadvantaged backgrounds as in ‘all-day schools’ (Ganztagesschulen). From the perspective of intergenerational participatory justice, the idea of an ‘educational treaty’ (Bildungspakt) seems attractive. What it implies is the co-operation of children, parents, teachers and other professionals, something that can also be encouraged by methods such as Mitbestimnung (co-determination) and the sharing of experiences.17 All this highlights the potential of kinship and private networks and of related initiatives. It further applies to many facets of caregiving, as well as in local socio-cultural and migration policy initiatives. At the same time, this does not entail approaching private, personal motivation or ability merely as a resource for providing financial relief to public budgets. Rather, making use of intergenerational relations on account of its networking with different domains of life provides another (though not the sole) reason to develop new forms of co-operation and social networking.

73

Intergenerational relations

• Most practical programmes of intergenerational policy require members of three generations to co-operate. In ‘intergenerational dialogues’ between old and young, for instance, those ‘experts’ who facilitate these programmes are usually of the middle generation. Those involved thus represent the ways that different life horizons and different cultures are confronted with intergenerational ambivalences. This comprises another aspect of generative socialisation that can help strengthen social cohesion. • Within domains of state activity, especially administration, the postulate of intergenerational policy underlines in its own way the need for interministerial networks and working groups, given the ubiquity of intergenerational relations. This is something that affects co-operation on a variety of levels, such as the nation-state and municipality.The latter is an important site for projects that in part support and in part complement intergenerational relations, both private and public. • Demographic and socio-cultural changes, upheavals and tensions that trigger an explicit intergenerational policy-making can be observed in all countries. Understandably, they are varied in their forms and degrees of urgency. But it turns out that both similarities and differences drive any number of international co-operative initiatives, by once again mixing together governmental and nongovernmental institutions and participants. If this idea succeeds in re-focusing the basis for human rights in conjunction with practical forms of participation, then it has the potential to become a ‘grassroots’ civil-social movement or a force for international co-operation and understanding. It also has the advantage of focusing efforts on the practical shaping of relationships.18 Here we should also add the suggestion to make use of the integrative and innovative potential of the intergenerational perspective for achieving theoretical and practical synergies between the primarily science-oriented postulate of ‘sustainability’ and models of human development that are found in psychology and sociology.This also underscores the cross-sectional character of intergenerational policy.

Three programmatic statements This section will conclude with some bold ‘statements’ that are intended as an attempt to formulate both priorities and potentials.19 This process will involve switching from a primarily analytical mode into an advocacy one. Intergenerational policy implies a comprehensive educational policy Currently, there are three revolutions in education underway throughout the world: that of early childhood, that pertaining to a new view of ageing and – often overlooked – that involving professional and non-vocational training in the middle phases of life. In each of these educational reforms, all life stages 74

Intergenerational policy and relationships

are affected: people of different generations within families, kin, organisations and society, and also people of both sexes. In all cases, the dissemination and acquisition of skills, knowledge and experience are closely linked to the formation of intergenerational relations at the personal level. Everywhere we find the aforementioned accumulation of human capacity (and not merely human ‘capital’), that is, the promotion of life and relationship skills and the willingness to take on responsibility. Factually speaking, these are strong arguments against a one-sided orientation in preschool, continuing and geriatric education – an orientation that would stress only the economic benefits or applicability of skills. Providers of such activities are not only state systems of education but also private educational organisations and spontaneous initiatives, especially with respect to those activities which can be summarised under the label of ‘intergenerational dialogue’. If put in the context of intergenerational policy, these revolutions in education reinforce engagement in civil society as well as social participation and social cohesion. At the same time, they serve as an instance critical of a unilateral instrumentalist understanding of education. Intergenerational policy implies ‘temporal policy’ Generations and intergenerational relations relate to the fundamental temporal dimensions of individual and communal co-existence within the horizon of the past and future. In particular, however, these also refer to the shaping of our present daily lives. To develop their personalities and become socially engaged, people require a certain degree of temporal autonomy. Yet they also need reliable structures, especially with regard to schooling and social security. The perspective of intergenerational policy, in argument and in practice, is based on those initiatives and measures that – in everyday life and the life course – enable a better balance between work and family activities in all phases of life. But this perspective additionally emphasises respect for specific, age-related experiences of time. This is especially important for children.20 Hence, intergenerational policy is a strong argument for flexible regulations concerning the retirement age. Yet intergenerational policy is also a stark reminder of the temporal dimensions of state financial policy and thus a strong argument against neglect in the maintenance and amelioration of social infrastructure and particularly the areas of education and research. Intergenerational policy implies human rights policy The postulate of participatory justice is a strong, foundational justification for intergenerational policy and as such draws attention to transnational orientations and conventions on legal policy.This is expressed in an exemplary manner by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Correspondingly, it postulates the recognition of the right to freely organise intergenerational relations from the standpoint of children as well as parents. It further assumes the recognition and 75

Intergenerational relations

protection of these relationships in legal proceedings and in social welfare. Seen thus, the Convention illustrates the applicability of universal human rights in the context of intergenerational relations of all persons at all stages of life, as well as how these relations are relevant for the development of an autonomous and socially competent personality. It can be used as a reference for other international agreements, serving to implement them in international civil and social law as well as in national policy.21

The implications of current intergeneration relations for intergenerational relations in the future and vice versa Given the ambiguity of the concept of generation, the wide range of concrete intergenerational relations and the many facets of their relevance for individual and social development, the proposal presented here represents only one among several approaches to the idea of intergenerational policy. Its focus on generative socialisation, participation and human development is partially due to its place in research on intergenerational relations. It attempts to show that the concern for policy implications reciprocally promises new stimuli for the theoretical and empirical study of intergenerational relationships in the wider context of contemporary psychological, social and cultural sciences, and especially in regard to the concern of a contemporary analysis of the contradictory processes of socio-cultural integration. An alternative proposal might focus on economic issues, such as the problem of public spending and debt-making or the investment in infrastructures.A different line of argumentation can be developed among ecological issues, such as the use of natural resources and the preservation of the environment. Globalisation and international migration recommend themselves as additional points of departure. All these approaches have in common that they remind us of the interests of future generations. The position outlined in this regard in this chapter can be summarised in two maxims that symmetrically refer both to the future and the present. We may postulate that the interests of future generations are best guaranteed if current intergenerational relations are organised fairly, that is, if they can be lived by all people in all life stages in a manner that is responsible and supportive of personality. This extends our vision into the future. If we read this maxim reflexively, we become aware how this perspective is relevant for the present: If we are considering the interests of future generations, that in turn creates meaning in our lives, reinforcing the acceptance of differences while providing impulses for socio-cultural integration in the general context of activities in government and civil society as well as in the business of everyday life. Such a perspective therefore has implications for the well-being of present-day generations. In this way, we are reminded of the fundamental – both unchanging and historically contingent – challenges of intergenerational policy, and of the importance of the study of intergenerational relations within the horizon of understanding the anthropological realities of human existence.

76

Intergenerational policy and relationships

Notes I first worked on the idea of ‘intergenerational policy’ (Generationenpolitik) together with Ludwig Liegle as part of a textbook on Intergenerational relations in family and society (Lüscher and Liegle, 2003, Chapter Six). Ludwig Liegle also made helpful comments on this text. It is a significantly revised and updated version of a contribution to an edited volume published by the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, titled Auf dem Weg zu einer Generationenpolitik [On the way to an intergenerational policy] (SAGW, 2010) as part of the activities of its network on ‘intergenerational relations’. The Cluster ‘Cultural Foundations of Integration’ at the University of Constance provided support for the editorial work and translation of this text. In this context, I would like to thank Stefanie Trautwein for her help as a student assistant and Dr David Brenner for his sensitive and professional translation. 1

This text was originally written in German and is therefore rooted in the German social culture and its respective terminology.This is to be noted especially in regard to some key terms for which an immediate translation is not possible, among them Politik and Bildung. The term Politik encompasses two meanings, namely ‘politics’ in the sense of the struggle over divergent interests and general values, and in the sense of the organisation of activities from the perspective of commonly agreed upon goals. Bildung means both formal and informal education (that is, socialisation) in view of the comprehensive development of the social self or personality within the context of a given culture. 2

On the rhetoric of generations, see Lange (1999) and Bräuninger et al (1998). Major themes are the conjuring up of a war between generations or an appeal to intergenerational solidarity.

3

‘Identity politics’ is defined here as actions and programmes that aim to help individuals and social groups – especially minorities – to express their identities in equal, democratically accepted ways. See also Calhoun (1994) and Sampson (1993). 4

On this, see the attempt in Lüscher and Liegle (2003, chapter 2) as well as the multilingual compendium Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy (Lüscher et al, 2010). For an illustration from a historiographical point of view, see Jureit (2006). 5

On this understanding of how terms are defined, see Lüscher and Liegle (2003, chapter 2) and Lüscher (2012).

6

This definition as well as those that follow can already be found in the same or slightly different formulations in the compendium cited earlier (see note 5). There they are also integrated into a broader conceptual context. 7

It should be clear that identities are understood here as dynamic, for example, in flux and not as fixed entities. Again, the limits of space do not allow a detailed discussion of the concept of identity, and here it must be limited to a simplified comprehension of identity as the point of reference for self-reflective and responsible action. Basically, this view can also be applied to collective identities. For the analysis of the contradictory temporal aspects of these processes see King (2010). 8

77

Intergenerational relations Mannheim (1928). Here, as is well known, we find a staged differentiation of ‘generational location – generation in actuality – generational unit’. Generational units are formed within the generation in actuality and are characterised as ‘not only experienc[ing] an informal participation of different individuals in mutuality. Rather, they also imply events that are given differently in actuality.Yet they also imply a united reaction, that is, a resonance and figures that are shaped in a related sense, that is, figures of individuals (who are to some extent linked) of a certain generational location’ (Mannheim, 1928, p 547). Within the framework of the same generation of actuality, multiple generational units – diametrically opposed and in conflict – can thereby be formed.

9

For a deeper analysis of the temporal aspects of generations and the resulting ‘rivalry of time’ see King (2010). 10

For a detailed discussion of this concept see Liegle and Lüscher (2008) as well as the definition in Lüscher et al (2010, D11ff).

11

According to Preston (1984), this is a viewpoint which was represented early on and without making reference to the term but to the object. Actual or perceived inequality is also the reference point of an alarming generational rhetoric, where notice should be taken of the danger of massive conflicts, even a ‘war of generations’. By contrast, solidarity in the intergenerational relations of families can often be observed (see also Chapter Twelve). In the view of the present author, neither one nor the other is satisfactory, simply because the current diversity and intertwining of intergenerational relations has been not been analysed with sufficient distinction – either theoretically or empirically (see Bräuninger et al, 1998). 12

A prominent representative of this line of thinking is Sen (1999). It is further noteworthy that three authors – French sociologist and social theorist Pierre Bourdieu, American sociologist James Coleman and American political scientist and philosopher Robert D. Putnam – in whose works the idea of ‘social capital’ plays an important role, also largely agree that ‘relationships matter’, according to the comprehensive portrayal by John Field (2008, p  1). However, none of these authors takes a closer look at intergenerational relations. For a comprehensive treatment of the concept of human capacity, see also Kaufmann (2009).

13

For a fuller discussion, see the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008) and Tremmel (2009). 14

On this issue, the works of Preston (1984) and Thomson (1989) have had considerable influence.

15

For example, the political scientist Masserat (2000) points to what he calls the ‘sustainability dilemma’: ‘the political representatives required to fulfil the short-term interests of current generations. The balancing out of interests is inevitable when contemporary conflicts are externalised, either (a) towards the outside (for example, into the South: over-exploitation of natural resources, defence and the export of rubbish); or (b) into the future (for example, the deterioration of the biosphere through over-exploiting environmental resources and habitats and thus impairing the rights of future generations 16

78

Intergenerational policy and relationships to exist)’. He therefore puts forward for discussion whether the two-chamber system might be extended by a third chamber whose members would be elected for longer terms and thus could also develop longer-term perspectives. This is the direction also taken by proposals to form ‘councils for the future’ (Zukunftsräte). On the idea of an ‘educational treaty’ (Bildungspakt), see also the expert report of the Wissenschaftlicher Beirat of the German Ministry for Families (BMFJFS, 2006).

17

18

For a deeper discussion of the connections to family see Lüscher (2012).

In this context, see the Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften (2012); see also Wissenschaftlicher Beirat of the German Ministry for Families (in press). 19

In particular, see the ‘Eighth German Family Report [8. Deutscher Familienbericht]’ (BMFSFJ, 2012). 20

A detailed analysis of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children, in light of its relevance for intergenerational policy, is provided by Krappmann and Lüscher (2011). 21

References Bräuninger, B., Lange,A. and Lüscher, K. (1998) ‘“Alterslast” und “Krieg zwischen den Generationen”? Generationenbeziehungen in aktuellen Sachbuchtexten [“Burden of age” and “war between the generations”? Intergenerational relationships in current nonfiction texts]’, Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft, vol 23, no 1, pp 3–17. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [The Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth] (BMFSFJ) (2012) 8. Deutscher Familienbericht [Eighth German Family Report], Berlin: The Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Calhoun, C. (1994) Social theory and the politics of identity, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Erikson, E.H. (1986) Identity: youth and crisis, London: Faber & Faber. Field, J. (2008) Social capital (2nd edn), London: Routledge. Huber,W. (1996) Gerechtigkeit und Recht: Grundlinien christlicher Rechtsethik [Justice and law: foundations of Christian legal ethics], Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Jureit, U. (2006) Generationenforschung [Intergenerational research], Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kaufmann, F.X. (2009) ‘Humanver mögen: Eine neue Kategor ie der Sozialstaatstheorie [Human capacity: a new category in the theory of social states]’, in H. Obinger and E. Rieger (eds) Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit in entwickelten Demokratien. Herausforderungen, Reformen und Perspektiven, Frankfurt/Main: Campus, pp 95–118. King, V. (2010) ‘The generational rivalry of time’, Time & Society, vol 19, no 1, pp 54–71.

79

Intergenerational relations

Krappmann, L. and Lüscher, K. (2011) ‘Child rights in the networks of generations: an appeal for a topical reading of the Convention of the rights of the child’, International Journal for Education Law and Policy, vol 7, no 1–2, pp 25–30. Lange, A. (1999) ‘Generationenrhetorik und mehr. Versuche über ein Schlüsselkonzept [Intergenerational rhetoric and more: defining a key concept]’, Sozialwissenschaftliche Literatur Rundschau, vol 22, no 39, pp 71–89. Liegle, L. and Lüscher, K. (2008) ‘Generative Sozialisation [Generative socialization]’, in K. Hurrelmann, M. Grundmann and S.Walper (eds) Handbuch Sozialisationsforschung, Weinheim: Beltz, pp 141–56. Lüscher, K. (2009) ‘Ambivalenz: Eine soziologische Annäherung [Ambivalence: a sociological perspective]’, in W. Dietrich, K. Lüscher and C. Müller (eds) Ambivalenzen erkennen, aushalten und gestalten, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, pp 16–67. Lüscher, K. (2012) ‘Ambivalence and practice as emerging topics of contemporary family studies’, in E. Scabini and G. Rossi (eds) Family transitions and families in transition, Milano:Vita e Pensiero, pp 93-108. Lüscher, K. and Liegle, L. (2003) Generationenbeziehungen in Familie und Gesellschaft [Intergenerational relationships in family and society], Konstanz: UVK. Lüscher, K., Liegle, L., Lange, A., Hoff, A., Stoffel, M., Viry, G. and Widmer, E. (2010) Generationen, Generationenbeziehungen, Generationenpolitik: Ein dreisprachiges Kompendium [Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy: a trilingual compendium], Bern: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, available at: https://edupad.uni-konstanz.de/generationes-v8bmkqNO1z-KN, or: www. kurtluescher.de. Mannheim, K. (1928) ‘Das Problem der Generationen [The problem of the generations]’, Kölner Vierteljahreshefte für Soziologie, vol 7, no 2, pp 157–85. Masserat, M. (2000) ‘Dritte Kammern [Third chambers]’, Universitas, vol 55,no 2, pp 185–97. Preston, S.H. (1984) ‘Children and the elderly in the US’, Scientific American, vol 251, no 6, pp 36–41. Rawls, John (1971) A theory of justice, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Sampson, E.E. (1993) ‘Identity politics: challenges to psychology’s understanding’, American Psychologist, vol 48, no 12, pp 1219–30. Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften [Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences] (SAGW) (ed) (2010) Auf dem Weg zu einer Generationenpolitik, Bern: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences. Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften [Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences] (SAGW) (ed) (2012) Was ist Generationenpolitik?, Bern: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences. Sen,A.K. (1999) Ökonomie für den Menschen:Wege zu Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität in der Marktwirtschaft [Economy for humanity: ways to justice and solidarity in a market economy], München: Hanser. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008) Intergenerational justice, available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-intergenerational/. 80

Intergenerational policy and relationships

Thomson, D. (1989) Selfish generations? The ageing of New Zealand’s welfare state, Wellington: Williams. Tremmel, J.C. (2009) A theory of intergenerational justice, London: Routledge. Vogt, M. (1999) ‘Soziale Interaktion und Gerechtigkeit [Social interaction and justice]’, in W. Korff (ed) Handbuch der Wirtschaftsethik, Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth] (BMFSFJ) (in press) Generationenpotenziale [Intergenerational potentials], Berlin: The Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [The Federal Ministry of Family, Senior Citizens,Women andYouth] (BMFSFJ) (2006) Report Gutachten: ‘Ganztagsschule – eine Chance für Familien’ [‘All-day school – a chance for families’],Wiesbaden:VSVerlag für Sozialwissenschaft.

81

Part II Multigenerational and cross‑cultural perspectives

83

five

Intergenerational congruence of attachment: limitations of findings Katarzyna Lubiewska

Introduction Even though global processes currently taking place in Western cultures involve major changes in the family domain, including progressing individualisation and loosening of family ties, it is unquestionable that emotional security is and will be in the future the key dimension of the individuals’ and family well-being (Kapella et  al, 2011). Attachment offers probably the best framework to describe how this emotional security develops and is transmitted across generations, both with regard to a romantic love (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2007) and intergenerational relations (Bowlby, 1969). Up to date, attachment has been extensively proved to be intergenerationally transmitted in terms of the process’s mechanisms and its outcome, intergenerational attachment congruence. Although the distinction between the process of transmission (IGT) and its outcome – intergenerational attachment congruence (IGC) – is to a great extent artificial (as both are inseparable in nature), this distinction is not novel and seems to be useful for the selective analysis of transmission-related issues (Belsky, 2005; Takahashi, 2005; Trommsdorff, 2009). In this vein, a more profound investigation of evidences on intergenerational congruence of attachment is proposed in this chapter.Although understanding of the mechanisms of attachment transmission is core for psychological practice and knowledge, at least two reasons may also urge a fresh discussion of the problem of the congruence of attachment across generations. First, for two decades many reports have evidenced the large extent of intergenerational congruence of attachment. Second, and therefore, most psychology students and researchers new to the attachment field who read these reports become more or less convinced that attachment quality is irrefutably transmitted from parent to the child in the same quality, as if adaptive processes that evoke complementing, flexible behaviours from both partners would not exist above and beyond one-directional processes of immediate modelling and imitation undertaken by a child watching his/her parent. Even though IGC of attachment has been well supported so far, this chapter advocates the notion that the careful analysis of attachment indicators implemented in these studies through the lenses of developmental processes, ecological context and especially measurement issues, reveals differences across measures and studies 85

Intergenerational relations

in the extent of intergenerational congruence of attachment, ranging from a complete absence to its existence at a very high level. Moreover, it is also postulated here that the closer analysis of ‘congruence’ evidences may actually provide more information on the adaptive developmental mechanisms of transmission rather than on the outcome, namely, the congruence of attachment across generations. Before a more detailed description of these results is proposed, in the following sections of this chapter attachment will be defined on the background of developmental processes, ecological context and measurement issues (the assessment method and the quality of data).

Attachment and its development over the life-span The age of an individual imposes limitations on at least two aspects related to the definition of attachment and its empirical operationalisation: the accessible extent of attachment activation on unconscious, behavioural or conscious levels, and the equilibrium of care-giving/care-receiving roles in a relationship. The early development of attachment in infancy is delineated exclusively by evolutionary and biological predispositions based on unconscious processes and an innate behavioural repertoire indicated by infant attachment behaviours, such as crying or clinging.This behavioural system is activated mainly in times of threat, makes the child seek proximity to the caregiver, and is deactivated when closeness to the caregiver is attained. As a consequence, the assessment of attachment in early childhood may be based exclusively on observational data and on inferences regarding the activation of unconscious processes. Mary Ainsworth (1978) proposed three different attachment qualities that emerge from early experiences with the caregiver. Secure attachment characterises children who seek proximity to the caregiver in times of stress, are soothed by the presence of the caregiver and are oriented towards exploration when a secure base is guaranteed. Children classified as avoidant dismiss attachment-related needs, are self-reliant, and generally avoid the caregiver even in times of stress. Similarly, resistant (or ambivalent) infants are not able to use the caregiver as a secure base; however, they overestimate the danger of being left alone and thus seek proximity even before the need for it occurs. Upon separation from the caregiver such children tend to be extremely distressed, exaggerate their negative affect and are difficult to calm afterwards.The fourth attachment type, disorganised attachment, was proposed later and describes insecure infants who exhibit contradictory, conflicted behaviours that indicate the inability to maintain a coherent attachment strategy (Main and Solomon, 1986). The attachment relationship and its mental representation constructed by a child throughout the relationship with a particular attachment figure may vary qualitatively across dyads, and hence the concept of attachment networks gained attention in many studies (for example,Takahashi, 2005).Although most individuals maintain several parallel attachment relations even in infancy, Georgas et al (2006) revealed, in a comparison across 30 cultures, that the mother–child emotional 86

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

bond was reported by adult children as relatively the strongest, with bonds with the father and siblings following behind. Much research has also found maternal and paternal attachments differently related to the child’s security.While maternal sensitivity and her ability to serve as the ‘secure base’ predict infant security, it is rather paternal protective, challenging companionship that fulfils this role (Grossmann and Grossmann, 2005). One of the corner stones of attachment theory, formulated by John Bowlby, is that the instinctual unconsciously activated attachment behaviours that underpin an infant’s attachment to the caregiver are later accompanied by ‘internal working models’ (IWMs). By late adolescence, these mental representations of multiple attachment relationships seem to converge into a general model or state of mind with regard to attachment that guides relationships with new people. On this base, a new personality attribute emerges, which is delineated not only by unconscious but also conscious general rules that regulate individual affect, behaviour, and limit or allow access and processing of information (Allen et al, 2003).Two components are central to this new personality trait, the model of self as worthy of love and approval in close relations and the model of others as available and supportive (Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998).As a consequence of this developmental change, after childhood, attachment is constituted not only by unconscious processes but also by consciously constructed mental representations of current and past attachment relationships. This change is followed by at least two further differences between infant and non-infant attachments. First, along with development, the number of attachment experiences outside the family increases. Second, as the child becomes an adult, the roles of the child’s parent as caregiver diminish, making the relationship more partner-like. Later on, when the parent becomes older and needs help, the adult child might take over the caregiving role of the parent (Weiss, 1991). Summarising, developmental age is one of the factors that determine which attachment indicators are accessible to measurement (attachment behaviour, relational or trait-like IWMs) and which kind of care-giving/care-receiving balance exists in a dyad.

Attachment in cultural context Although in the attachment literature the predispositions that underlie attachment are usually taken to be biological, the contextual basis of attachment has recently gained much more attention in research. Even though these studies analyse mainly the developmental niche as the proximal context influencing parent– child relations, more and more studies are taking a cultural perspective when investigating the indigenous nature of core attachment presumptions. The investigation of the influence of ecological factors on offspring attachment quality has thus far focused mainly on parental variables, such as personality, health, marital quality or divorce. Far less studied is the significance of grandparents, siblings, social support provided to parents and the socio-economic status of the 87

Intergenerational relations

family. Nevertheless, all of these studies support the notion of their significant influence on attachment quality of family members. The cultural perspective in attachment studies is even scarcer and much needed. Rothbaum et  al (2000), for example, revealed that the causal link between attachment security and exploration found in the Western context is questionable in Japan, where attachment security leads to dependency from the caregiver, which in Western cultures is typically related with attachment insecurity. Schmitt et al (2004) found that even though the positive self/positive other attachment model is endorsed more strongly in most nations, in some Asian nations the model of others is reported as more positive than the model of self. Other researchers demonstrated that parenting behaviours have a different impact on child attachment in various cultures (for example, Albert et al, 2007; Sumer and Kagitcibasi, 2010). Hence, it is increasingly clear that hypotheses formulated in attachment studies should also consider a culturally informed perspective (Trommsdorff, 2009).

Attachment and its assessment methods Most evidence on attachment IGC is based on two well-known observational methods: Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and Strange Situation procedure. Even though both assess early attachment, the Strange Situation focuses on infants, while the AAI focuses on the retrospective memories of adults. In Strange Situation, introduced by Ainsworth and colleagues (1978), observational ratings of infant attachment behaviours during interaction and separation from the caregiver allow them to be classified into one of the four attachment types discussed earlier. During seven episodes infants are exposed to stressful events (for example, separation from mother), which between the ages of 12 and 18 months activate the attachment behavioural system and induce certain infant behaviours. The infants’ reactions are analysed with regard to situational anxiety, exploration activity and reunion behaviours. Summarising, the attachment construct assessed in this measure is defined in terms of behavioural reactions to stress induced in the dyadic relationship with the mother. Attachment processes are guided mainly unconsciously, triggering infants’ innate and learned behaviours. The other method, AAI, taps attachment in adulthood and is a narrative procedure introduced by Main and colleagues, which through retrospective questions asked of the caregiver, usually the mother, assesses whether she has constructed coherent narratives regarding her childhood experiences with own parents and how those experiences have influenced her personality and caregiving orientation towards her own children. In a process of discourse interpretation, the content of recall is less important than the coherence of narration, and other indicators of, inferred rather than evidenced, defensive mechanisms like parental idealisation, emotional bias (for example, anger) and problems with memorising, including dismissal of early experiences (Hesse, 2008). Through manipulation by questions evoking childhood experiences, the AAI, similar to the Strange Situation, elevates or reduces the level of attachment-related 88

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

stress and enables assessment of deactivation (avoidance) or hyperactivation (anxious behaviours) of the attachment behavioural system (Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1996). In both methods, mainly unconscious processes guide observed reactions, defensive mechanisms and infant attachment behaviours. As the child’s reflective function develops, the child becomes able to assess and report the quality of own attachment behaviours and feelings with regard to a particular caregiver or to generalise about his or her own model of self and others in close relationships. Self-reports tap rather accessible (conscious), sophisticated models (IWMs) that are developed after infancy and are less automatically activated (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). In this tradition, the attachment construct is operationalised mostly in terms of concrete attachment dimensions analysed in the field of trait-like attachment displayed in all close relations or mental representations of relationships with particular others (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2002; Kobak et al, 2007). It has been evidenced so far that individual attachment differences are best conceptualised as regions in a two-dimensional space: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance (Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998; Brennan et al, 1998; Roisman, 2009). Anxiety represents the model of self and resembles behavioural strategies for regulation of felt security. This dimension captures variation in emotional and physiological parameters observed in experimental situations or relational anxiety reported in self-reports. Avoidance expresses the model of others and captures variation in the organisation of knowledge structures rather than emotional attachment bias (Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994; Brennan et al, 1998). Self-report type studies assume, even though frequently questioned by researchers devoted to the AAI-Strange Situation approach (for example, Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997), that individuals are able to reflect and report accurately on their attachment experiences and traits even if they are insecure (which according to opponents means not being able to do so). Studies on the validity of attachment self-report seem to support this notion sufficiently (for example, Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007).

Data quality Measures implemented to assess attachment provide two kinds of data, qualitative (when attachment categories are of interest) and quantitative (when dimensions are analysed). Qualitative data are predominately obtained from AAI and Strange Situation, while quantitative data are delivered by self-reports and experiments. Although it is the most commonly implemented convention, class affiliation scoring is also provided in some self-report measures (for example, Relationship Scales Questionnaire by Griffin and Bartholomew, 1994). Similarly, behavioural ratings observed during the Strange Situation are continuous in nature but their combination into attachment types is very common in attachment research.

89

Intergenerational relations

It is intriguing that the individuals classified into one category of AAI or Strange Situation differ in terms of prototype quality, and thus additional separate subgroups within each category were proposed to describe more pronounced differences between individuals.As a result, 12 AAI subgroups can be distinguished within three main categories, which, however, is rarely the case in study reports (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007). Even though, following the clinical tradition, we might accept or even endorse the convention of attachment classification, two arguments work against the application of attachment categories in research: reduction of data quality and studies that so far have failed to confirm empirically that individuals differ by attachment categories above and beyond individual differences defined in terms of attachment dimensions. Measurement levels justify implementation of more or less powerful statistical tests of hypothesis testing. Their power decreases along with the level of measurement. Hence, tests available at the nominal level (classes) are less precise than those available on the interval level of measurement (dimensions), especially when the sample sizes are small, which is usually the case of qualitative data (Solomon and George, 1999). The other insight into attachment measurement comes as the consequence of advantages in statistical tools. Namely, the implementation of taxometric methods1 aims to answer the question of dimensional vs prototypical nature of a given data. When this method became available to researchers, the attachment self-report measure developed by Bartholomew was reanalysed by Fraley and Waller (1998). The results revealed that – whether dimensional or prototypic attachment indicators were implemented to search for the boundaries of the categories – they failed to detect any evidence for the existence of attachment types. These results were confirmed in an analysis utilising single indicators of Strange Situation ratings (Fraley and Spieker, 2003) and AAI scoring (Roisman et al, 2007). All these findings suggest a kind of statistical reductionism related with the fourfold classification, which leads to a question over whether attachment types should continue to be used in further studies, as so far there is no evidence that they exist and, if imposed, they cause a considerable decrease in the data quality.

Attachment intergenerational transmission and congruence Regarding attachment in an intergenerational perspective, two main questions arise: (1) Why and by what mechanisms do parent–child ratings of attachment become congruent (intergenerational transmission of attachment, IGT)?, and (2) What is the actual congruency of parent–offspring attachment (intergenerational congruence of attachment, IGC)? (Belsky, 2005). Although this chapter addresses only the latter question, research on IGT will be briefly summarised in the next sections to highlight the differences in inferences on IGC and IGT. Attachment IGT is defined in terms of the influence of parental attachment on the attachment relationship with their child (Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans90

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

Kranenburg, 1997). Bowlby (1969), regarded as the father of contemporary attachment theory, was the first to direct our attention towards the importance of parental childhood experiences for later parenting behaviours and the quality of the child’s attachment in the next generation. Later studies evidenced that maternal sensitive responsiveness is an antecedent of a child’s attachment quality, which in adulthood influences that individual’s own caregiving behaviours (overview in Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1997; Van IJzendoorn and de Wolff, 1997; Belsky, 2005). Although those parenting facets are regarded as essential in attachment IGT, in his meaningful meta-analysis, Van IJzendoorn (1995) revealed what he called a ‘transmission gap’. Even though strong effects of parental care have been proved, 80% of the transmission mechanism remained unknown.The author encouraged researchers to study other constructs and processes mediating/moderating the link between parental and child attachment. Subsequent studies demonstrated that the following aspects are of special importance: contextual factors (Fox, 1995); maternal reflective functioning2 (Slade et al, 2005); family system (Van den Boom, 1997); and marital quality (see Belsky, 2005). The question of how similar are parent–offspring attachments refers to attachment IGC, and this question does not address the ‘transmission belt’ but looks at the result of transmission. Here, hypothesis testing is routinely based on high or low construct similarity between two generations when the variable is continuous in nature, or class affiliation when it is categorical. As concordance denotes a harmonious state of things in general and of their properties, the characteristics measured in two distinct objects will be the same or at least very similar, and this addresses the question of the focus of attachment measurement (trait vs relationship). The IGC evidence currently available comes predominately from the AAIStrange Situation paradigm. In a meta-analysis of 854 parent–child dyads in 18 studies, Van IJzendoorn (1995) reported that 75% of mother–infant dyads had matching attachment classifications. Lower concordance was found in father–child dyads. In later studies, the concordance rate was reported within the range of 35%–85% for maternal–infant attachment status (for example, Sagi et al, 1997; Cassiba et al, 2004; Miljkovitch et al, 2004; Slade et al, 2005), and 42%–65% in grandmother–mother–child triads (Benoit and Parker, 1994; Hautamaki et al, 2010; Shah et al, 2010). Relatively stronger intergenerational concordance was found in the secure attachment status than in the insecure attachment status. Moreover, Sagi et al (1997) revealed the influence of ecological context on attachment parentchild IGC. In their study conducted in Israeli kibbutzim, the concordance was higher in the group of children with home-sleeping arrangements of childcare (76%) than in the communally sleeping group (40%). These results seem to support the assumption of irrefutable intergenerational attachment congruence, at least in mother–infant dyads. However, when IGC is analysed exclusively through the lens of the AAI-Strange Situation paradigm, doubt may arise regarding how much ‘the same’ in terms of the measurement focus 91

Intergenerational relations

are infants’ reactive attachment behaviours and maternal retrospective reports of attachment life experiences influencing her caregiving status, even though both may share a similar attachment system activation pattern. Particularly, one might question if unconscious infant behaviours and adult memorised experiences are roughly equivalent developmentally. Puttallaz et al (1998), summarising this body of evidence, highlighted that none of those basic works documented data reporting that parent and child share the same ‘cognitive working model’. In a similar vein, many self-report studies provide data on parental attachment dimensions and child attachment quality. These studies implement not the same but complementary measures, like attachment caregiving or marital attachment and child security, to investigate the process of attachment transmission rather than attachment congruence of mental representations across generations. One question seems to summarise this problem: if the construct being measured in the two generations differs substantially, what kind of information is actually provided? It would be difficult and hardly justified to answer this question in terms of IGC based on comparisons between caregiving status and unconsciously activated attachment behaviours between an adult and infant who differ dramatically in terms of life experiences and processes activated during an assessment situation. Even the assumption that the general patterns of unconscious attachment activation in the AAI (defensive mechanisms indicators) and the Strange Situation (infant attachment behaviours) are equivalent is doubtful, not to mention comparisons between experimental procedure (Strange Situation) and verbalisation of retrospective experiences (AAI). Finally, the generalisation about the extent of attachment IGC based exclusively on qualitative data is questionable. The congruence is more prominent when individual differences in attachment are reduced to four groups assumed to be homogeneous. The fit between classes in a dyad is more likely than when attachment is analysed through the prism of continuous dimensions where tests based on Pearsonian correlation coefficients can be implemented. The pioneer study in this domain, conducted by Obegi et al (2004), seems to support this notion. In their study on adult daughter–mother attachment IGC based on selfreports providing dimensional and categorical data, the authors found medium to large effect sizes in categorical mother–daughter concordance and only moderate concordance when dimensional data were analysed. Similarly, the study of HuthBocks et  al (2004) revealed no association between self-reported dimensions (similar to AAI) of maternal early attachment experiences and infant attachment classification in Strange Situation. Although the results of this study may be due to activation of exclusively conscious attachment processes in the mother and unconsciously driven infant behaviours, it is also plausible that in comparison with AAI, the dimensional measure of maternal early experiences loses its ‘power’ to predict infant attachment classification. The congruence of mental representations of attachment across generations has been the subject of a much smaller amount of research, which is mainly based on self-reports and dimensional data. In general, frequent non-significant 92

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

relations (Allen et  al, 2003; Kilmann et  al, 2009), small (Obegi et  al, 2004; Albert et al, 2007; Lubiewska, 2012) or at best moderate effect sizes (Sabatier and Lannegrand-Willems, 2005; Feeney, 2006) between parental and adolescent or adult child attachments are reported. Moreover, in some studies in which concordance was analysed in the broader context, the mother-child attachment correlation disappeared. For example, Allen et  al (2003) found that the small correlation between mother–teen attachment security decreased to insignificance after partialling out the effects of demographic factors. Additionally, Albert et al (2007) demonstrated the importance of culture, reporting moderate concordance of mother-teen attachment anxiety in India and the lack of this in Germany.

Conclusions Most researchers agree that attachment is an important precondition of individual well-being and the quality of intergenerational relations within the family. Attachment-based therapies aim to change insecure relationship patterns between parents and children in order to increase the well-being of family members and to improve intergenerational relations. Not only the knowledge on how the transmission occurs (IGT) but also what aspects of attachment are transmitted (IGC) and in what conditions is of special importance not only for further research on intergenerational relations but also for practical reasons. Summarising the body of evidence on intergenerational attachment continuities, asking the question of the general extent of attachment IGC is not unreasonable. Although frequently attachment IGC is assumed as unquestionable, the aim of this chapter was to stress that developmental processes, contextual variables, the focus of the attachment construct under study and the type of data may exert an impact on study results and the conclusions about attachment intergenerational continuities. It is also reasonable to reformulate the question to ask, in what circumstances and with regard to which aspect of the construct of attachment is IGC the most probable? All of these are depicted in Figure 5.1. To date, the cluster of IGC evidence is provided mainly by the AAI-Strange Situation paradigm. The limitations of this approach have been delineated in this chapter. Distinct assessment focus and the age discrepancy between the parent and the infant (Figure 5.1) seem to question this kind of IGC inference.This chapter advocates the notion that conclusions based on this approach are less informative with regard to attachment IGC, and instead supports the discussion on the transmission process within the parent-child dyad, out of which both continuity and selectivity across generations is expected (Belsky, 2005; see also Chapter Six). When the dyadic relationship in which the transmission occurs is of interest, adaptive strategies from both partners seem to become focal (Crittenden, 2006), placing the transmission process rather than congruence within the dyad in the central position. Sensitive mothers may likely raise a child who responds with security towards others. Studies indeed revealed that secure IGC is the most strongly evidenced, which should not be surprising as the most adaptive strategy 93

Attachment interviews (AAI)1,2,3

Indicators: Attachment behaviours and mental model of self-others

Generic attachment as the personality trait

Current experiences in dyadic attachment relations (social network)

Relation-specific questionnaires2,3

Trait-like questionnaires2,3

Current representations of attachment

Note: SSP = Strange Situation Procedure; AAI = Adult Attachment Interview

Observational procedures (SSP)1,3

Past experiences

Infant/child attachment relations with parents

Peer/other attachment relations

Romantic attachment relations

Current state of mind with regard to attachment and prefered repertoire of attachment-related behaviours

94

Biological predispositions and ecological context (e.g. culture, stress, social microsystems)

3 = Behavioural repertoire related with hyper- or deactivation of attachment system

2 = Memorised or/and generalised experiences (internal working models)

1 = Unconscious processes

Types of information provided by different attachment measures:

Figure 5.1: Developmental changes in attachment over time, focus and methods of attachment assessment with underlying level of attachment system activation

Intergenerational relations

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

towards maternal security and related parenting sensitivity is the infant’s security rather than insecurity. Nevertheless, if the mother is insecure, the child’s prolonged reaction will be based on the most adaptive behavioural strategy, which will not necessarily reflect but rather complement maternal attachment style, increasing the child’s adaptiveness and probability of attaining attachment related needs (Belsky, 2005; Shah et al, 2010).The child may respond to maternal insecurity by activating at least three general strategies – avoidance, relational anxiety or disorganisation – not necessarily maintaining but disturbing attachment IGC, especially in an unstable ecological context and different quality of other attachment relationships in the child’s social network. Additionally, the age at which assessment is done limits the accessible – consciously or unconsciously based – attachment indicators and differentiates the number of life-time experiences, thus influencing IGC results. Although, according to psychoanalytical theory, early attachment becomes a ‘prototype’ for later relationships, the social learning approach highlights the continuous change in mental models due to adaptation demands which increase when the social network of the child expands and care-receiving/care-giving roles in the parentchild dyad become more balanced. Evidence on IGC discussed in this chapter seems to support the latter approach.The older the child, the fewer parent–child similarities seem to be present (even if it is difficult to compare parent–infant class affiliation and the test of correlation in teen-parent dyads). If we accept the presumption that beyond infancy, internal working models are continuously modified to be adjusted to the proximate and broader context, the importance of embedding IGC studies in the ecological context is of special importance. If attachment is studied from the perspective of culture and more proximal environment, the extent of IGC seems to vary considerably. Western parents raise a child to be an independent partner in relationships, which is not the case of Asian cultures, where dependence and hierarchy in the family is maintained through the life-time (see also Chapter Ten). Regarding cross-cultural differences in family interdependence, higher intergenerational congruence of attachment may be expected rather in Asian, as compared to Western, cultures. Finally, measurement decisions are not neutral to attachment IGC results. As depicted in Figure 5.1, all attachment measures differ by elicitation of conscious or unconscious processes, the focus on situational behaviour or trait-like selfreports, as well as the degree of retrospective verbalisation. Although this might be perceived as a purist approach, it is worth considering whether evidence for cross-generational stability will be justified only when the same construct is assessed in both partners of a relationship, preferably of the same age. Otherwise, it is not the cross-generational continuity that becomes focal but rather some aspects of the transmission process. From a statistical point of view, reductionism related to making classifications, not quantitative dimensions central to the study, seems to be not only dubious, but also increases the probability of detecting seeming attachment similarities between generations that might not hold out closer inspection. 95

Intergenerational relations

Summarising, it is worth noting that most of the results cited so far to support intergenerational continuities of attachment seem to be more informative with regard to adaptive and flexible complementarities between caregiver–offspring attachments than with regard to attachment congruence across generations. The transmission process above the range of intergenerational congruence is probably more important for understanding human development and intergenerational relations. As discussed in this chapter, the process of transmission rather than its outcome is also indirectly evidenced (through the understanding of attachment indicators assessed in both generations) in studies offering conclusions on congruence of attachment across generations. Notes Taxometric methods are similar to conventional approaches exploring latent structure, like cluster analysis; however, taxometric methods aim to test the basic assumption whether within the data set the boundary between two distributions can be detected, which is assumed rather than profoundly tested in conventional approaches (Ruscio and Ruscio, 2004). 1

Maternal reflective functioning refers to the mother’s capacity to understand own and child’s behaviour in terms of underlying mental states (Slade et al, 2005).

2

References Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.,Waters, E. and Wall, S. (1978) Patterns of attachment: a psychological study of the Strange Situation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Albert, I., Trommsdorff, G. and Mishra, R.C. (2007) ‘Parenting and adolescent attachment in India and Germany’, in G. Zheng, K. Leung and J. Adair (eds) Perspectives and progress in contemporary cross-cultural psychology, Beijing: China Light Industry Press, pp 97–108. Allen, J.P., McElhaney, K.B., Land D.J., Kuperminc, G.P., Moore, C.W., O’BeirneKelly, H. and Liebman, K.S. (2003) ‘A secure base in adolescence: markers of attachment security in the mother–adolescent relationship’, Child Development, vol 74, no 1, pp 292-307. Bartholomew, K. and Shaver, P.R. (1998) ‘Methods of assessing adult attachment. Do they converge?’, in J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes (eds) Attachment theory and close relationships, New York: The Guilford Press, pp 25–45. Belsky, J. (2005) ‘The developmental and evolutionary psychology of intergenerational transmission of attachment’, in C.S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K.E., Grossmann, S.B. Hrdy, M.E. Lamb, S.W. Porges and N. Sachser (eds) Attachment and bonding. A new synthesis, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp 169–99. Benoit, D. and Parker, K.C.H. (1994) ‘Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations’, Child Development, vol 65, pp 1444–56. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: attachment (vol 1), London: Hogarth.

96

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L. and Shaver, P.R. (1998) ‘Self-report measurement of adult attachment:An integrative overview’, in J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes (eds) Attachment theory and close relationships, New York:The Guilford Press, pp 46–76. Cassiba, R.,Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Bruno, S. and Coppola, G. (2004) ‘Attachment of mothers and children with recurrent asthmatic bronchitis’, Journal of Asthma, vol 41, no 4, pp 419–31. Crittenden, P.M. (2006) ‘A dynamic-maturational model of attachment’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, vol 27, no 2, pp 105–15. Feeney, J.A. (2006) ‘Parental attachment and conflict behavior: implications for offspring’s attachment, loneliness, and relationship satisfaction’, Personal Relationships, vol 13, pp 19–36. Feeney, J. and Noller, P. (1996) Adult attachment, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Fox, N.A. (1995) ‘Of the way we are: adult memories about attachment experiences and their role in determining infant-parent relationships: a commentary on Van IJzendoorn (1995)’, Psychological Bulletin, vol 117, pp 404–10. Fraley, R.C. and Spieker, S.J. (2003) ‘Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxonometric analysis of strange situation behavior’, Developmental Psychology, vol 39, no 3, pp 387–404. Fraley, R.C. and Waller, N.G. (1998) ‘Adult attachment patterns. A test of typological model’, in J.A. Simpson and W.S. Rholes (eds) Attachment theory and close relationships, New York: The Guilford Press, pp 77–114. Georgas, J., Berry, J.W. and Kagitcibasi, C. (2006) ‘Synthesis: how similar and how different are families across cultures?’, in J. Georgas, J.W. Berry, F.J.R. Van de Vijver, C. Kagitcibasi and Y.H. Poortinga (eds) Families across cultures.A 30-nation psychological study. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 186–241. Griffin, D. and Bartholomew, K. (1994) ‘The metaphysics of measurement: the case of adult attachment’, Advances in Personal Relationships, vol 5, pp 17–52. Grossmann, K.E. and Grossmann, K. (2005) ‘Universality of human social attachment as an adaptive process’, in C.S. Carter, L. Ahnert, K.E. Grossmann, S.B. Hrdy, M.E. Lamb, S.W. Porges and N. Sachser (eds) Attachment and bonding. A new synthesis, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp 199–229. Hautamaki, A., Hautamaki L., Neuvonen, L. and Maliniemi-Piispanen, S. (2010) ‘Transmission of attachment across three generations’, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, vol 7, no 5, pp 618–34. Hesse, E. (2008) ‘The Adult Attachment Interview. Protocol, method of analysis, and empirical studies’, in J. Cassidy and P.R. Shaver (eds) Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and clinical applications, New York:The Guilford Press, pp 552–99. Huth-Bocks, A.C., Levendosky, A.A., Bogat, G.A. and von Eye, A. (2004) ‘The impact of maternal characteristics and contextual variables on infant-mother attachment’, Child Development, vol 75, no 2, pp 480–96. K a p e l l a , O. , d e L i e d e ke r ke, A . - C. a n d d e B e r g ey c k J. ( 2 0 1 1 ) FAMILYPLATFORM Foresight report: facets and preconditions of wellbeing of families, available at https://eldorado.tu-dortmund.de/bitstream/2003/27688/1/ WP3FutureofFamiliesFINALREPORT.pdf 97

Intergenerational relations

Kilmann, P.R.,Vendemia, J.M.C., Parnell, M.M. and Urbaniak, G.C. (2009) ‘Parent characteristics linked with daughters’ attachment styles’, Adolescence, vol  44, no 175, pp 557–68. Kobak, R., Rosenthal, N.L., Zajac, K. and Madsen, S.D. (2007) ‘Adolescent attachment hierarchies and the search for an adult pair-bond’, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, vol 117, pp 57–72. Lubiewska, K. (2012) ‘Attachment transmission across three generations in the context of socio-political transformation in Poland’, Cognition, Brain, Behavior, vol XVI, no 2, pp 213–38. Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1986) Social development: psychological growth and the parent-child relationship, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P.R. (2007) Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change, New York: The Guilford Press. Miljkovitch, R., Pierrehumbert, B., Bretherton, I. and Halfon O. (2004) ‘Associations between parental and child attachment representations’, Attachment & Human Development, vol 6, no 3, pp 305–25. Obegi, J.H., Morrison, T.L. and Shaver, P.R. (2004) ‘Exploring intergenerational transmission of attachment style in young female adults and their mothers’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol 21, no 5, pp 625–38. Roisman, G.I. (2009) ‘Adult attachment. Toward a rapprochement of methodological cultures’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol 18, no 2, pp 122–6. Roisman, G.I., Fraley, R.C. and Belsky, J. (2007) ‘A taxometric study of the Adult Attachment Interview’, Developmental Psychology, vol 43, pp 675–86. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K. and Morelli, G. (2000) ‘Attachment and culture. Security in the United States and Japan’, American Psychologist, vol 55, no 10, pp 1093–1104. Ruscio, J. and Ruscio,A.M. (2004) ‘A nontechnical introduction to the taxometric method’, Understanding Statistics, vol 3, no 3, pp 151–94. Sabatier, C. and Lannegrand-Willems, L. (2005) ‘Transmission of family values and attachment: a French three-generation study’, Applied Psychology:An International Review, vol 54, no 3, pp 378–95. Sagi,A.,Van IJzendoorn, M.H., Scharf, M., Joels,T., Koren-Karie, N., Mayseless, O. and Aviezer, O. (1997) ‘Ecological constraints for intergenerational transmission of attachment’, International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol 20, no 2, pp 287–99. Schmitt, D.P. and 110 co-authors (2004) ‘Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: are models of self and of other pancultural constructs?’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 35, no 4, pp 367–402. Shah, P.E., Fonagy, P. and Strathearn, L. (2010) ‘Is attachment transmitted across generations? The plot thickens’, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol 15, no 3, pp 329–345. Shaver, P.R. and Mikulincer, M. (2002) ‘Dialogue on adult attachment: diversity and integration’, Attachment & Human Development, vol 4, no 2, pp 243–57.

98

Intergenerational congruence of attachment

Shaver, P.R. and Mikulincer, M. (2007) ‘Podejscie behawiorystyczne do milosci romantycznej. Systemy: przywiazania, opieki i seksualny’, in R.J. Sternberg and K. Wies (eds) Nowa psychologia miłości, Taszow: Moderator, pp 59–101. Slade,A., Grienenberger, J., Bernbach, E., Levy, D. and Locker,A. (2005) ‘Maternal reflective functioning, attachment, and the transmission gap: a preliminary study’, Attachment & Human Development, vol 7, no 3, pp 283–98. Solomon J. and George, C. (1999) ‘The measurement of attachment security in infancy and childhood’, in J. Cassidy and P.R. Shaver (eds) Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, NewYork:The Guilford Press, pp 287–319. Sumer, N. and Kagitcibasi, C. (2010) ‘Culturally relevant parenting predictors of attachment security in Turkish context’, in P. Erdman and K-M. Ng (eds) Attachment: expanding the cultural connections, New York: Routledge, pp 157–80. Takahashi, K. (2005) ‘Toward a life span theory of close relationships: the affective relationships model’, Human Development, no 48, pp 48-66. Trommsdorff, G. (2009) ‘Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission’, in U. Schoenpflug (ed) Perspectives on cultural transmission, Oxford: Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–60. Van den Boom, D.C. (1997) ‘Sensitivity and attachment: next steps for developmentalists’, Child Development, vol 68, pp 592–94. Van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1995) ‘Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment. A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview’, Psychological Bulletin, vol 117, pp 387–403. Van IJzendoorn, M.H. and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1996) ‘Intergenerational transmission of attachment. Towards a contextual approach’, Polish Quarterly of Developmental Psychology, vol 2, no 1, pp 1–16. Van IJzendoorn, M.H. and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1997) ‘Intergenerational transmission of attachment: A move to the contextual level’, in L. Atkinson and K.J. Zucker (eds) Attachment and psychopathology, NewYork: Guilford, pp 1135–70. Van IJzendoorn, M.H. and de Wolff, M.S. (1997) ‘In search of the absent father– meta-analyses of infant-father attachment: a rejoinder to our discussants’, Child Development, vol 68, pp 604–9. Weiss, R.S. (1991) ‘The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood’, in C.M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde and P. Marris (eds) Attachment across the life-cycle, London: Tavistock/Routledge, pp 66–77.

99

six

Value transmission between parents and their adolescent children: the process and its outcomes. A psycho-social perspective Daniela Barni, Rosa Rosnati and Sonia Ranieri

Introduction Continuity of cultures over generations is affected by cultural transmission. On one hand, stability of the culture is linked to cultural anchorage and collective memory while, on the other, its evolution is elicited by adaptation to changing economic, social or technological dimensions of the environment (Trommsdorff, 2009). The intergenerational transmission of culture refers to the way values, knowledge and practices that are prevalent in one generation are shared with the next generation. Earlier generations are responsible for the mental and physical conditions in which later generations are raised (Cigoli and Scabini, 2006). In this process, the family is the most influential source for young people; this is due to the relevance of the parent–child relationship to a child’s development and to the ability of parents to monitor their children’s actions and their acquisition of knowledge, norms, values, attitudes and behaviours (Collins et al, 2000). This chapter focuses on values as a central content of cultural transmission (Cavalli-Sforza et al, 1982) and on the family as the primary ‘place’ of socialisation for younger generations. It begins by briefly introducing the concept of value with reference to Schwartz’s well-known theory (1992), and continues by showing diverse approaches to the study of the value transmission process and outcomes.The final section sketches out routes to future research and gives a set of recommendations for family practices.

What values are: the definition Due to the number and variety of definitions that have been given to this construct within the psycho-social field, as well as elsewhere, it is necessary to clarify what exactly is meant by the term value when addressing the issue of value transmission. In the psychological literature, it is possible to identify five features common to most definitions of values: values are (1) concepts or beliefs (2) regarding desirable 101

Intergenerational relations

end states or behaviours (3) that transcend specific situations, (4) guide selection or evaluation of behaviours and events and (5) are ordered by relative importance. On the basis of these features, values can be defined as desirable, abstract, transsituational goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992). Values contribute to determining how every person sees the world and play an important role in action, operating as guiding mechanisms for evaluations of the world and for choices made (Joas, 2000). As far as value content is concerned, evidence from diverse groups in more than 60 countries supports Schwartz’s claim (1992) that people discriminate among 10 motivationally distinct value types: power (social status, dominance over people and resources); achievement (personal success according to social standards); hedonism (pleasure or sensuous gratification); stimulation (excitement, challenge and novelty); self-direction (independence of thought and action); universalism (understanding, tolerance and concern for the welfare of all people and nature); benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of people to whom one is close); tradition (respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas); conformity (restraint of actions and impulses that may harm others or violate social expectations); and security (safety and stability of society, relationships and self). The values of power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction serve individual interests, whereas the values of universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security reflect collective interests. Fischer et al (2011) suggested organising values along two functional dimensions: values as guiding human actions (an aspect of the orientation dimension) and values as expressing human needs (aspect of the motivator dimension). The first dimension differentiates three types of value orientations – social, central or personal – whereas the second dimension classifies values as either materialistic (pragmatic) or humanitarian (idealistic). All values are elements of a system: actions taken in the pursuit of each type of value have psychological, practical and social consequences that may conflict or may be compatible with the pursuit of other value types (Schwartz, 2005). Trade-offs among competing values guide behaviours and attitudes. As shown by empirical studies, value priorities are meaningfully related to numerous individual behaviours and attitudes such as a tendency towards moral action (Bond and Chi, 1997), vocational behaviour (Knafo and Sagiv, 2004), political choices (Caprara et al, 2006) and pro- and anti-social behaviours (Knafo, 2003a). The strength of these correlations and value ratings vary much more between individuals than between countries (Fischer and Schwartz, 2011).

Where values come from: the transmission process Given the importance of values in life choices and actions, as well as in the proper social functioning, society invests heavily in trying to influence youth values. Parents, siblings, teachers, peers and the media all function as agents of socialisation for youth. Parents, who are society’s first representatives, are the primary value 102

Value transmission between parents and children

source for children, and transmission of values is among the most important of the parental tasks and responsibilities (Grusec, 2002). This task becomes crucial during adolescence, when parents and adolescents renegotiate the asymmetrical authority of earlier periods. Adolescence is, in fact, characterised by tension between the child’s need for autonomy and his/her need for conformity to parental expectations, the first being essential for personal identity formation and the latter for acquiring models of appropriate behaviour (Padilla-Walker, 2007).

Adolescents’ values come from parents Traditionally, socialisation theories conceptualised value development in adolescents as being due to parental influence (Kuczynski et al, 1997; Kuczynski and Navara, 2006). Parents were perceived as active agents, with their own goals, parenting styles and strategies; in contrast, children were described as ‘blank slates’, to be written on by parental intervention and intentions. In the recent past, value transmission within the family was viewed primarily as a mechanism by which the reproduction of values occurred in each successive generation. The principle outcomes of transmission were measured in terms of conformity of the younger generation to the values of the previous generation, linking the personal values of parents (conceptualised as causes) to the values of children (conceptualised as outcomes) (Figure 6.1). The object of empirical investigations was to explain the not-unexpected similarity in parent–child values as the result of a unidirectional transmission process from parents to children, without empirical testing of the assumed directionality. Contrary to expectations, evidence of similarity between parents and children was modest and tended to concern mainly political orientations, religious beliefs and life styles, but not values (Kohn, 1983). According to the unidirectional perspective, this weak relation between parents’ and children’s values would be the result of parental difficulties in transmission of values to children. Several factors were cited to try to justify this failure. Monitoring (how well parents keep track of the child’s activities), discipline (the extent to which parents are consistent and follow through on discipline confrontation) and warmth are all features of parenting which have often been investigated in relation to parent–child value transmission. Kandel and Lesser (1972) studied American and Figure 6.1: Unidirectional perspective on family transmission of values Father’s values

Child’s values

Mother’s values

Child’s values

103

Intergenerational relations

Danish high school students and their mothers and looked at a series of variables describing the mother. Remarkably, only one of all these variables strongly affected mother–child agreement in educational values: the mother’s encouragement of the child. An authoritarian style of parenting, which is rigid and restricts a child’s autonomy, was less effective than an authoritative style in transmitting values to children.The acquisition of values either through a process of identification or by making children more anxious to please the agent of socialisation was thought to be influenced by the warmth of the parental figure (Grusec et al, 2000). The socio-demographic characteristics (job and income) of the parents have often been related to transmission as well; parents’ socio-economic situation was found to have an identifiable (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) impact on value similarity. This is because parents with a higher socio-economic position (which often coincides with a higher level of education) are able to produce messages which are both more comprehensible and more acceptable for their children. On the other hand, these same parents, who in general show a stronger intellectual flexibility and self-direction, tend to encourage autonomy in their children (Kohn, 1959 and 1969). Some authors have focused on other social factors, such as generational belonging, and concluded that cohort-history and social changes are also important – sometimes more than family transmission – in defining value priorities. Bengtson’s study (1975), carried out on 256 American grandparent–parent–youth lineages to investigate transmission of values reflecting humanism/materialism and collectivism/individualism, concluded that the modest similarity between parents and youth is a reflection of their distance in social location rather than of direct transmission. In contrast, children who have the same socio-economic status as the adults within a particular group might share similar values, thus it could be that it is socio-economic status that is transmitted, rather than values per se (Glass et al, 1986). Thus, both parent characteristics (for example, parenting style) and social features (for example, socio-economic conditions) have been identified as possible reasons for the low parent–child value similarity found in most studies. But where is the child in all this?

Adolescents’ values are constructed with parents Consideration of the child has only occurred in the more recent investigations (Kuczynski and Navara, 2006). Indeed, contemporary researchers have ‘rediscovered’ the active role of adolescents in value transmission, by providing a much more dynamic, bidirectional conception of this process (Figure 6.2). Transmission may involve more than a simple reproduction of parents’ personal values in their children. Opportunities for changes in values occur at every level of the parent-child socialisation system: the internal constructive processes of the parent and of the child (for example, interpretation, selection, rejection,

104

Value transmission between parents and children Figure 6.2: Bidirectional perspective on family transmission of values Father’s values

Child’s values

Mother’s values

Child’s values

assimilation) and their social interactions with each other (for example, conflict, co-operation, mutual shaping, observation, modelling) (Kuczynski et al, 1997). Schönpflug and Bilz’s filter model (2009) assumes that various filters regulate the transmission between generations. The most important filters appear to be the parents’ motivation to transmit specific values and the child’s acceptance of the parental influence. Both enhance transmission rates, indicating that interactive contributions from parents and children regulate the transmission process. Similarly, in accordance to Grusec and Goodnow’s (1994) model of internalisation, parents may acknowledge the need to differentiate between what is good for them and what may be good for their children. Moreover, transmission involves both the child’s perception of the parent’s position and the child’s acceptance or rejection of what is perceived to be the parent’s viewpoint.The parent’s choice regarding which values they hold on to and which they allow to be dropped as well as the child’s cognitive processing of parental messages ensure that what the child internalises is an innovative interpretation rather than a direct copy of the parents’ message. In this case, non-compliance is not necessarily dysfunctional, being to a certain degree normative across generations and, in some cases, even desirable. In a study carried out by the present authors (Barni et al, 2011), involving 381 Italian families with adolescent children (aged between 15–19 years), intergenerational differences were found in two value dimensions: openness to change (which emphasises enjoyment, pleasure, personal gratification and readiness for new experiences) and conservation (which emphasises self-restriction, order and resistance to change). Parents wanted adolescents to endorse primarily conservative values, whereas adolescents were more open to new experiences and challenges.These differences, and the consequent moderate level of correspondence between adolescents’ and parents’ values, were interpreted in the light of different life phases and age-specific needs. On one hand, adolescents are involved in the exploration and development of an autonomous and independent identity: for this task the values of openness to change are the most effective, as they promote the pursuit of independence. On the other, parents must be able to responsibly care for their children: parents have to take into account the aspects of dependency and the need for security and rules that continue during adolescence, as well as the adolescents’ increasing need for autonomy (Scabini et al, 2006).

105

Intergenerational relations

Changes in the patterns of influences between parents and children are expected across the life cycle, with adolescents taking an increasingly more active role (inside and outside the family) as they become older (Roest et al, 2010). The parent–child relationship becomes less asymmetric, as sources of power change in the family, giving children more voice. It is plausible that parents reduce their transmission efforts, considering the fact that their children have reached a state of relative autonomy and independence. At the same time, although family relationships remain salient during adolescence, adolescents establish a wider range of relationships outside the family (for example, peer relationships, romantic relationships and so on). All this may reduce or, at least, moderate, the influence of parents on their adolescent children. Whatever the stage in life, female children tend to be more accepting of the values that their parents, and especially their mothers, want to transmit, than are male children. In the socialisation process, girls are more encouraged to attend to the needs and to conform to the expectations of others; boys, in contrast, are encouraged to be self-assertive and to develop an identity that is more distinct from the wishes of others (Lyons et al, 2005; Zentner and Renaud, 2007).

Where values go on: the outcomes of the transmission process Both research adopting a unidirectional perspective and that adopting a bidirectional perspective on value transmission within the family have measured outcomes of transmission in terms of relations between parents’ and children’s values, or in terms of parent–child value similarity (Trommsdorff, 2009). Nevertheless, these studies differ in their approach to the analysis: some investigations took a variable-centred approach in studying the outcomes of transmission, whereas a few studies relied on a dyad-centred approach, by focusing explicitly on dyads as their units of analysis.

Variable-centred approach: looking at generations One of the most common methods for analysing value transmission outcomes is to carry out a correlational analysis between a parental and a child’s personal value (for example, honesty). A sizable positive relation was interpreted as evidence for similarity (for example, Schönpflug, 2001; Albert and Trommsdorff, 2003). For example, in their research carried out on 100 German families and concerning individualist, collectivist and family values, Trommsdorff et al (2004) calculated correlations between grandmothers, mothers and adolescents. Significant correlations were found to range from 0.16 between mothers’ and adolescents’ collectivism, to 0.35 between mothers’ and adolescents’ view of the socialeconomic value of children. In the face of significant and positive correlations, which were calculated as many times as there were values under examination, the authors concluded that family transmission of a certain value (for example, 106

Value transmission between parents and children

social-economic value of children) is strong. Explanations for differences in the transmission according to value content were provided by introducing the concept of ‘relative’ transmission as opposed to an ‘absolute’ transmission. Measuring intergenerational differences using analysis of variance is also a common way to estimate the outcomes of the transmission process. For instance, the study by Sabatier and Lannegrand-Willems (2005), involving 95 French three-generation triads (grandmother, mother and adolescent), showed significant intergenerational differences for most of the values investigated. The strongest differences were found between generations in individualism and these were situated along a linear model: adolescents were more individualist than their mothers, and mothers were more individualist than grandmothers.The conclusion was that individualist values are transmitted weakly and exclusively from one generation to the next: that is, from grandmothers to mothers and from mothers to adolescents (see also Chapter Nine). In all these cases, a variable-centred approach was taken. As noted by Luo and Klohnen (2005), this approach allows the researcher to study similarity (or difference) on one value at a time. Relation is computed between parent and child scores on a specific value across all participants, thus characterising the whole sample group (for example, classes or cohorts of individuals), rather than each family dyad.

Dyad-centred approach: looking at families A few investigations, aimed at capturing the degree to which respondents agree in terms of the relative importance (priority) they attribute to a broad system of values, have measured outcomes of transmission in terms of parent-child value similarity within each family dyad (Knafo and Schwartz, 2003; Barni, 2009). In a study by the present authors (Barni et al, 2012), carried out on three Italian generations and referring to Schwartz’s theory in classifying values, dyadic correlations were calculated to assess parent-child value similarities. A great deal of variability among family dyads was found in the levels of similarity (range from –0.85 to 0.98). In general, parents and their own adolescent children turned out to be less similar in values than did grandmothers and their adult children. Explanations for differences among dyads were provided and focused on developmental tasks and generational belonging. According to Grusec and Goodnow’s model (1994), some researchers preferred to measure parent-child value similarity by correlating each parent’s socialisation (rather than the personal) value ratings with their own child’s value ratings, within each parent–child dyad. The idea is that similarity with the values parents want their children to endorse reflects the success of intended socialisation (ie the degree to which children have adopted the values parents wish to transmit). One of the present authors’ recent studies goes in this direction (Barni et al, 2011): on average, low-to-modest levels of similarity were found between parents’ socialisation value profiles and adolescents’ personal values. 107

Intergenerational relations

Computing a dyadic index implies an ideographic analysis: similarity is measured for each couple, with the child and his/her parent compared in terms of a system of interrelated attributes (profile). Dyadic correlation is typically used within a dyad-centred approach, where the purpose is to know and describe unique patterns of characteristics within dyads, rather than to draw conclusions across participants (Luo and Klohnen, 2005).

Parent–child value similarity: one outcome, several sources Precise conclusions regarding the extent to which parents and their children are similar and whether this similarity is actually related to processes embedded in the family are difficult to draw (Roest et al, 2009). This is, firstly, because the presence of a shared socio-cultural context is able to inflate the degree of value similarity among family members (Boehnke et al, 2007). In the three-generational study mentioned previously (Barni et al, 2012), two sources of dyadic value similarity were distinguished: the stereotype-based (or cultural) similarity and the unique similarity. The stereotype-based similarity comes from the shared cultural value climate, whereas uniqueness is that part of similarity coming from relationships which link family members to each other in an exclusive way. As suggested by Kenny and Acitelli (1994), the culturally stereotypical ways of responding were operationalised as the means of preference in responding across all the members of the same group (in this case, generational groups: grandparents, parents or adolescents). Stereotypes were then removed to assess the degree of unique similarity. Results revealed that the influence of cultural stereotype was significant and varied across family dyads: it turned out to be stronger in dyads composed of two adults (grandmother and her adult child) than in those composed of one parent and his/her adolescent child. Grandparent– parent value similarity seems to be, to a great extent, culturally derived, with grandparents and parents sharing several tasks (for example, responsible care towards younger generations), needs (for example, stability) and so on which characterise the adult generations. In their research on Dutch family triads, Roest et al (2009) found that the influence of cultural stereotype also varied across types of value orientation: the strongest influences appeared on traditional family values, hedonism and individual progressiveness. More uniqueness within parent–adolescent dyads was seen regarding similarities in level on values such as work ethic and political traditionalism. These findings were explained by the fact that individualistic and hedonistic value orientations are widespread, while work ethic and political traditionalism are much less pervasive in the Dutch society. In his investigation conducted on triads of East German university undergraduates and their parents, Boehnke (2001) found that family intervention in transmission is more decisive for values that are not endorsed by the societal mainstream. Moreover, the socio-cultural context can exert an indirect effect on parent–child value similarity, leading to a concerted family reaction within this context. In the 108

Value transmission between parents and children

families which are less stereotypical in their values (‘non-mainstream’ families), children’s socialisation into parental values requires a stronger investment than in the families which were more stereotypical in their responses (‘mainstream’ families). Boehnke et  al (2007) showed that in the non-mainstream families’ communication between parents and children about values is clearer than in mainstream families: members of non-mainstream families found life more interesting, and offspring reported a discursive decision-making process. Knafo (2003b) highlighted that the fit between the religious values which prevail in the social-cultural context (specifically, school attended by children) and the values that parents provide influences children’s perception of parental values and acceptance. Accuracy in perceiving parental values and acceptance of these perceived values, both critical determinants of internalisation, turned out to be lower in non-mainstream families in which the fit between parental religiosity and school religiosity was poor. However, it is worthwhile to note that in all the studies referenced earlier there was variability in the levels of similarity among dyads, including stereotypes and, even more, in uniqueness, with some families being more susceptible to contextual influences than others. A potentially fruitful path for future research is to explain this variability better by adopting a cross-cultural perspective: some countries (presumably where individualistic values are more relevant) might be more tolerant regarding non-compliance than others (presumably those countries where values of interdependence are high) (Trommsdorff, 2009). The susceptibility to contextual influences may also depend on genetic tendencies. For example, Belsky (2000) showed that contextual variables may be more relevant to similarity with parents for those children genetically inclined to be more affected by how they are reared. Genetic tendencies may also have a direct impact on the level of parent–child value similarity (Knafo and Schwartz, 2009). Because of shared genetic preferences (for example, for high arousal), parents and children may give a similar importance to certain values. For example, Schermer et al (2008) estimated heritability of 0.33 for universalism,1 while the 1990 study by Waller et al on twins reared together and apart concluded that about half of the explained variance in religious values can be ascribed to genetics. Finally, there may be interaction between genes and socio-cultural context: children’s genetic tendencies help to shape their environment by evoking particular responses from parents and others (Scarr and McCartney, 1983). These results suggest caution in interpreting parent–child value similarity as the outcome of transmission of values within the family. Indeed, it seems more plausible to consider parent–child value similarity as the result of several interdependent processes.

109

Intergenerational relations

To conclude and to start again This chapter has provided a brief overview of psycho-social research concerning transmission of values in the family and the outcomes of this process.Theoretically, what we know now is that transmission is a bidirectional process and that parent– adolescent child value similarity is quite modest. Empirically, value transmission has often been treated as a deterministic process, with the similarity assumed as the only indicator in evaluating the outcomes of transmission.This has happened both in studies adopting the unidirectional perspective and, more surprisingly, in those taking the bidirectional perspective. Furthermore, there has been a veiled (at times even unconscious) use of either one approach or the other (that is, variable- or dyad-centred) to assess the transmission outcomes, although the two approaches provide different and specific information. In brief, parent-adolescent transmission of values has rarely been underestimated in its importance to children’s development and family relationships, but it has often been oversimplified. In the final section of this chapter, some open questions on value transmission, which refer both to aspects of process and of result, will be highlighted. These questions may be synthesised into two key concepts: the concept of choice and that of continuity.

From transmission to choice In most of the studies undertaken in this area, the ‘bidirectional’ aspect has been empirically tested by analysing the various family dyads (for example, fathermother, father-child, mother-child) separately (see Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2). However, family dyads are interdependent: the father influences his wife and his child and, at the same time, he is influenced by them; the same happens for the mother and for the child (Cigoli and Scabini, 2006; Roest et al, 2010) (Figure 6.3). Very few studies have considered the multidirectional nature of value transmission within the family. Among these, there is the longitudinal study by Roest et al (2010) which was carried out in the Netherlands and which concerned work as duty and hedonism.This study signalled the presence of mutual, coexisting influences within the marital couple and in parent–child relationships, both up and down the generational ladder – especially in regards to hedonism. Figure 6.3: Multidirectional perspective on family transmission of values Father’s values

Mother’s values

Child’s values

110

Value transmission between parents and children

In Italy, Rosnati and Barni (2008) showed the interdependence among family members in transmission of values, as suggested by the significant and strong correlation between the adolescent’s acceptance of paternal and of maternal values. Indeed, the more the child accepted the father’s values, the more ready the child was to accept the mother’s values. Moreover, adolescents perceived their parents’ values as being more similar than they actually were. This perceived agreement allowed adolescents to accept equally both the values they perceived as coming from their fathers and those coming from their mothers (as these perceived values were the same): in this way, children were able to avoid any ‘conflict of loyalty’ towards their parents. Kretschmer and Pike (2010) extended their focus to the sibling relationship, highlighting the fact that both sibling socialisation and mutual influence are powerful in the area of values. Analysing 209 English sibling pairs, the authors showed that sibling competition predicted sibling similarity in higher levels of extrinsic values (for example, power, achievement and materialism) and lower levels of intrinsic values (for example, benevolence and universalism). The presence of several actors and their influences produce a heterogeneous value context, which then requires a specific effort to integrate and to deal with. All this becomes even more evident outside the family: along with a vertical transmission of values between family members from different generations, there is also a horizontal transmission between members of the same generation (for example, peers), as well as an oblique transmission between members of different generations who are not related to each other (Berry and Georgas, 2009). As noted by Emler (1993), the central question becomes the choice (and the motivation towards value choices): in what way and to what extent are youth able to integrate the values to which they are exposed into an inherently worthy and coherent system? Effective socialisation requires something more than behaviour in accordance with demands: children should truly endorse the advocated values. True endorsement involves identification or integration, and an autonomous motivation to endorse, through which these values become a part of self-perception and the importance of values arises independently from external contingencies or impositions (Grolnick et al, 1997). Value similarity within the family is thus likely to enhance well-being and self-esteem of the child (Knafo and Assor, 2007), as well as overall family cohesion.These results suggest that parent–child value similarity may be a desirable outcome of transmission under certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is the child’s feeling that he or she has the freedom to choose which values to endorse.

From parent-child value similarity to continuity In light of the earlier-mentioned considerations, the proposal made here is to move from the analysis of parent–child value similarity, which, taken in isolation, tells us little about the results of value transmission, into the broader concept of continuity. 111

Intergenerational relations

Etymologically, ‘similarity’ means ‘to be basically identical’, whereas ‘continuity’ refers to ‘tying together, linking’ (Pianigiani, 2004). ‘Tying together’ the values of parents and children, incorporating them into inherently worthy, coherent systems, and ‘linking’ the generations together may be the most significant outcome of a successful transmission. This may imply a certain degree of similarity in values, but the determining element becomes the relationship itself and the quality of this relationship. In this sense, the most critical focus is to develop commitment to positive relations, identification with the groups of belonging (for example, family, generation) and loyalty to the members of these groups. It is not an accident that most difficulties in socialisation have to do with relationship management, with elevated levels of children’s resistance, with hostility and with misadaptation stemming from a poor relationship history (Kuczynski and Hildebrandt, 1997). This was clearly evident in the present authors’ study on Italian families with adolescents (Barni et  al, 2011): autonomy-supportive parenting encourages autonomous motivation and supports continuity. Children’s rejection of perceived parental values was stronger in those families in which parents pressed children to conform. On the contrary, the acceptance of perceived parental values and the identification with them were supported by adolescents’ feelings of being stimulated to explore their own true personal values and interests. Along the same lines, Friedlmeier and Trommsdorff ’s (2011) comparative study on American and Romanian mother–adolescent dyads evidenced the fact that higher levels of maternal control discourage compliance, as they can be interpreted by adolescents as a threat to their autonomy, thus decreasing their motivation to comply with parental wishes. Autonomy, if seen as the true endorsement of one’s values, attitudes, actions and so on, is a relatively universal phenomenon which benefits various aspects of a person’s life. Nevertheless, autonomy may be valued differently in different cultures: where there is a clear preference for independence, autonomy-supportive parenting may be more salient for the transmission of values and for relationship quality as well. When children feel that their parents respect their attempts to form values in exploratory ways, they can also experience their striving for autonomy as compatible with their need to remain closely related to their parents (Knafo and Assor, 2007). In this regard, Grusec and Goodnow (1994) introduced the concept of self-generation, which states that children need to feel that they generate their own values and that this feeling (the freedom to generate their own values) promotes acceptance. This is an apparent paradox: it seems that value transmission between parents and children occurs where children give importance to values they feel to be the result of their own personal choices. This paradox, once again, highlights the complexity of this process and should force researchers to reverse the simplification that was sometimes excessively applied (mostly from the empirical standpoint), thus providing a more complete picture of the process and impact of the transmission of values between parents and children.

112

Value transmission between parents and children

The effort of understanding transmission, in all its complexity, as being a multiactor and multi-faceted process in a specific social-cultural context, is also the necessary tenet for enabling a better understanding of the practical implications for the family.To promote value continuity, parents must create a close and harmonious family context in which children perceive themselves as fully accepted and are encouraged to become autonomous.The family must take it upon themselves to ensure that the next generation gradually recognises and takes on its own role, while, at the same time, protecting that next generation and passing on the role of guarantor of those ties.This is an expression of the ‘flexible protection’ (Scabini et al, 2006) that characterises parents’ caretaking responsibility during children’s adolescence. In interventions with families, it becomes necessary to shift the focus from the use of specific techniques and competencies for managing children’s behaviour (eg effective application of external contingencies to force compliance) to the enhancement of the parent–child relationship. Of course, even though this chapter has focused on family processes, the exchange of values within the family always occurs in a broader context. As mentioned briefly, the parents’ and the child’s activity in the transmission process is influenced by the social context: specific values may have a different meaning and different effects according to the culture in which the value is prevalent (Trommsdorff, 2009). Rearing children so that they can be happy and functioning members of society continues to be one of the principal educational tasks of the family. In this sense, promoting continuity in values may answer the need for differentiation and, at the same time, it may meet the need for inclusion through assimilation within the significant social groups.This may help to preserve the uniqueness of each person and avoid dissociation from or rejection of popular cultural values, knowledge and practices (Bernard et al, 2006). Herein lies the real value of value transmission. Note This means that about 33% of the variability in universalism values is due to genetic effects (shared by parents and children), providing evidence that values have a heritable aspect. 1

References Albert, I. and Trommsdorff, G. (2003) ‘Intergenerational transmission of family values’, poster presented at the 11th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Milan: August 2003. Barni, D. (2009) Trasmettere valori. Tre generazioni familiari a confronto, Milano: Unicopli. Barni, D., Ranieri, S. and Scabini, E. (2012) ‘Value similarity among grandparents, parents, and adolescent children: unique or stereotypical?’, Family Science, vol 3, no 1, pp 46–54.

113

Intergenerational relations

Barni, D., Ranieri, S., Scabini, E. and Rosnati, R. (2011) ‘Value transmission in the family: do adolescents accept the values their parents want to transmit?’, Journal of Moral Education, vol 40, no 1, pp 105–21. Belsky, J. (2000) ‘Conditional and alternative reproductive strategies: individual differences in susceptibility to rearing experience’, in J. Rodgers, D. Rowe and W. Miller (eds) Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality: theoretical and empirical contributions from the biological and behavioral sciences, Boston: Kluwer, pp 127–46. Bengtson, V.L. (1975) ‘Generation and family effects in value socialization’, American Sociological Review, vol 40, no 3, pp 358–71. Bernard, M.M., Gebauer, J.E. and Maio, G.R. (2006) ‘Cultural estrangement: the role of personal and societal value discrepancies’, Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, vol 32, no 1, pp 78–92. Berry, J.W. and Georgas, J. (2009) ‘An ecocultural perspective on cultural transmission: the family across cultures’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission. Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, NewYork: Oxford University Press, pp 95–125. Boehnke, K. (2001) ‘Parent-offspring value transmission in a societal context. Suggestions for a utopian research design with empirical underpinnings’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 32, no 2, pp 241–55. Boehnke, K., Hadjar, A. and Baier, D. (2007) ‘Parent–child value similarity: the role of Zeitgeist’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 69, no 3, pp 778–92. Bond, M.H. and Chi, V.M.Y. (1997) ‘Values and moral behavior in mainland China’, Psychologia, vol 40 , no 4, pp 251–64. Caprara, G.V., Schwartz, S.H., Capanna, C. and Vecchione, M. (2006) ‘Personality and politics: values, traits, and political choices’, Political Psychology, vol 27, no 1, pp 1–28. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Feldman, M.W., Chen, K.H. and Dornbusch, S.M. (1982) ‘Theory and observation in cultural transmission’, Science, vol 218, no 4567, pp 19–27. Cigoli,V. and Scabini, E. (2006) Family identity: ties, symbols, and transitions, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Collins, W.A., Maccoby, E.E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E.M. and Bornstein, M.H. (2000) ‘Contemporary research on parenting: the case for nature and nurture’, American Psychologist, vol 55, no 2, pp 218–32. Emler, N. (1993) ‘Il ruolo delle relazioni sociali nella formazione e nell’espressione dei valori adolescenziali’, in S.Ansaloni and M. Borsari (eds) Adolescenti in gruppo. Costruzione dell’identità e trasmissione dei valori, Milano: Franco Angeli, pp 113–24. Fischer, R. and Schwartz, S.H. (2011) ‘Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources?’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 42, no 7, pp 1127–44. Fischer, R., Milfont, T.L. and Gouveia, V.V. (2011) ‘Does social context affect value structures? Testing the within-country stability of value structures with a functional theory of values’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 42, no 2, pp 253–70. 114

Value transmission between parents and children

Friedlmeier, M. and Trommsdorff, G. (2011) ‘Are mother-child similarities in value orientations related to mothers’ parenting? A comparative study of American and Romanian mothers and their adolescent children’, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, vol 8, no 6, pp 661–80. Glass, J., Bengtson, V.L. and Dunham, C.C. (1986) ‘Attitude similarity in three generations family: socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence?’, American Sociological Review, vol 51, no 5, pp 685–98. Grolnick, W.S., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1997) ‘Internalization within the family: the self-determination theory perspective’, in J.E. Grusec and L. Kuczynski (eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: a handbook of contemporary theory, New York: Wiley, pp 135–61. Grusec, J.E. (2002) ‘Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values’, in M.H. Bornstein (ed) Handbook of parenting: practical issue in parenting, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 143–67. Grusec, J.E. and Goodnow, J.J. (1994) ‘Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: a reconceptualization of current points of view’, Developmental Psychology, vol 30, no 1, pp 4–19. Grusec, J.E., Goodnow, J.J. and Kuczynski, L. (2000) ‘New directions in analyses of parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values’, Child Development, vol 71, no 1, pp 205–11. Joas, H. (2000) The genesis of values, Cambridge: Polity. Kandel, D.B. and Lesser, G.S. (1972) Youth in two worlds, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kenny, D.A. and Acitelli, L.K. (1994) ‘Measuring similarity in couples’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 8, no 4, pp 417–31. Knafo, A. (2003a) ‘Authoritarians, the next generation: values and bullying among adolescent children of authoritarian fathers’, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol 3, no 1, pp 199–204. Knafo, A. (2003b) ‘Contexts, relationship quality, and family value socialization: the case of parent-school ideological fit’, Personal Relationships, vol 10, no 3, pp 371–88. Knafo, A. and Assor, A. (2007) ‘Motivation for agreement with parental values: desirable when autonomous, problematic when controlled’, Motivation and Emotion, vol 31, no 3, pp 232–45. Knafo, A. and Sagiv, L. (2004) ‘Values and work environment: mapping 32 occupations’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, vol 19, no 3, pp 255–73. Knafo, A. and Schwartz, S.H. (2003) ‘Parenting and adolescent’s accuracy in perceiving parental values’, Child Development, vol 74, no 2, pp 595–611. Knafo, A. and Schwartz, S.H. (2009) ‘Accounting for parent-child value congruence: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission. Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 240–68. Kohn, M. (1959) ‘Social class and parental values’, American Journal of Sociology, vol 64, no 4, pp 337–51.

115

Intergenerational relations

Kohn, M. (1969) Class and conformity: A study in values, Homewood: The Dorsey Press. Kohn, M. (1983) ‘On the transmission of values in the family: a preliminary reformulation’, Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, vol 4, pp 1–12. Kretschmer, T. and Pike, A. (2010) ‘Associations between adolescent siblings’ relationship quality and similarity and differences in values’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 24, no 4, pp 411–18. Kuczynski, L. and Hildebrandt, N. (1997) ‘Models of conformity and resistance in socialization theory’, in J.E. Grusec and L. Kuczynski (eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: handbook of contemporary theory, New York:Wiley, pp 227–56. Kuczynski, L. and Navara, G.S. (2006) ‘Sources of innovation and change in socialization, internalization and acculturation’, in M. Killen and J.G. Smetana (eds) Handbook of moral development, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 299–327. Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S. and Schell, K. (1997) ‘Value socialization in a bidirectional context’, in J.E. Grusec and L. Kuczynski (eds) Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory, New York: Wiley, pp 23–50. Luo, S. and Klohnen, E.C. (2005) ‘Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: a couple-centred approach’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 88, no 2, pp 304–26. Lyons, S.T., Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2005) ‘Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon?’, Sex Roles, vol 54, no 9–10, pp 763–78. Padilla-Walker, L. (2007) ‘Characteristics of mother-child interactions related to adolescents’ positive values and behaviors’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 69, no 3, pp 675–86. Pianigiani, O. (2004) Vocabolario etimologico della lingua italiana, available at: http://www.etimo.it Roest, A.M., Dubas, J.S. and Gerris, J.M.R. (2010) ‘Value transmissions between parents and children: gender and developmental phase as transmission belts’, Journal of Adolescence, vol 33, no 1, pp 21–31. Roest, A.M.C., Dubas, J.S., Gerris, J.R.M. and Engels, R.C.M.E. (2009) ‘Value similarities among fathers, mothers, and adolescents and the role of a cultural stereotype: different measurement strategies reconsidered’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol 19, no 4, pp 812–33. Rosnati, R. and Barni, D. (2008) ‘Adolescents’ perceptions and acceptance of parents’ values: from a dyadic- to a family-centered approach’, paper presented at the 4th Congress of the European Society of Family Relations, Jyväskylä: September 2008. Sabatier, C. and Lannegrand-Willems, L. (2005) ‘Transmission of family values, attachment and family investment. A French three-generation study’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol 54, no 3, pp 378–95. 116

Value transmission between parents and children

Scabini, E., Marta, E. and Lanz, M. (2006) The transition to adulthood and family relations: An intergenerational perspective, London: Psychology Press. Scarr, S. and McCartney, K. (1983) ‘How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects’, Child Development, vol 54, no 2, pp 424–35. Schermer, J.A., Feather, N.T., Zhu, G. and Martin, N.G. (2008) ‘Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental properties of the portrait values questionnaire’, Twin Research and Human Genetics, vol 11, no 5, pp 531–37. Schönpflug, U. (2001) ‘Intergenerational transmission of values. The role of transmission belts’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 32, no 2, pp 174–85. Schönpflug, U. and Bilz, L. (2009) ‘The transmission process: mechanisms and contexts’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission. Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 212– 39. Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ’Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’, in M.P. Zanna (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 25, New York: Academic Press, pp 1–65. Schwartz, S.H. (2005) ‘Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual human values’, in A.Tamayo and J.B. Porto (eds) Valores e comportamento nas organizacões, Petrópolis:Vozes, pp 56–95. Trommsdorff, G. (2009) ‘Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission. Psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 126–60. Trommsdorff, G., Mayer, B. and Albert, I. (2004) ‘Dimensions of culture in intracultural comparisons: individualism/collectivism and family-related values in three generations’, in H.Vinken, J. Soeters and P. Ester (eds) Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, pp 157–84. Waller, N.G., Kojetin, B.A., Bouchard, T.J., Lykken, D.T. and Tellegen, A. (1990) ‘Genetic and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes and values: a study of twins reared apart and together’, Psychological Science, vol 1, no 2, pp 138–42. Zentner, M., and Renaud, O. (2007) ‘Origins of adolescents’ ideal self: an intergenerational perspective’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 92, no 3, pp 557–74.

117

seven

Value orientations and perception of social change in post-communist Romania Mihaela Friedlmeier and Alin Gavreliuc

Introduction For more than four decades, people of Central and Eastern Europe were subject to close supervision, suppression of initiative and of freedom of choice, paternalism, sanctioning of disobedience and rewards unrelated to effort and performance (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997).The collapse of communism came as a psychological shock. The extent of this, however, was difficult to evaluate due to its scale and a lack of comparative indices. Within a relatively short period of time, new laws, new institutions and a new economic system started to be implemented, creating an environment which was hard to control. Compared to younger, post-transition generations who are increasingly exposed to a transformed society, with a substantial use of modern technologies nurturing a rapid spread of Western values (Sobotka et al, 2003), older, pre-transition generations are more anchored in the past, and may be more resistant to rapid social, economic and political changes. This chapter, using the present authors’ own empirical findings and those reported in the literature, will first seek to find out whether and how the communist system affected the basic values of its citizens and, second, attempt to shed some light on the values and experiences of individuals living through profound socioeconomic transition, such as the shift from communism to democracy.The focus of this chapter is on Romania, which, like other Eastern European countries, has gone through dramatic transformation after the breakdown of communism in December of 1989. When confronted with novel situations, the individual becomes aware of his/her beliefs and values and can react in two different ways: (a) displaying a defence reaction by avoiding the changes in order to maintain his/her identity or (b) displaying an adaptation reaction by changing the goals and the strategies needed to reach the goals (Trommsdorff, 1999). Several works argue that adaptation to life circumstances is important for value formation (for example, Rokeach, 1973), and this adaptation implies adjusting effectively to the existing opportunities and constraints. While communist regimes in Eastern Europe provided for the basic needs of its citizens (housing, employment, and so on), very few choices were available in terms of work, education and leisure.These limited choices may have 119

Intergenerational relations

led to the adoption of certain value priorities (Schwarz and Bardi, 1997). The demands and opportunities of the new system raise questions with regard to how individuals (of different ages and gender) were affected socially and psychologically. This chapter starts with a short historical introduction followed by a description of socio-demographic changes in Romania. Next, different theories and empirical findings regarding stability and change of value priorities across time and generations (pre- and post-transition) are presented. The chapter also integrates work on perception of social change from a generational and a gender perspective.

Brief historical overview Following hundreds of years of foreign influence, the Kingdom of Romania emerged after the union of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859. At the end of World War I,Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia united with the Kingdom of Romania. By the end of the World War II, Romania fell under Soviet influence and a communist regime was established.This regime has slowly dragged the country into an economic, social and moral deadlock. After the communist regime was overthrown in December 1989, Romania began to transition towards democracy and a capitalist market economy. After years of economic problems and extensive reforms, the country joined the European Union in January 2007. Romania has the seventh largest population of the European Union with 21.9 million people, approximately 48% of its population residing in rural areas (National Institute for Statistics, 2007).

Socio-economic and demographic changes within the Romanian context During communism, people were provided security for full employment, affordable housing, health care and family benefits and child care, even though at a low standard of living. In return for stability and security, autonomy was constrained and alternatives including travel, education and access to information were very limited.While the new system provides more autonomy, it provides less security. After the first decade of democracy, general enthusiasm was dampened drastically, which can be explained by the extreme difficulties brought by the transition period. Similar to other former communist countries, unemployment in Romania became a crude reality after 1989. The unemployment rate grew from 3% in 1991 to 11.8% in 1999, and then declined continuously reaching 3.98% in 2008 (Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection, 2011). However, the outbreak of the financial crisis in early 2009 set an abrupt end to the decline in unemployment rates and reversed the trend, with unemployment reaching 7.3% in July 2011, still roughly 2.5% below the EU 27 average (Eurostat, 2010). The decades of communism affected both the public and the private spheres. Starting with 1966, a strict ban on abortion combined with nationalistic propaganda promoting the increase of the population resulted in the birth of 120

Value orientations and social change in Romania

thousands of unwanted children who were later left in orphanages (Pasti, 2003). During the early 1990s, family planning became widely available. The fertility rate has dramatically decreased in the last decades, from 2.2 in 1989 to 1.2 in 2001, and 1.32 in 2009, much below the minimum level necessary to ensure a demographic renewal of the generations (Eurostat, 2010). However, the fall in the fertility rate is rather explained by an increase in aborted pregnancies than by proper family planning policy (European Steering Committee for Youth, 2000). During communism, women constituted about 46% of the total adult labour force (United Nations Statistics Division, 1995). Despite this ‘special’ status, they were overrepresented in low-status jobs, and their wages were kept at a lower level than those of men. At the same time, there was not a parallel change in the gendered division of domestic responsibilities, with women being considered responsible for maintaining the home while working full time.With regard to more recent relations between genders, a survey conducted by Barometer for Gender (2000) found that the majority of both men and women (71%) agree that both partners are responsible for taking care of the children. Interestingly, more specific questions revealed a different picture: (1) 69% of the respondents reported that it is women who take care of the children on a daily basis, 23% answered that both parents do this task, and only 3% answered that this task is carried out by fathers; (2) 64% answered that only women look after children’s homework and leisure time while only 8% answered that men do this; (3) it is mainly women who take children to school and to the doctor (68% and 66%, respectively). Other studies show that with regard to domestic chores other than childcare, Romanians support gender equality (B.Voicu et al, 2007), but disagree with the presence of women in leading positions (M.Voicu, 2004). These findings show inconsistencies between responses to general versus specific questions, emphasising the existence of both modern and traditional patterns with regard to gender roles. The deterioration of living conditions affects people’s perception of opportunities and demands in the new society. A recent survey conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Sociology (2010) showed that 61% of Romanians considered that their life had been better before 1990, 11% answered that it was the same, and only 24% reported that life had been better since 1990. Data from the European Values Survey (EVS) (the 1999 wave) showed that only 44% of the respondents declared themselves as being satisfied with their lives, putting Romania on the list of the most pessimistic countries participating in the study (B.Voicu, 2001).

Value stability or value change? Several researchers have attempted to clarify the question whether indoctrination into the communist ideology in Central and Eastern Europe was successful and to what extent (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997; Schwartz et  al, 2000; Danis et  al, 2011). Many argue that apparent indoctrination was only superficial, but that an adaptation to the environment created by the system, including the gradual adoption of certain values, was inevitable (for example, Schwartz and Bardi, 1997). 121

Intergenerational relations

With regard to individuals’ value priorities after the breakdown of communism, the questions arise of whether, how profoundly and how quickly individuals will adopt values that are more in sync with the current demands and opportunities typical of a free market economy. Will new values replace the old ones or will they co-exist? The rate at which individuals’ values change is, at least in part, dependent upon age and life stage (for example, Schwartz and Bardi, 1997). The rapid changeover from communism to democracy, from a centralised economy to free markets, is expected to have produced a generational gap expressed, among others, by different value preferences. Some theories argue that people’s attitudes are resistant to change after early adulthood (for example, Inglehart and Welzel, 2005) when personality traits are well established. While older people may be more resistant to societal change, young people’s values are less anchored in the past, and may adapt more quickly to change (Schwarz and Bardi, 1997). While some of these questions can be answered empirically, others need further research.

Materialism and post-materialism in Romania Inglehart (1997 and 2000) argues that an increase in economic prosperity leads to a better fulfilment of basic needs, which, in turn, leads to less materialist values from generation to generation and a stronger focus on autonomy and selfexpression in life. In times of prosperity, new generations place less emphasis on economic and physical security than earlier generations; instead, they give higher priority to non-material goals, the so-called post-materialistic goals.The similarity in the preference of post-materialistic and individualistic values is expected to stimulate an overall change (a ‘silent revolution’) towards post-modern values (for example, a reduction in authority, a decrease in religious orientation and declining closeness of parent-child relationships). The results of the EVS (the 1999–2001 and the 2005–2007 waves) show that the percentage of Romanians who can be characterised as ‘post-materialist’ remained practically unchanged over a period of a decade and a half, ranging between 5%–8%; the ‘materialists’ represent 45%–47% while those with ‘mixed orientation’ represent 47%–48% (B. Voicu, 2007). Additionally, over 70% of the sample believes that the church provides adequate answers to family problems and moral issues; thus, Romania is the European country (in the EVS survey) with the highest levels of confidence in religion (B. Voicu, 2001; M.Voicu, 2007). Moreover, 85% believe that a smaller, but secure salary is better than a larger, otherwise uncertain one (B.Voicu, 2001). At the same time, two thirds of the participants in the EVS reported that they can plan their life as they wish; this percentage is comparable with those in Western countries and is among the highest in ex-communist countries (B.Voicu, 2001). This belief in the ability to control their own fate seems paradoxical, given the other responses reported earlier, especially those about the authority of religion. In contrast to this, results based on data collected more recently from representative samples (late 2009) showed an increased preference for external locus of control

122

Value orientations and social change in Romania

among the 20-year-olds, suggesting a detachment from responsibility and attributing success to factors such as luck (Gavreliuc, 2012). Waves of the EVS/WorldValues Survey (1993, 1999, 2005) indicate a continuity in the importance attributed to family (over 85% of respondents declare the family as ‘important’ or ‘very important’), followed by work, religion, friends, leisure (all above 70%) (Popescu, 2007). Only religion showed a significant increase in the importance it is given (Popescu, 2007), a pattern that is different from the general trend in Europe where a gradual withdrawal of the church from public life is noted. With regard to child-rearing goals, Romania appears rather unique among EU countries with its focus on hard work (71% in 1992, 82% in 1999 and 83% in 2005) and religious faith (43% in 1993, 59% in 1999 and 63% in 2005) rather than creativity and independence (B.Voicu, 2007). Putting these trends together (materialism, reliance on religious authority and aversion towards risk), Romanian post-communist society seems to be a traditional society rather than a modern one.

Conservatism and hierarchy or autonomy and mastery? Schwartz and his colleagues (for example, Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995) have presented and validated a theory of universals in the content and structure of value systems.Values are desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992). Using the technique of smallest space analysis, this theory distinguishes seven types of values (56 single values) according to the motivations that underlie them: conservatism, intellectual autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, egalitarianism, harmony and mastery (Schwartz, 2005). The theory also argues that certain value types have similar behavioural implications and are, therefore, compatible with one another while others are in conflict with one another (Schwarz, 1992).These compatibilities and conflicts have been validated across samples from more than 20 countries; there are, however, some deviations from these patterns as demonstrated empirically with samples from several Eastern European countries (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997). In several former communist countries (Romania was not included), the three universalism values (world at peace, social justice and equality) and the two security values (social order and national security), which are normally incompatible, were in close proximity in the structural analyses implying that the five values share a common meaning (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997).The interpretation here is that communism affected not only the priorities that individuals gave to (sociopolitical) values but also the meaning of these values (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997). Additionally, the strong priority given to conservatism and hierarchy in these former communist countries supports the hypothesis of adaptation to life in a communist social system (Schwartz and Bardi, 1997). Using the Schwartz Values Survey, Gavreliuc (2011) examined representative samples of three age groups (N = 1,841), conventionally called ‘generations’: ‘Generation 50’ (individuals who were on average 50 years old in 2002–2003 123

Intergenerational relations

when the data were collected, socialised for the most part during communism), ‘Generation 35’ (secondarily socialised during communism), and ‘Generation 20’ (socialised for the most part during post-communism). ‘Generation 35’, the ‘decretei’, represents a distinct social stratum, these individuals being part of the cohorts that exploded demographically in 1966 when Ceaușescu passed the 770/1966 Decree that banned abortion; they also are the generation that contributed decisively to the removal of the communist regime in December 1989, information that can be derived from the demographics of the victims of the ‘revolution’. In contrast to hypotheses of value change as a response to dramatic societal transformation (Gavreliuc, 2011), results showed more similarities than differences in value priorities across the three generations studied here.‘Generation 35’ showed the most pronounced conservatism, hierarchy, and especially low egalitarianism, low intellectual and emotional autonomy compared to the other two cohorts (see Table 7.1). This value profile suggests a remarkable instability, ambivalence and vulnerability pointing to an internalisation of generational insecurity typical for the ‘decretei’ (Gavreliuc, 2011). Such vulnerability was reported in other similar studies regarding the ‘legacy of trauma’ (Kellerman, 2001). However, between generations 50 and 20, there is no statistically significant difference in terms of value orientations, and this gives more support to intergenerational value transfers, despite the radical societal transformation (see also Chapter Six). Overall, the evidence presented so far speaks more in favour of stability of values rather than value change across time and cohorts in Romania.To follow Inglehart’s theory, in order for values to change (both in terms of priorities and of meaning), significant changes in actual life conditions are necessary. One interpretation is that not enough improvements were experienced in the Romanian context in terms of the general living standard. There is, however, some evidence coming from cross-national studies which suggests that Romanian youth are oriented more towards individualistic values. For instance, using the Schwartz Value Survey, Frost and Frost (2000) compared 217 Romanian college students with 201 American students and found that Americans scored higher than Romanians in conformity and tradition. Furthermore, a highly Table 7.1: Portraits of intergenerational values Supraordinate values Conservatism Hierarchy Harmony Egalitarianism Intellectual autonomy Affective autonomy Mastery ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

124

G50 4.06** 2.12* 4.19 4.62* 4.78** 3.56 3.96

G35 4.68 * 2.97 4.17 4.23 4.12 3.21* 3.77

G20 4.21 2.29 4.08 4.46 4.43 3.81 3.82

Value orientations and social change in Romania

significant difference was found for universalism, with Romanian students giving more importance compared to Americans to aspects such as wisdom, a world of beauty, unity with nature, a world at peace, social justice and environmental protection (Frost and Frost, 2000). Friedlmeier and Trommsdorff (2011) found some support for similarities between American and Romanian adolescents in the importance given to individualistic and collectivistic values. Another study that included Romania showed that Eastern European adolescents (and Americans), compared to Western Europeans, stressed the importance of becoming rich, famous and professional, and the importance of taking care of their parents, having children and being useful for their country (Nurmi et al, 1999). This great interest in having money and fame may be a consequence of the current rapid social changes towards a free market and capitalist economy, which might provide models of people who earned much money in a short time (‘nouveaux riches’), and, in turn, create unrealistic expectations in youths. Furthermore, the importance of taking care of their parents and being useful to their country mentioned by adolescents from Eastern Europe could be an expression of the rather traditional types of values existing in these countries and the poor economic situation as compared to Western countries, and the incapacity of the welfare system to provide real support for families (Nurmi et al, 1999; see also Chapter Two). Focusing on adolescents and college students, these results suggest a blend of traditional and modern, individualistic values thus implying that younger generations who are still forming their values may adapt more quickly and easier to the transition.

Perception of social change: generational and gender comparisons Since 1989, a decline in social welfare services in former communist countries combined with increased competition for employment has placed a greater burden on women, who are expected to balance work and family obligations (Macek, 1998). Effects of social change on human development are also expected to vary by age (Brandtstädter and Greve, 1994; Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995). Because youth/adolescents are not yet committed to a certain career path that could be disrupted by abrupt social changes (for example, Elder et al, 1994), they are expected to be more likely to seize the new opportunities available and have a more positive perception of the ongoing changes taking place in the society compared to older generations (Friedlmeier, 2006). For instance, older generations may lack (at least temporarily) the social and personal resources to adapt to the new environment, thus evaluating the changes in the new society more negatively. Friedlmeier (2006) examined parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the changes taking place in the society (for example, predictability of tomorrow, income inequality, trust in people) after the fall of communism in Romania. Based on the assumptions outlined above, two hypotheses were tested: (1) compared 125

Intergenerational relations

to boys and men, it was expected that girls and women would be more likely to perceive the changes more negatively; (2) compared to the older generation (that is, the parents), adolescents would feel more positive about the social changes. One hundred families from a medium-sized city in the Eastern region of Romania participated. The instrument of Perception of Social Change was developed by Noack et  al (1997). In Friedlmeier’s study, participants were asked to rate whether different aspects of life deteriorated, remained unchanged or improved in comparison to the time before the breakdown of the communism in 1989 (or during the last five years for adolescents since they were too young to remember the times before 1989). Only two scales were used here: Social Life (for example, ‘People help each other’; ‘Many people get active in the interest of others’) and Uncertainty (for example,‘Everything is so uncertain that anything could happen’; ‘Things change so fast that is difficult to find an orientation’). Items were rated on a scale from 1 (‘much less today’) to 5 (‘much more today’). High scores for Uncertainty indicate a higher level of perceived negative change whereas high scores for Social Life indicate a higher level of perceived positive change. As expected, results showed that parents perceived stronger uncertainty and less concern for social life in the society compared to adolescents (see Table 7.2). The overall high scores for uncertainty across all groups indicate that aspects like unpredictability and insecurity of the future, crime and aggressiveness, and financial discrepancy among people are perceived to have increased in the society during post-communist years. Additionally, mothers and daughters perceived greater uncertainty than fathers and sons, but no gender effect was found for social life. Men emphasised personal initiative and independence more than women, which might better prepare them to cope with competition and novel situations in a market-type economy (Friedlmeier, 2006). Moreover, the role division between men and women in Romania is rather conservative (Pasti, 2003). Therefore, it is possible that the opportunities women have in the new job market (such as Table 7.2: Intergenerational and gender comparison of perceived social changes Parents Adolescents F-value for Father Mother Son Daughter single effects (n = 100) (n = 100) (n = 48) (n = 52) F-value A: Generation (df = R2 B: Gender M M M M 3, 296) (%) C: Interaction (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) Uncertainty 4.41 4.66 3.70 3.98 46.39*** 32.00 A: 121.66*** (0.58) (0.35) (0.68) (0.46) B: 17.80*** C: 0.06 Social Life

2.55 (0.79)

2.53 (0.80)

2.91 (0.85)

2.72 (0.78)

2.97*

 3.00 A: 7.68** B: 1.20 C: 0.68

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Note: Answers were rated on a 5-point scale, from 1 (much less today) to 5 (much more today).

126

Value orientations and social change in Romania

to start a new business) are smaller and not in agreement with their husbands’ traditional expectations. That women perceived more aggressiveness and crimes in society may be also because they spend more time watching TV than men (especially Romanian channels) where crimes and robberies are shown on a daily basis (Pasti, 2003). The perception of social change may play a powerful role in the process of adaptation to a changing society as well as individuals’ well-being. Further results of the current study showed that parents and daughters who perceived positive changes in social relationships reported greater satisfaction in different life domains (Friedlmeier, 2006). Pinquart et al (2004) found that those adolescents in the former East Germany who perceived higher levels of negative effects of German unification (for example, the financial situation, options of spending their leisure time and life in general) also reported poorer satisfaction with their present life (for example, school, the chance of getting a job) and optimism regarding their future. Overall, these findings suggest that adolescents have a more positive outlook on the recent social changes compared to their parents’ generation, and that female participants perceived more uncertainty in society than male participants.

Final discussion and directions for future research The breakdown of the communist system in Eastern and Central Europe was one of the most significant historical events of the last decades, having enormous economic, social, moral and psychological consequences. This chapter has provided an overview on the impact of socio-political and economic changes on individuals belonging to different generations in Romania. Overall, interesting results were found mainly in terms of stability but also some change of the value system. Several studies presented in this chapter showed that Romania remains essentially a traditional society (illustrated in terms of religious authority, risk avoidance, focus on discipline, conservatism). The instability following the economic recession from 2009 puts additional obstacles to the transition to modern (or post-modern) value orientations. We learned from this chapter that younger people (Generation 20) structure their values and attitudes in a similar way to their ‘parents’ (Generation 50), even if children in Romania sometimes condemn their parents for complicity during communist times. Such narrative appears frequently in the interviews done with youth, despite the persistence of transgenerational fatalistic attitudes (Gavreliuc, 2011). Evidence from some crossnational studies and other small-scale studies conducted with Romanian samples suggest, however, a more positive outlook, both in terms of values and perception of recent changes among adolescents and college students. In times of social change or modernisation, values of both types (individualistic and collectivistic) may co-exist. Sigel (1999) assumed that where changes occur, there are mixed feelings associated with a blending of collectivistic and individualistic goals and values. The important question here is: what blend is an optimal blend in terms of encouraging and maintaining a democratic system in 127

Intergenerational relations

former communist countries? As it has been shown in several studies mentioned in this chapter, the values that are given most priority are conservatism and hierarchy, the expectation that the government should take more responsibility.At the same time, values that are needed in a free market system (that is, autonomy and mastery values, taking risks) are not endorsed to a great extent. Some values may change over a period of just a few years while others may take generations to change (Danis et al, 2011). Future studies, especially longitudinal, should clarify the reciprocal relationship between changing values in a changing environment. This chapter sheds some light on important questions, raises others and suggests directions for future research on how values and behaviours change in response to institutional upheaval. More research is needed to investigate the impact of abrupt social change such as the breakdown of the communist system on individual development as well as factors that contribute to the development of successful strategies necessary to cope with socio-economic challenges and insecurities. References Barometer for Gender (2000) (Barometru de gen), Bucharest: SOROS Foundation. Brandtstädter, J. and Greve, W. (1994) ‘The aging self: stabilizing and protective processes’, Developmental Review, vol 24, pp 52–80. Danis,V.M., Liu, L.A. and Vacek, J. (2011) ‘Values and upward influence strategies in transition: Evidence from the Czech Republic’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 42, pp 288–306. Center for Urban and Regional Sociology (2010) (Centrul de sociologie urbana si regionala) Sondaj de opinie la nivel national pe teme sociale, economice si politice, available at: http://www.curs.ro/images/pdf/rezultate%20sondaj%20 februarie%20ipid.pdf. Elder, G., Shanahan, M.J. and Clipp, E.C. (1994) ‘When war comes to men’s lives: life-course patterns in family, work, and health’, Psychology & Aging, vol 9, pp 5-16. European Steering Committee for Youth (2000) Youth policy in Romania, available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/IG_Coop/YP_Romania_en.pdf. Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union (2010) Demography report, available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/ documents/Tab/report.pdf Friedlmeier, M. (2006) Transmission of values within families in Romania, Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany (available at: http:// kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-55054). Friedlmeier, M. and Trommsdorff, G. (2011) ‘Are mother–child similarities in value orientations related to mothers’ parenting? A comparative study of American and Romanian mothers and their adolescent children’, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, vol 8, pp 661-80. Frost, K.M. and Frost, C.J. (2000) ‘Romanian and American life aspirations in relation to psychological well-being’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 31, pp 726-51.

128

Value orientations and social change in Romania

Gavreliuc, A. (2011) Româniile din România. Individualism autarhic, tipare valorice transgeneraționale și autism social [Romanias from Romania. Autarchic individualism, transgenerational value patterns and social autism], Timișoara:West University Press. Gavreliuc,A. (2012) ‘Continuity and change of values and attitudes in generational cohorts of the post-communist Romania’, Cognition, Brain, Behavior, vol XVI, no 2, pp 191-212. Heckhausen, J. and Schulz, R. (1995) ‘A life-span theory of control’, Psychological Review, vol 106, pp 605-09. Inglehart, R. (1997 and 2000) Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, cultural change and democracy: the human development sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kellerman, N.P. (2001) ‘Transmission of holocaust trauma–an integrative view’, Psychiatry, vol 64, no 3, pp 256–67. Macek, P. (1998) ‘Postcommunist societies in times of transition: perceptions of change among adolescents in Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 54, no 3, pp 547–61. Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection (2011) (Ministerul Muncii, Familiei Si Protectiei Sociale), available at: http://www.mmuncii.ro/ro/. National Institute for Statistics (2007) (Institutul national de statistica), available at http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/pages/index.ro.do. Noack, P. et al (1997). Assessments of family experiences of social change in East and West Germany. Unpublished manuscript, University of Jena. Nurmi, J.-E., Liiceanu, A. and Liberska, H. (1999) ‘Future-oriented interests’, in F.D.Alsaker and A. Flammer (eds) The adolescent experience: European and American adolescents in the 1990s, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 85–98. Pasti, V. (2003) Ultima inegalitate: Relatiile de gen in Romania [The last inequality: Gender relations in Romania], Iasi: Polirom. Pinquart, M., Silbereisen, R. and Junag, L.P. (2004) ‘Moderating effects of adolescents’ self-efficacy beliefs on psychological responses to social change’, Journal of Adolescent Research, vol 19, pp 340–59. Popescu,V. (2007) ‘Valori ale familiei în România sau Europa [Values of family in Romania and Europe]’, in B.Voicu and M.Voicu (ed) Valori ale românilor (19932006), Iași: Institutul European, pp 181–204. Rokeach, M. (1973) The nature of human values, New York: Free Press. Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’, in M.P. Zinna (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, New York: Academic Press, pp 5–65. Schwartz, S.H. (2005) ‘Basic human values: their content and structure across countries’, in A. Tamaya and J.B. Porto (eds) Values and behavior in organizations, Petrópolis, Brazil:Vozes, pp 21–55. Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (1997) ‘Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe’ Political Psychology, vol 18, pp 385–410.

129

Intergenerational relations

Schwartz, S.H., Bardi,A. and Bianchi, G. (2000) ‘Value adaptation to the imposition and collapse of communist regimes in East-Central Europe’, in S. Renshon and J. Duckitt (eds) Political Psychology, New York: Macmillan, pp 217–36. Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987) ‘Toward a universal psychological structure of human values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 53, pp 550–62. Schwartz, S.H. and Sagiv, L. (1995) ‘Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 26, pp 92–116. Sigel, I.E. (1999) Development of mental representation: theories and applications, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sobotka,T., Zeman, K. and Kantorova,V. (2003) ‘Demographic shifts in the Czech Republic after 1989: a second demographic transition view’, European Journal of Population, vol 19, no 3, pp 249–77. Trommsdorff, G. (1999) ‘Social change and individual development in East Germany: a methodological critique’, in R.K. Silbereisen and A. von Eye (eds) Growing up in times of social change, Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. United Nations Statistics Division (1995), available at: http://unstats.un.org/ unsd/demographic/. Voicu, B. (2001) ‘Romania pseudo-moderna [Pseudo-modern Romania]’, Sociologie Romaneasca, vol 1–4, pp 35–69. Voicu, B. (2007) ‘Între tradiție și postmodernitate? O dinamică a orientărilor de valoare în România: 1993–2005 [Between tradition and post-modernity? A dynamics of value orientation in Romania: 1993-2005]’, in B.Voicu and M. Voicu (eds) Valori ale românilor (1993–2006) [Values of Romanians (1993–2006)], Iași: Institutul European, pp 271–309. Voicu, B., Voicu, M. and Strapcova, K. (2007) ‘Engendered housework. A crossEuropean analysis’, IRISS working papers, 7/2007. Voicu, M. (2004) ‘Women, work and family life: value patterns and policy making’, in W.Arts and L. Halman (eds) European values at the turn of the millennium, Leiden: Brill, pp 231–54. Voicu, M. (2007) Religious Romania: on the European wave or behind it? [in Romanian], Iasi: Institutul European.

130

eight

Intergenerational conflict: the case of adult children and their parents Beate Schwarz

Introduction Conflict between parents and their children has been intensively investigated in adolescence. According to individuation theory (for example, Grotevant and Cooper, 1986), across adolescence the parent–child relationship changes towards a less hierarchical relationship. Therefore, parents and adolescents have to find a new balance between their need for connectedness and adolescents’ growing need for autonomy. Especially in early adolescence, the negotiation of this task leads to heightened conflict (Smetana et al, 2006). Thus, conflict is a means to change the relationship and to negotiate questions of dependence and independence. It was assumed that at the end of adolescence a new quality of the parent–child relationship is established. However, the ongoing societal changes towards a prolonged education phase, later entry into full employment, and higher childbearing ages seem to extend the period of individuation development (Arnett, 2000). Thus, intergenerational conflict in young adulthood can still be discussed against the background of an ongoing negotiation of independence from parents. With respect to conflict between middle-aged children and their parents, some authors have used the term ‘demilitarized zone’ (Hagestad, 1987). However, from a theoretical perspective, there are reasons to expect intergenerational conflict across the life-span. In this chapter, those theoretical perspectives on intergenerational relationships and their relevance for intergenerational conflict are outlined. Additionally, there is also empirical evidence that intergenerational conflict plays a lifelong role in the relationships of adult children and their parents. In this chapter, research on different facets of conflicts will be summarised. The term ‘conflict’ refers to open disagreements, which covers discussions, arguments, controversies, quarrels and fights. Latent disagreements, which do not lead to an open engagement in conflict but which can result in feelings of tension, will also be considered.Additional aspects of intergenerational conflict in adulthood such as content and conflict resolution styles are presented.The findings on these aspects are connected with the theoretical perspectives. In order to provide a broader cross-cultural perspective, this chapter will include not only US-American studies but also European studies.

131

Intergenerational relations

Theoretical perspectives on intergenerational conflict A rich diversity of theories can be used to shed light on intergenerational conflict. First, the Intergenerational Solidarity approach is a seminal theory on intergenerational relationships (for example, Bengtson and Roberts, 1991; see also Chapter Two).According to this theoretical model, five dimensions represent intergenerational cohesion: affectual solidarity (emotional closeness); functional solidarity (the exchange of support between generations); normative solidarity (norms of familism); structural solidarity (family structure); and associational solidarity (contact). Although older versions of the theory did not encompass intergenerational conflict, more recent adaptations of the theory and empirical evidence underline that intergenerational conflict does not mean an absence of solidarity (Bengtson et al, 2002; Szydlik, 2008). Szydlik outlined that all dimensions of solidarity can be the cause for tension and conflict. Second, another influential theoretical framework refers to Intergenerational Ambivalence (Lüscher and Pillemer, 1998; see also Chapter Three). Ambivalence means that contradictory feelings, behaviours and attitudes towards the other person occur simultaneously. These discrepancies cannot be resolved. According to this theoretical approach, ambivalence is an inherent aspect of intergenerational relationships. One source of ambivalence can be the conflicting needs for dependence and autonomy and the conflicting norms of solidarity and independence. This again points to the importance of dependence and independence for intergenerational relationships. Further, ambivalence should be heightened in transitional phases of the life course. Following Lüscher and Pillemer, intergenerational conflict, however, is not equivalent to ambivalence. One can assume that intergenerational conflict can be a consequence of feelings of ambivalence. Third, also a more general perspective on development across the life course should be considered with respect to intergenerational conflict. The Life-course Perspective underlines that normative and non-normative transitions require specific adaptation efforts, which can lead to tensions in intergenerational relationships. One explanation for this effect is the principle of linked lives. Life-course theory assumes that there are reciprocal influences between the experiences and changes in the lives of an individual and his or her significant others (Elder and Shanahan, 2006).Thus, we can expect that in times of transitions, changes in intergenerational conflict and tensions occur more often. When turning to the periods of adulthood, it seems that specific topics and transitions which might affect the intergenerational relationships can be described. In early adulthood, finding a balance between autonomy and connectedness is still an issue in the parent–child relationship. Bojczyk et al (2011) found in their study of young adult daughters and their mothers that their relationship was still characterised by a hierarchy, with the mother as the main support provider and role model.Typical transitions in this life stage are moving out of the parents’ home, the transition into the labour market and, for some, the birth of the first child. 132

Intergenerational conflict

When children are in middle adulthood their parents are usually elderly persons, so finding a balance between autonomy and dependency might not be as relevant as in earlier age periods. However, Baltes and Silverberg (1993) outlined that questions of autonomy and connectedness are relevant across the life-span. The ambivalence approach corroborates this view by underlining that across the lifespan the conflicting needs for dependence and independence can be a source of tensions. Further, elderly parents need more support from children than before; this can lead to new questions of dependency. Transitions which often occur in this period of life are marriage or divorce of adult children, retirement from work by parents and care becoming required for elderly parents. All these transitions can create the potential for a new imbalance between dependency and autonomy needs of adult children and/or their parents. In this chapter, the perspectives of adult children and of parents of adult children on intergenerational conflict are presented.When comparing reports of adult children and their parents on the same topic of their relationship, it is often observed that the relationship is described as more positive by the parents than by the children.The intergenerational stake hypothesis (Giarrusso et al, 1995) explains this by the higher investment into the relationship of the parental generation. So, differences in the perspectives of parents and adult children on the conflict might be interpreted against the background of this theoretical approach.

Characteristics of intergenerational conflict Despite the theoretical base for research on intergenerational conflict, studies on this topic are still sparse (Szydlik, 2008). An overview is given in the following sections.

Young adult children and middle-aged parents Two German studies interviewed young adult children about their relationships with their parents. In young adulthood, the frequency of open confrontations between parents and adult children reported by the adult children was low (Steinbach and Kopp, 2010) to moderate (Buhl, 2000). When the parents were asked, the frequency of open conflicts was even lower (Steinbach and Kopp, 2010), a result in line with the intergenerational stake hypothesis.Very similar findings were reported by Aquilino (1999) in a US-American sample. Parents reported a lower frequency of arguments and fights than their young adult children, which is in accordance with the intergenerational stake hypothesis, but they also reported a higher frequency of open disagreements. A typical transition in young adulthood is leaving home. This is a major step in becoming independent from parents, although many young adults are still financially dependent on their parents (see also Chapter Twelve). However, living in an apartment and running one’s own household requires self-responsibility. While some studies underline that leaving home indeed supports the emotional 133

Intergenerational relations

detachment from parents (see Buhl, 2000), less is known about the effects on intergenerational conflict. In a German study, young adults who no longer lived with their parents did not differ with respect to conflict with parents compared with peers who still lived in their parents’ home (Buhl, 2000). However, young adult men in Israel who moved out due to their entry into military service reported a decrease of open confrontation with their mothers and fathers (Mayseless and Hai, 1998). US-American studies investigated the co-residence of parents and young adult children. In a very small sample of N = 39 parents with co-resident adult children, 42% reported serious conflict (Clemens and Axelson, 1985) while in a representative sample, 28% of the mid-life parents with young adult children in the same household reported conflict of medium to high frequency and intensity (Aquilino and Supple, 1991). Also, Suitor and Pillemer (1987) found that parents living with their adult children reported low levels of conflict. The US-American studies were from the perspective of the parents, and according to the intergenerational stake hypothesis this can lead to an underestimation of the conflict intensity. Consequently, two out of three studies revealed low levels of intergenerational conflict in the co-residence situation.The studies did not offer comparisons with parents whose children lived independently, so the question remains unanswered whether moving out leads to a decrease in intergenerational conflict. Further, none of the studies have investigated the reasons for moving out, returning to, or staying in the parents’ home. Whether conflict level is affected might depend on how voluntarily the young adults stay in or return to their parents’ home.Those who stay or return due to financial problems, unemployment, divorce or housing problems in the region might experience more conflict with their parents compared to those who stay or return because of a positive quality of the relationship with their parents. Further, when financial problems are the reason for returning to or staying in the parents’ home this might particularly increase conflict about financial issues. The situation in Southern Europe can shed light on this discussion.The youth unemployment rate in 2011 for the EU27 was 22.3%, for Spain the rate was 49.6%, for Greece 46.6% and for Italy 30.1% (Eurostat, 2012). Although the rates have increased due to the financial and economic crisis since 2008, the employment situation for young people in Southern Europe has been difficult since the 1990s (Cordon, 1997). Concurrently, young adults from these countries moved out of the family home later than peers from Central and Northern Europe (Cordon, 1997; Iacovou, 2002). An interpretation of this may be that young adults in Southern Europe stay at their parents’ home due to economic reasons (Cordon, 1997; Iacovou, 2002), not because they are searching for ease and comfort, as suggested by the term ‘Hotel Mama’ used in the German-speaking countries. Iacovou (2002) also pointed to the very difficult housing market in these countries as an explanation for moving out so late.Thus, with respect to independence and autonomy from parents, the situation of many young adults in Southern Europe is characterised by an intermediate or a fully dependent status (Cordon, 1997). 134

Intergenerational conflict

In accordance with the idea of critical life events, the situation of adult children staying at their parents’ home can be labelled as a non-event because the adult children do not fulfil the normative transition of living independently (Albert and Ferring, 2009). This can lead to dissatisfaction and lower well-being of both adult children and parents and in turn possibly to heightened conflict. No studies so far have investigated this process. Further, from a macro-level perspective it would be interesting to investigate whether the societal changes in Southern Europe have an impact on the intergenerational relationships. With respect to other major transitions in young adulthood, only one German study has investigated birth of the first child, having a romantic partner and entry into the job market (Buhl, 2000). No differences in intergenerational conflict were found for young adults with a first child compared to those without children. Those with a romantic partner reported lower conflict with fathers compared to those without a romantic partner. The transition from education to work was accompanied by more discussions. In sum, no clear picture of effects of transitions in young adulthood on intergenerational conflict can be drawn so far.Additionally, the few studies have only investigated frequency and intensity of conflict; it might be that the topics of the conflicts change after the transitions. For instance, conflict on parenting will only occur after the birth of a child. Future research should cover this question.

Middle-aged children and elderly parents In the relationship between middle-aged children and elderly parents, the frequency and intensity of intergenerational conflicts are again low.This was shown in German studies from the perspective of the adult daughters (Schwarz, 2000; Schwarz et al, 2006) as well as in a five-country study from the perspective of the elderly parents (Lowenstein, 2007). In a representative German sample, only 8% of the middle-aged children and also 8% of the parents reported serious conflict (Szydlik, 2008). The picture of low intergenerational conflict is also supported by two studies that investigated typologies of intergenerational relationships. A German study with middle-aged children (Ferring et al, 2009) and a study combining European and US-American samples of elderly parents (Silverstein et al, 2010) both revealed a type with disharmonious relationships. With respect to the relationship with mother and father in the German study, around 11% of the middle-aged children belonged to the type with disharmonious relationships (Ferring et al, 2009). In the European samples of the cross-national study with elderly parents, lower numbers were reported; less than 10% of the parents belonged to the disharmonious type of relationship. Only in the US-sample was the percentage higher (20%; Silverstein et al, 2010). In studies comparing young adult and middle-aged children, conflicts with parents were significantly lower for older children (Suitor and Pillemer, 1988; Buhl, 2000).Thus, it might be that intergenerational conflict decreases when the children are middle-aged because

135

Intergenerational relations

discussions about independence are not as relevant as before. However, the next section will show that latent conflicts, at least, are still frequent in this period of life. The empirical evidence for associations between life transitions and open conflict between middle-aged children and elderly parents is extremely weak. In a German study (Schwarz, 2000) and in the cross-national study of Silverstein et al (2010), the relationships between elderly parents and adult children living as a single person (divorced and never married persons combined) were more disharmonious than where the children were married.With respect to health status of the parents, a study on elderly parents (co-residing with their adult children), revealed no relation between parents’ health status and intergenerational conflict (Suitor and Pillemer, 1988). However, the average health status of elderly parents in this study was good. In another study, parental mobility problems were associated with a higher probability of a disharmonious type of relationship (Silverstein et al, 2010). So, it is an open question whether decrease in parental health status increases the conflict level. In sum, it seems that open conflict between young adult children as well as middle-aged children and their parents is rare.These results underline the notion of the ‘demilitarized zone’ (Hagestad, 1987).

Intergenerational tensions Some researchers investigated disagreements, situations in which one participant became annoyed, and tensions in the relationship between adult children and their parents instead of concentrating on open conflict (Fingerman, 1996; Clarke et al, 1999; Buhl, 2000; Birditt et al, 2009). The intensity of friction was moderate in relationships between young adults and their parents and low for middle-aged children (Buhl, 2000). In interview studies, a majority of parents and adult children reported at least one example of tension (Fingerman, 1996; Clarke et al, 1999). Both studies also asked for the reasons for tensions. In the study of Fingerman (1996), one of the topics often mentioned was intrusion. More daughters reported on intrusions by the mother than vice versa. Further, mothers’ ageing was more often a topic for the daughters. The results of Clarke et al (1999) on the topics of conflict reflected that even middle-aged children complained about lack of symmetry in communication with parents and conflicts of life style were often mentioned.These results underline that problems of independence of the children and symmetry of the relationship are still relevant when the children are in middle adulthood. Additionally, a new issue seems to arise: parents’ dependence due to ageing processes. So, the need for autonomy and independence can lead to conflict in the parent–child relationships across the life-span.

Gender differences With respect to gender differences, some studies have shown that in relationships with women (mothers, daughters) the tensions are more intense (Filipp and Boll, 136

Intergenerational conflict

1998; Szydlik, 2008; Birditt, Miller et al, 2009). In contrast, studies which refer to open conflict did not find differences in intergenerational conflict dependent on gender-compositions of the dyads (Suitor and Pillemer, 1988; Aquilino and Supple, 1991; Buhl, 2000; Schwarz, 2000). The German study on typologies did not find differences in the adult children’s gender for the type with disharmonious relationships (Ferring et  al, 2009). In the cross-national study investigating typologies of intergenerational relationships, relationships with mothers had a lower risk of belonging to a type of disharmonious relationships (Silverstein et al, 2010). Thus, research so far does not underline that women have more conflict in their relationships.

A cross-cultural perspective on intergenerational conflict The knowledge on intergenerational conflict can be complemented by investigations of different cultures. Cross-cultural comparisons shed light on the importance of cultural values and norms and societal conditions which influence the intergenerational relationships (Elder and Shanahan, 2006; Trommsdorff, 2006).The OASIS study comprised adult samples from four European countries (England, Germany, Norway, Spain) and Israel (for example, Lowenstein, 2007). These countries represent different welfare systems and family orientations (see also Chapter Two). Lowenstein showed that the European countries did not differ with respect to intergenerational conflict but conflicts were higher in the Israeli sample, although even there the absolute degree of conflict was low. The author explained this by a high encouragement of open communication in the Israeli culture.As outlined above, in the study combining OASIS data with a US-sample (Silverstein et al, 2010), the probability of a disharmonious relationship type was highest in the US-sample. The Value of Children and Intergenerational Relations Study (Trommsdorff and Nauck, 2005) included adult daughter-elderly mother dyads from different cultures in Europe, Asia, Africa and North America. Comparisons concerning intergenerational conflict have only been conducted between German and Asian samples. In Asian cultures, loyalty towards the family, harmony in the family relationship and respect and obedience to the older generation are highly valued (for example, Hwang, 1999). Consequently, Korean middle-aged daughters reported less frequent conflict with mothers and fathers than did German daughters (Schwarz et al, 2006). In a study which investigated the intergenerational stake hypothesis, Indonesian daughters and mothers did not differ in their perception of conflict while German daughters and mothers did (Trommsdorff and Schwarz, 2007). In sum, there is some evidence that cultural values and norms concerning family relationships in adulthood have an influence on the intensity and meaning of intergenerational conflict. Nevertheless, cross-cultural studies on intergenerational conflict are still rare. Especially, studies investigating directly the influence of values and norms on intergenerational conflict instead of presenting post-hoc interpretations are needed. 137

Intergenerational relations

Conflict resolution styles in intergenerational relationships Even earlier than research on intergenerational relationships, research on couples had underlined that the way in which couples deal with conflicts, and whether they find a solution, is more important for their well-being, marital stability and satisfaction with the relationship than the frequency of conflict (for example, Gottman, 1994). Research on intergenerational relationships has taken the first steps in investigating the way in which parents and adult children negotiate tensions and conflict. Again, Karen Fingerman and her colleagues did some pioneering work on this (Fingerman, 1995; 1998; Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009). Two studies relied on self-report data of elderly mothers and their middle-aged daughters (Fingerman, 1995; 1998) and one used data of both parents and their children in young and middle adulthood (Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009).The participants reported on their behaviour in specific situations in the past when they felt tension (Fingerman, 1995) or how they reacted in general when they felt tension towards the parent/child (Fingerman, 1998; Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009). In two studies, three strategies to cope with tensions were identified. One strategy was constructive behaviour, the second avoidant behaviour and the third destructive behaviour. Independent of whether parents or children reported, and whether they referred to behaviour in a specific situation or in general, constructive behaviour was the most frequently reported strategy. With respect to generational differences in the reported use of those strategies, parents reported more constructive behaviour than did their adult children (Fingerman, 1995; Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009). Further, in both studies, parents and children did not differ with respect to destructive behaviour. In the third study, adult daughters seemed to be more active in situations of tensions than their mothers; this was true for positive and negative behaviour (Fingerman, 1998). In most comparisons, parents and adult children did not differ in their avoidant behaviour, except in the study of Birditt, Rott, and Fingerman (2009). Here, adult children reported more avoidant behaviour than fathers. Interestingly, when trained experts rated the answers of mothers and daughters about their behaviour in specific situations of tension, no generational differences were found (Fingerman, 1998). Taken together, it seems that constructive strategies are the most often used behaviour of adult children and parents in situations of tension. However, results on generational differences in the use of the three types of tension behaviour are less clear. Parents perceived themselves as more being constructive than the children perceived their own behaviour. Daughters, when compared with their mothers, perceived themselves as more active. In comparison with fathers, however, avoidant behaviour was more often shown by the adult children. Intergenerational conflict resolution styles were also investigated with German and Swiss samples of adult children (parents were not included), using a newly developed instrument (Schwarz, 2009). Here, the participants rated the frequency of their behaviour in situations when they and their parents had different views on 138

Intergenerational conflict

an important topic or when they were annoyed at the parents.The questionnaire included three dimensions: withdrawal, aggressive and empathic-constructive behaviour. The withdrawal dimension not only comprised aspects of avoidance (example item: I withdraw) but also strategies of distraction from the negative feelings (example item: I search for distraction). The dimension of aggressive conflict behaviour was very similar to the other studies and comprised yelling, becoming loud and getting annoyed.The scale empathic-constructive behaviours included active problem solving and also behaviour that aims to understanding the perspective and feelings of the parent (example item: I consider my parent’s feelings). In line with the results of Fingerman and colleagues (Fingerman, 1995; 1998; Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009), the most frequently reported conflict resolution strategy of adult children was empathic-constructive behaviour (Schwarz, 2009). Both withdrawal and aggressive behaviour were of lower but comparable frequency.The behaviour towards mother and father was very similar. Young adults used aggressive strategies more often than middle-aged children. Both age groups did not differ with respect to withdrawal and constructiveempathic behaviour. Again, the results of age differences in the use of aggressive behaviour point to the on-going negotiation of autonomy in young adulthood between parents and children. Investigating conflict resolution styles seems to be a promising strategy. Birditt, Rott and Fingerman (2009) have shown that constructive conflict resolution is related to a better quality of the relationship, while avoidant strategies are linked with a lower quality.At the moment, longitudinal studies are missing which could indicate the direction of these associations.

Correlation between intergenerational conflict and other characteristics of relationships According to the intergenerational solidarity model, intergenerational conflict is a construct independent from solidarity. Some studies have investigated the associations between aspects of intergenerational solidarity and conflict. It was found that frequent contact (associational solidarity) was related to lower conflict (Aquilino and Supple, 1991; Szydlik, 2008). Here it remains unclear whether more frequent contact leads to less conflict or high conflict leads to less frequent contact. In contrast, Bengtson et al (2002) reported a positive association. With respect to affectual solidarity, emotional closeness was negatively associated with intergenerational conflict (Mayseless and Hai, 1998; Szydlik, 2008; Birditt, Miller et al, 2009). Further, in typological approaches, two patterns that represent a majority of subjects were found: one with a high degree of positive quality combined with low conflict (harmonious; amicable); another with the opposite combination (discordant; disharmonious) (Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006; Ferring et al, 2009; Silverstein et al, 2010).These patterns underline the negative association between affectual solidarity and intergenerational conflict. However, 139

Intergenerational relations

all these studies also found an ambivalent pattern with high degrees of positive and negative aspects (conflict) in the relationship, although in two studies with very low probability (Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006; Silverstein et al, 2010).Thus, the usual pattern seems to be a negative relation between affectual solidarity and intergenerational conflict although some relationships show an ambivalent pattern with both dimensions high. Results on the association between functional solidarity (exchange of support) and intergenerational conflict are less clear. Studies with samples from the USA, South Korea and Germany found that the higher the exchange of support between parents and adult children was, the more conflicts were reported (Bengtson et al, 2002; Schwarz et al, 2006; Szydlik, 2008); two other studies from Germany did not report such associations (Schwarz, 2006; Schwarz et al, 2006). In a longitudinal study, Parrott and Bengtson (1999) found that conflict with parents three years earlier did not interfere with exchange of support. Receiving social support is, on the one hand, a relief in a situation of need; on the other hand, it can be the source of intrusion and dependency. Providing help has the potential to strengthen the quality of the relationship but it can also lead to work and role overload. So, the double-edged nature of support exchange may be the reason for the ambiguous results. Further, regardless of the actual exchange of support, if the adult daughters perceived that they gave more support than they received, so to say they perceived an under-benefit, they reported more conflict (Schwarz, 2006; Schwarz et al, 2006). In addition to the fact that intergenerational conflict can be part of an ambivalent relationship pattern, there is also some evidence of a positive association between ambivalence and conflict (Birditt, Miller et al, 2009). Adult children’s negative conflict resolution styles, such as withdrawal/avoidance and aggressive/destructive behaviour, were positively related to ambivalence in their relationship with their parents, and constructive conflict resolution was associated with less ambivalence (Birditt, Rott and Fingerman, 2009; Schwarz, 2009). Thus, the majority of results on correlates between relationship characteristics and intergenerational conflict have underlined the negative nature of intergenerational conflict. However, studies on the association between intergenerational conflict and adult children’s and parents’ well-being and couple relationships provided mixed evidence. For parents who co-resided with their adult children, intergenerational conflict was negatively related to parents’ satisfaction with the living arrangement (Aquilino and Supple, 1991) and positively with marital conflict of the parents (Suitor and Pillemer, 1987). In studies with parents and adult children living in separate households, intergenerational conflict was not related to parents’ quality of life (Lowenstein, 2007) but positively to their depression (Pillemer and Suitor, 1991).With respect to adult children expecting a child (and not living with their parents), for daughters intergenerational conflict was not related to the quality of their relationship with their partners prior to childbirth. For sons, negative relationships with their partners prior to childbirth were associated with higher conflict with fathers (Bouchard and Doucet, 2011). Furthermore, conflict with 140

Intergenerational conflict

parents affected the adjustment to military service of young men in a negative way (Mayseless and Hai, 1998). In sum, it seems that parents are more affected by intergenerational conflict when they reside with their adult children and that sons are more affected than daughters. From a developmental perspective it seems necessary to also search for precursors of intergenerational conflict in adulthood from the history of the relationship. However, respective longitudinal studies are missing. Cross-sectional studies found that parental divorce in childhood or adolescence was related to more conflict between parents and adult children, especially in the relationship with fathers (Schwarz, 2000; Szydlik, 2008; Bouchard and Doucet, 2011). So, there is little evidence of long-term effects of childhood and adolescent experiences on intergenerational conflict in adulthood.

Conclusions At the moment, studies on intergenerational conflict are rare and no systematic perspective is provided. Although the intergenerational solidarity model and the ambivalence approach have offered some insight into intergenerational conflict, the meaning of those conflicts for the individual and the family system and the integration into the life course is still missing. From the point of view of the present author, a theoretical approach referring to the importance of a life-long balance between dependence and autonomy in the intergenerational relationship would be supportive. Here, individuation theory might be a good starting point. Individuation theory focuses on the balance between the growing need for autonomy of the adolescent or young adult children and the still important need for connectedness of parents and children. Across the life course, however, further challenges of the balance between autonomy and dependence will occur. Thus, the theoretical considerations have to integrate the changes in regulation of dependence and autonomy of children and parents at different stages of their adult life course. As Van Gaalen and Dykstra (2006) outlined, new life circumstances of both parents and children can create vulnerable phases for significant changes in the relationship. So, life transitions should be a focus. Ferring et al (2009) further emphasised the interdependence between transitions in adult children’s and parents’ lives.Transitions such as the birth of a child or a divorce can increase the dependence of the child after a long period of independence from the parents who in turn have to give up parts of their autonomy to support their children. The decrease in health status of the elderly parents can, on the one hand, lead to a new situation of dependence on their own children and, on the other hand the adult children finally have to give up their dependence on the parents.This means that the optimal balance between autonomy and dependence is not static but can change repeatedly across the life course. All these considerations underline the need for a life-course perspective on intergenerational conflict. Given the high and still growing number of immigrants in some Western countries and given the differences in cultural norms and values for intergenerational relationship 141

Intergenerational relations

(Trommsdorff, 2006), a culture-sensible approach is needed. However, the empirical basis to draw culture-specific conclusions for intergenerational conflict is too small at present. Europe, with its culturally diverse but connected countries, could offer a wide range of experiences which should be considered in future research. References Albert, I. and Ferring, D. (2009) ‘Wandel von Lebensphasen’, in H. Willems et al (eds) Handbuch der sozialen und erzieherischen Arbeit in Luxemburg, Luxembourg: Edition St. Paul, pp 153–64. Aquilino, W.S. (1999) ‘Two views of one relationship: comparing parents’ and young adult children´s reports of the quality of intergenerational relations’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 61, pp 858–70. Aquilino, W.S. and Supple, K.R. (1991) ‘Parent-child relations and parent’s satisfaction with living arrangements when adult children live at home’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 53, pp 13–27. Arnett, J.J. (2000) ‘Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties’, American Psychologist, vol 55, pp 469–80. Baltes, M.M. and Silverberg, S.B. (1993) ‘The dynamic between dependency and autonomy: illustrations across the life span’, in D.L. Featherman, R.M. Lerner and M. Perlmutter (eds) Life-span development and behavior (vol 12), New York, NY: Erlbaum, pp 41–90. Bengtson,V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. Bengtson, V.L., Giarrusso, R., Marby, J.B. and Silverstein, M. (2002) ‘Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships?’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, pp 568–76. Birditt, K.S., Miller, L.M., Fingerman, K.L. and Lefkowitz, E.S. (2009) ‘Tensions in the parent and adult child relationship: links to solidarity and ambivalence’, Psychology and Aging, vol 24, pp 287–95. Birditt, K.S., Rott, L.M. and Fingerman, K.L. (2009) ‘“If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”: coping with interpersonal tensions in the parent–child relationship during adulthood’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 23, pp 769–78. Bojczyk, K.E., Lehan,T.J., McWey, L.M., Melson, G.F. and Kaufman, D.R. (2011) ‘Mothers’ and their adult daughters’ perception of their relationship’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 32, pp 452–81. Bouchard, G. and Doucet, D. (2011) ‘Parental divorce and couples adjustment during the transition to parenthood: the role of parent-adult child relationships’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 32, pp 507–27.

142

Intergenerational conflict

Buhl, H.M. (2000) ‘Biographische Übergänge und Alter als Determinanten der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung im Erwachsenenalter [Biographic transitions and age as determinants of the parent-child relation in adulthood]’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, vol 20, pp 391–409. Clarke, E.J., Preston, M., Raksin, J. and Bengtson,V.L. (1999) ‘Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children’, The Gerontologist, vol 39, pp 261–70. Clemens, A.W. and Axelson, L.J. (1985) ‘The not-so-empty-nest: the return of the fledgling adult’, Family Relations, vol 34, pp 259–64. Cordon, J.A.F. (1997) ‘Youth residential independence and autonomy. A comparative study’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 18, pp 576–607. Elder, G.H.J. and Shanahan, M.J. (2006) ‘The life course and human development’, in R.M. Lerner and W. Damon (eds) Handbook of child psychology:Vol 1.Theoretical models of human development, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, pp 665–715. Eurostat (2012) Eurostat newsrelease euroindicators, 5/2012, available at: http:// epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-06012012-BP/EN/306012012-BP-EN.PDF. Ferring, D., Michels, T., Boll, T. and Filipp, S.-H. (2009) ‘Emotional relationship quality of adult children with ageing parents: on solidarity, conflict and ambivalence’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 6, pp 253–65. Filipp, S.-H. and Boll,T. (1998) ‘Konflikte zwischen und innerhalb der Generationen im Erwachsenenalter: Daten zuVerbreitung und Manifestationsformen aus einer Repräsentativerhebung [Conflicts between and within generations in adulthood: data with regard to prevalence and manifest forms from a representatitive study]’. Psychologische Beiträge, vol 40, pp 235–53. Fingerman, K.L. (1995) ‘Aging mothers’ and their adult daughters’ perceptions of conflict behaviors’, Psychology and Aging, vol 10, pp 639–49. Fingerman, K.L. (1996) ‘Sources of tension in the aging mother and adult daughter relationship’, Psychology and Aging, vol 11, pp 591–606. Fingerman, K.L. (1998) ‘Tight lips? Aging mothers’ and adult daughters’ responses to interpersonal tensions in their relationships’, Personal Relationships, vol  5, pp 121–38. Giarrusso, R., Stallings, M. and Bengtson, V.L. (1995) ‘The “intergenerational stake” hypothesis revisited: parent-child differences in perceptions of relationships 20 years later’, in V.L. Bengtson, W.K. Schaie and L.M. Burton (eds) Adult intergenerational relations. Effects of societal changes, New York, NY: Springer, pp 229–96. Gottman, J.M. (1994) What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Grotevant, H.D. and Cooper, C.R. (1986) ‘Individuation in family relationships: a perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and roletaking skill in adolescence’, Human Development, vol 28, pp 82–100.

143

Intergenerational relations

Hagestad, G.O. (1987) ‘Parent-child relations in later life: trends and gaps in past research’, in J.B. Lancaster, J.Altmann,A. Rossi and L. Sherrod (eds) Parenting across the life span: biosocial dimensions, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, pp 405–33. Hwang, K.-K. (1999) ‘Filial piety and loyalty: two types of social identification in Confucianism’, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, vol 2, pp 163–83. Iacovou, M. (2002) ‘Regional differences in the transition to adulthood’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol 580, pp 40–69. Lowenstein,A. (2007) ‘Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 62B, pp S100–S107. Lüscher, K. and Pillemer, K. (1998) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 60, pp 413-25. Mayseless, O. and Hai, I. (1998) ‘Leaving home transition in Israel: changes in parent-adolescent relationships and adolescents’ adaptation to military service’, International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol 22, pp 589–609. Parrott, T.M. and Bengtson, V.L. (1999) ‘The effects of earlier intergenerational affection, normative expectations, and family conflict on contemporary exchanges of help and support’, Research on Aging, vol 21, pp 73–105. Pillemer, K. and Suitor, J.J. (1991) ‘Relationships with children and distress in the elderly’, in K. Pillemer and K. McCartney (eds) Parent child relations throughout life, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 163–78. Schwarz, B. (2000) ‘Frauen aus verschiedenen Familienformen und ihre alten Eltern – Beziehungsqualität und wechselseitige Unterstützung [Women from different family forms and their old parents – relationship quality and reciprocal support]’. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, vol 20, pp 410–24. Schwarz, B. (2006) ‘Adult daughters’ family structure and the association between reciprocity and relationship quality’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 27, pp 208–28. Schwarz, B. (2009) ‘Adult children’s conflict resolution styles in their relationships with their parents’, paper presented at the conference Intergenerational Relations – Society, Family, and Individual Perspective, Luxembourg: June 2009. Schwarz, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kim, G. and Park, Y.-S. (2006) ‘Intergenerational support: psychological and cultural analyses of Korean and German women’, Current Sociology, vol 54, pp 315–40. Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Lowenstein, A., Giarrusso, R. and Bengtson,V.L. (2010). ‘Older parent-child relationships in six developed nations: comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol  72, pp 1006–21. Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N. and Metger,A. (2006) ‘Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts’, Annual Review of Psychology, vol  57, pp 255–84.

144

Intergenerational conflict

Steinbach, A. and Kopp, J. (2010) ‘Die intergenerational-stake-Hypothese: Warum sehen junge Erwachsene und Eltern ihre gemeinsame Beziehung unterschiedlich? [The intergenerational-stake-hypothesis:Why do young adults and their parents view their mutual relationship differently?]’, in S.Walper & E.-V. Wendt (eds) Partnerschaften und die Beziehungen zu Eltern und Kindern. Befunde zur Beziehung- und Familienentwicklung in Deutschland,Würzburg: Ergon, pp 269–87. Suitor, J.J. and Pillemer, K. (1987) ‘The presence of adult children: a source of stress for elderly couples’ marriages?’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 49, pp 717–25. Suitor, J.J. and Pillemer, K. (1988) ‘Explaining intergenerational conflict when adult children and elderly parents live together’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 50, pp 1037–47. Szydlik, M. (2008) ‘Two scenarios: conflict and autonomy’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol 39, pp 97–114. Trommsdorff, G. (2006) ‘Parent-child relations over the life-span. A cross-cultural perspective’, in K.H. Rubin and O.B. Chung (eds) Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child-relations. A cross-cultural perspective, New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp 143–83. Trommsdorff, G. and Nauck, B. (eds) (2005) The value of children in cross-cultural perspective. Case studies from eight countries, Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Sciences. Trommsdorff, G. and Schwarz, B. (2007) ‘A study on the “intergenerational stake hypothesis” in Indonesia and Germany: adult daughters’ and their mothers’ perception of their relationship’, Current Sociology, vol 55, pp 599–620. Van Gaalen, R.I. and Dykstra, P.A. (2006) ‘Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: a latent class analysis’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 68, pp 947–60.

145

nine

Grandparent–grandchild relations in a changing society: different types and roles Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

Introduction In the past, grandparents have often been depicted in rather stereotypical ways by giving them characteristics that are presumably related to old age (for instance, as in children’s books showing them with grey hair and wearing glasses, see Sciplino et  al, 2010), but these descriptions are far from reflecting the actual socio-demographics of grandparenthood. Currently, however, it seems that the public image of grandparents is changing, as a look at the flourishing market of guidebooks for today’s ‘modern’ grandparents might illustrate (see, for example, Kornhaber, 2002;Witkin, 2012).These publications – often authored by scholars who are grandparents themselves – convey the impression that the generation of ‘1968’ or the somewhat younger ‘Baby Boomers’ who are now starting to enter grandparenthood attribute a new meaning to their roles as grandparents. On the one hand, they seem to be highly involved; on the other hand their role definitions are less formal and more individual than in the past, and this makes their roles more complex (Hayslip et al, 2003; Höpflinger et al, 2006). Changes in grandparenthood are in line with trends regarding older people in many industrialised societies – grandparents are on average healthier and more active compared to the past, and they might also be wealthier due to improved pension schemes and higher savings (see COM, 2005). However, it is difficult to describe the ‘typical’ grandparent: grandparenthood is obviously as multi-faceted as ageing, and grandparents are apparently by no means a homogeneous group (Szinovacz, 1998; see also Motel-Klingebiel et al, 2010b).This diversity might be simply illustrated by considering the age range of potential grandparents. Studies in Europe and the US indicate that many grandparents are in their 50s when their first grandchild is born (see Höpflinger et al, 2006; Sciplino et al, 2010), but there is a large variability in age (see Harper et al, 2010). Svensson-Dianellou et al (2010), for instance, report that their participating grandparents in the Greek sample of the EUROFAMCARE survey ranged in age from as young as 33 (!) to 85 (Median = 63, SD = 10.2), whereas grandchildren’s ages in the study ranged from 2 months to 32 years (Median = 8, SD = 7.5). Although very young grandparents are certainly an exception, these numbers demonstrate the variety 147

Intergenerational relations

of age in grandparenthood – this is also interesting if one bears in mind that the age range of potential grandchildren goes along with very different needs related to developmental stages from childhood to young adulthood. In this chapter, grandparent–grandchild relations will be embedded in a theoretical framework and the question of how grandparenthood has changed in the last years and how grandparent–grandchild relations can be characterised today will be tackled. Finally, an outlook on future directions of development and research will be given. Whereas in the beginning of the last century grandparents were – from a psycho-analytical perspective – seen in a rather negative way, as intruders who supposedly interfered with parental efforts (see Smith, 1991), later research has by far described grandparent–grandchild relations more positively (Askham et al, 2007). According to Höpflinger et al (2006), today grandparenthood seems even to constitute one of the few positive roles related to ageing. Ideally, grandparents are simply there when needed, adhering to an implicit rule of non-interference in educational matters.

Grandparental types Claims of a change in grandparenthood date back to the 1960s, starting with the seminal work by Neugarten and Weinstein (1964) on ‘The changing American grandparent’. In this study, which included 70 pairs of US-American middleclass grandparents, five different grandparental types were identified: formal, fun seeker, surrogate parent, reservoir of family wisdom, and distant figure.This study was followed by numerous further attempts to distinguish grandparental types, such as the classification brought forward by Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986) in their study on the ‘new American grandparent’. Based on a larger US-American telephone survey, the authors distinguished between remote, companionate and involved grandparents. In the European context, a further distinction was made by Herlyn et al (1998) regarding a German sample of grandmothers. In this study, obligation-oriented, engaged, ambivalent, integrated as well as distant-family independent grandmothers were distinguished.Although typologies in the diverse studies differed slightly, they all had in common that they took the perspective of grandparents into consideration and they demonstrated a wide variability in how the grandparent role is accomplished: generally, a part of grandparent–grandchild relations was described by a high contact frequency and high involvement whereas distant or rather formal relations were equally found. How the grandparental role is enacted seems to depend on structural aspects such as age of grandparents and grandchildren, gender of both, family line (maternal or paternal) and residential proximity as well as normative orientations and personal preferences.

148

Grandparent–grandchild relations

The intergenerational solidarity approach The intergenerational solidarity approach proposed by Bengtson (for example, Bengtson and Roberts, 1991) may serve as a theoretical basis to disentangle the different aspects that determine grandparent–grandchild relations. In this chapter, aspects of grandparent–grandchild relations will be described and integrated into the intergenerational solidarity approach (see also Silverstein et al, 1998). Certainly, what distinguishes solidarity between non-adjacent generations from the study of adjacent generations (that is, parent–child relations) is that there is a generation in between that might serve as a mediator (for example, Chan and Elder, 2000). In order to study the relations between grandchildren and their grandparents, all three generations must be taken into account (Hagestad, 2006).

The impact of socio-demographic changes on grandparent–grandchild relations Demographic aspects As far as these aspects of grandparent–grandchild relations are concerned, most recent articles start with the observation that grandparent–grandchild relations have undergone significant modifications in the last decades. As Harper (2005, p 422) puts it, there has been a shift from societies of ‘high-mortality/high-fertility’ to societies of ‘low-mortality/low-fertility’ in many parts of the world, and this is particularly pronounced in Europe (see also Bengtson et al, 2003). In the resulting family structure of a ‘beanpole’, vertical family relations (that is, relations between family members of different generations) have become more common, while family members of the same generation have decreased in number (Uhlenberg and Kirby, 1998; Bengtson et al, 2003). In Europe, roughly 70% of adults become grandparents during their lives (Smith, 1991), and even four-generation families are not uncommon (see, for example, Harper, 2005). If one considers increasing life expectancies, it becomes evident that the opportunities to spend shared life time with family members of different generations are higher today than ever before: a 60-year-old man can expect to live 21 more years on average and a woman even 25 years (Eurostat, 2009, for EU-27; see also Lauterbach, 1995). Thus, not only has the probability that grandparents are still alive at the birth of their grandchildren increased, but also the probability that these grandparents may live up until their grandchildren’s young adulthood or beyond (Grünheid and Scharein, 2011). At the same time fewer grandchildren are being born: fertility rates in most European countries remain currently below replacement level, although some variability between countries can be noted (see, for example, OECD, 2009). Depending on the perspective, there is a potential ‘abundance’ of grandparents for grandchildren on the one hand: four grandparents – or even more, if one also counts that great-grandparents or step-grandparents may be available for a 149

Intergenerational relations

grandchild, and other family members of the grandparent generation who do not have own grandchildren might add to these potential grandparental figures.At the same time, there might be a ‘shortage’ of grandchildren as all these grandparents may compete for the attention of one only grandchild (see also Harper, 2005). Residential proximity A further structural factor that has a considerable impact on the shaping of intergenerational relations – in particular providing opportunity structures for intergenerational encounters and thus associational solidarity – refers to the geographic distances between generations.Although there are still a large number of parents and adult children (and thus potentially also grandchildren) who live relatively close to each other, the numbers of adult children (and grandchildren) who live out of immediate range from (grand)parents have increased, also because of higher mobility demands in the job market (see also Chapter Twelve). The following numbers illustrate this: 16% of respondents (between the ages of 40 and 85 years and with adult children) in the German Ageing Survey (DEAS) from 2008 had at least one adult child living in the neighbourhood, while 14% only had adult children who could not be reached within two hours (Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010). In this context, Höpflinger and Hummel (2006, p  35) speak of ‘unrealised intergenerational relations’ that may go along with the grandchildren’s (unfulfilled) desire for more contact with their grandparents: in their study in three urban regions in Switzerland, a third of the participating adolescents wished to have more contact with their maternal grandparents, and two fifths wished more contact with their paternal ones; the desire for more contact was most highly pronounced regarding grandparents living abroad. Gender In the case of grandparent–grandchild relations, three different sets of gender constellations have to be considered – the gender of the grandparent and of the grandchild as well as the gender of the parent, which defines the family line as maternal or paternal (see Spitze and Ward, 1998; Michels et al, 2011). Many studies have pointed to a ‘matrilineal tilt’ in grandparent–grandchild relations (for example, Silverstein et al, 1997; Chan and Elder, 2000). As contacts to grandparents are generally embedded in the family context, higher contact frequencies between grandchildren and their maternal grandparents might be due to stronger relations in the maternal family line (see also Rossi and Rossi, 1990; Hagestad, 2006). Especially for grandchildren who do not live in the immediate neighbourhood of their grandparents, encounters are often initiated by the middle generation who arrange meetings and who may serve as a role model for the relations to the older generation – often such encounters between grandparents and grandchildren occur in the presence of the parents (Wieners, 2002; Höpflinger et al, 2006).This effect seems to be even more pronounced in the case of divorce 150

Grandparent–grandchild relations

or separation of the parents – studies have indicated that paternal grandparents are particularly at risk of experiencing reduced contact with their grandchildren, whereas relations towards maternal grandparents might become closer and more intense as they step in to support single mothers (see, for example, Hagestad, 2006; Hoff, 2007; Höpflinger, 2009; Harper and Ruicheva, 2010). Apart from family line, the gender of grandparents and grandchildren seems not to determine their contact frequencies, although due to their generally lower age, the probability that grandmothers are still alive is somewhat higher and, hence, more contacts with grandmothers are reported overall (Höpflinger, 2009). A cross-cultural comparison regarding gender and lineage effects would be interesting, especially if one considers that cultures might differ in their kinship systems; however, such cross-cultural studies are still rather rare (see, for example, Friedlmeier et al, 2012). Age and health status Finally, Höpflinger (2009) summarises that for intergenerational contacts, the age of grandparents is less important than their health status. When grandchildren grow older, their relations to their grandparents certainly change in shape, and encounters between grandparents and grandchildren are to a lesser extent induced by the parental generation (Cherlin and Furstenberg, 1986). Nonetheless, all in all, low contact frequencies between grandparents and their grandchildren do not seem to be the rule. In the German Ageing Survey, for instance, 40% of grandparents reported having at least once a week contact with their grandchildren aged 16 years and older; a third still had contact with them at least once a month, and only a fourth had seldom or no contact at all (Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010).These numbers might thus illustrate strong bonds between grandparents and grandchildren, although they still point to a group of rather distant or uninvolved grandparents.

Functions and tasks of grandparents and grandchildren for each other Grandparental care for young grandchildren As far as functional aspects of solidarity in grandparent-grandchild relations are concerned, the grandparents’ taking care of young grandchildren has been one central focus of interest. It constitutes, at the same time, a kind of functional solidarity towards the middle generation, as this kind of support might be essential for young families, enabling young parents – especially the mothers – to carry on their careers (Attias-Donfut, 2008). In the European countries that participated in the Survey of Health,Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland), altogether 58% of grandmothers and 49% of grandfathers indicated that they provide some kind of care for grandchildren under the age of 16 (Hank and Buber, 2009; Igel and Szydlik, 2011). However, 151

Intergenerational relations

some variations were found throughout Europe. In particular, there are differences between Northern and Southern parts of Europe regarding the frequencies and intensities of childcare provision by grandparents: whereas grandparents in Northern European countries indicate more frequent childcare activities, the intensity of childcare seems to be higher in the Southern countries. One explanation for these differences might be found in country-specific welfare state arrangements (Attias-Donfut, 2008; Igel and Szydlik, 2011). Accordingly, in the Northern countries, higher public investments in the availability of childcare infrastructures might ‘crowd in’ grandparental willingness to engage in irregular, less time-intensive childcare that leaves them much freedom, while the provision of the regular time-consuming childcare is ‘crowded out’. Family and state seem thus to complement each other in these countries. In contrast, grandparental childcare in Southern European countries is rather time-intense due to the lower availability of childcare infrastructures (Attias-Donfut, 2008; Igel and Szydlik, 2011).These grandparents might thus partly substitute for parents or institutional childcare, implying however a partial sacrificing of their autonomy. Differing childcare policies might also reflect cultural preferences. In fact, apart from the different availabilities of institutional childcare, feelings of obligation and norms regarding grandparental childcare provision seem to differ among Northern and Southern European countries. As Attias-Donfut (2008) states, in Northern European countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, fewer grandparents agreed with the statement that they have an obligation to provide care for grandchildren in case of need (for example, only 30% of responding grandparents agreed to this statement in the Netherlands), whereas this was highly agreed with (by 60% of grandparents) in Southern European countries, including France, and this might indicate a higher familism in these countries. Again, functional solidarity is interwoven with structural aspects: apart from their willingness to provide this kind of support, grandparents may also not always be available due to high residential distances. This might be illustrated by the numbers available from Luxembourg: taken together, in 2003 grandparents constituted the first choice childcare provider for 35% of grandchildren who needed regular care (that is, at least twice a week); however, presumably for reasons of geographic proximity, this amount was higher for Luxembourgish (53%) compared to Portuguese immigrant families (13%) or immigrants from other nationalities (22%) (Lejealle, 2005). Also, depending on the grandparent’s age, differences in availability for childcare have been reported: in the German Ageing Survey (Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010), the group of the 55- to 69-year-olds took care of their grandchildren most often (31%), whereas the percentage was somewhat lower for younger grandparents (26%) and older ones (18%) – perhaps because the younger grandparents might still be involved in the job market, and the older grandparents might be less healthy.

152

Grandparent–grandchild relations

Grandparental tasks with older grandchildren Certainly, grandchildren of older grandparents may need less care as they are on average older as well. In fact, when grandchildren become older, the tasks of grandparents change, but generally grandparents continue to provide support also for their grown-up grandchildren (Askham et  al, 2007), and until young adulthood especially financial support seems to gain importance (Hoff, 2007; Attias-Donfut, 2008; Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010). The support that adolescent grandchildren receive from their grandparents seems to be also related to their relationship quality with the grandparents: in our own study on the perspectives of high school students (N = 155) aged 12 to 21 years regarding their relationships with maternal and paternal grandparents (Michels et al, 2011), amicable or balanced relations were characterised by a higher received support, whereas relationships that were detached or disharmonious were characterised by lower received support as perceived by adolescents. These differences were more pronounced with regard to emotional and instrumental support compared to material support. Most studies that focus on functional solidarity in the grandparent–grandchild relation refer to the support that the grandparent generation provides to the grandchild generation. As Hoff (2007) puts it, the support relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren is imbalanced and, contrary to adult child– parent relations, earlier support is often not reciprocated by grandchildren at a later time point when grandparents need support. He concludes, therefore, that grandparent–grandchild relations might better be described by an intergenerational stake than by intergenerational solidarity. One cannot, however, exclude that this missing reciprocity is not due to a missing willingness of the grandchildren but can also be attributed to the availability and the responsibility of the parent generation. Grandchildren as caregivers for grandparents Recently, the role of grandchildren as caregivers for their grandparents has gained some research interest.This role might increase in importance in the next years as life expectancies are increasing; grandparents become older and may be affected by physical or functional impairments when grandchildren are young adults (see also Ferring, 2010). In their study on 20- to 29-year-old grandchildren who provided some kind of care to a grandparent (without any particular physical or mental impairments), Fruhauf et al (2006) reported that this activity provided both satisfactions and strains. They attributed this finding to the unclear role definitions involved in the specific situation. In fact, not much is known about the roles and expectations regarding grandchildren, apart from the general norm that one should respect the older generation (Höpflinger et al, 2006).

153

Intergenerational relations

The meanings of grandparents and grandchildren for each other Whereas studies on functional solidarity have mostly focused on grandparents’ investment for their grandchildren, studies that focused on the grandchildren’s view regarding their relations with grandparents have brought forward aspects of affectual and consensual solidarity as important for grandchildren in the relations with their grandparents. For instance,Van Ranst et al (1995) examined the meanings ascribed to grandparents by grandchildren in a sample of 563 grandchildren in Belgium in early (M = 12.5 years), middle (M = 15.7 years) and late (M = 18.9 years) adolescence. Among the 11 resulting dimensions to describe the relations towards grandparents, the most important meanings were that grandparents provide emotional support and affection, convey reassurance of worth and are reliable allies, mentors and role models for adolescents. Triadó et  al (2005) have compared and integrated the perspectives of grandparents and grandchildren regarding the meanings of grandparents for grandchildren. On the basis of a sample of 154 grandparents and their 12- to 20-year-old grandchildren living in Spain, they carried out principal components analyses of 41 items describing roles of grandparents for grandchildren. Their results showed that the perceptions of the grandparent role were rather similar from both points of view: the highest mean scores were obtained for the components ‘Fun-seeking’ (even slightly higher rated by grandparents compared to grandchildren) and ‘Link with the past’, whereas the lowest scores corresponded to the component ‘Mutual trust’ from both perspectives. Apart from these intergenerational similarities, two components were, however, only identified in the grandparent, respectively, in the grandchild view: grandparents stated the role of a ‘Counsellor’ for their grandchildren as highly important whereas giving advice was not a role that grandchildren perceived of their grandparents. Instead, in the grandchildren’s perspective, a mediating role of grandparents regarding family conflicts was identified; however, this role was not taken into account by the grandparents themselves.Whereas the meanings and functions of grandparents for grandchildren have been extensively studied, as these examples show, not much is known about what it means for grandparents to have grandchildren and what roles grandchildren themselves serve for grandparents. A study by Kivnick (1983) provided five dimensions of what grandparenthood might mean for grandparents, distinguishing between the dimensions of ‘centrality’,‘valued elder’, ‘immortality through clan’, ‘reinvolvement with personal past’ and ‘indulgence’. However, these dimensions could not be replicated in a recent study; instead, all items were located on just one dimension (see Hayslip et al, 2003). This might, according to the authors, point to the diminished clarity in grandparental role definitions today. Even if the benefits of grandparenthood for grandparents are not that clearly defined, undoubtedly, in a life-span perspective, grandparents enjoy generativity, and their relationships to their grandchildren might influence their psychological adjustment and well-being (Erikson, 1974; Mayer and Filipp, 2004; Drew and Silverstein, 2007). In line with this, grandparenthood is rated as 154

Grandparent–grandchild relations

globally important by most grandparents – in the German Ageing Survey, three quarters of all grandparents deemed their grandparenthood as important or very important, whereas only for 6%, it was not important at all (Mahne and MotelKlingebiel, 2010).Also, younger grandparents seem to ascribe a higher importance to their role as grandparents, and it seems to be somewhat more important for women than for men. Apart from this general meaning of grandparenthood, grandchildren may also serve as a mediator in the relation to the own children; namely, grandparenthood can give older parents the chance to elaborate their relations towards their own children – according to Harper and Ruicheva (2010) this is sometimes even more important than establishing new relationships to the grandchildren. A further aspect that should be pointed out regards the intergenerational transmission of values and intergenerational learning – and this might be integrated in the solidarity model as referring to consensual solidarity. Earlier research focused mostly on the impact of the grandparent generation for the value orientations of the grandchildren. It was either assumed that the grandparental influence on grandchildren’s values is mediated by the parent generations, or that parental and grandparental influences might reinforce each other (in the sense of a ‘double team’) in the transmission of values to the next generation (Höpflinger, 2009). Certainly, intergenerational differences in value orientations are a typical finding in values research (see, for example, Inglehart, 1998), and an exact replication of values in following generations would not allow for adaptations to a changed living context (see Schönpflug, 2009). However, continuity in value orientations seems to be important for the coherence in the family (see Chapter Six). Recently, the concept of generative socialisation has been proposed by Lüscher et al in order to underline the mutual effects on each other and also the contemporaneous learning of both generations while they interact with each other (Lüscher et al, 2010). Being in contact with grandchildren might be even more important today in a society that is quickly changing, and grandparents may profit from such contact by learning, for instance, about the use of new technologies that are becoming more and more important in daily life (see also Leist and Ferring, 2011).

The ambivalence approach Just as has been stated for parent–child relations, also the description of grandparentgrandchild relations along the intergenerational solidarity model might lack an important aspect – the contemporaneous experience of contradictory feelings, cognitions and behavioural tendencies, such as dynamics of simultaneous attraction and dislike in families (see Lüscher and Pillemer, 1998; Chapter Three). The ambivalence perspective has gained importance in recent years also with regard to grandparent–grandchild relations (see also Lüscher, 2008). Again, as relations between non-adjacent generations might involve three generations, ambivalences in grandchild–grandparent relations can have several sources.

155

Intergenerational relations

First of all, ambivalences in grandchild–grandparent relations may arise in the direct interaction between grandparents and grandchildren.This can be observed in specific family constellations that are especially prone to the experience of ambivalences, such as when grandparents raise their grandchildren (see DolbinMacNab et al, 2009). Ambivalence can also arise in the ‘normal’ situation where adolescents live with their parents and have occasional relations with their maternal and paternal grandparents. A recent study has provided evidence for ambivalent relationship patterns also in these non-specific family constellations (Michels et al, 2011). In a cluster-analytic approach, four different types of relationships towards both grandparental sides were identified. Interestingly, an ambivalent pattern was only found with regard to maternal grandparents. More precisely, 22.5% of grandchildren fell in this cluster, reporting similarly high emotions of ‘attachment/ closeness’ and ‘dislike’ in the relations with their maternal grandparents. Presumably, adolescence might be a phase of transitions that is particularly prone to the experience of ambivalences in the relations with grandparents, as adolescents search for identity and autonomy, independently from their families (Havighurst, 1948; Erikson, 1974;Youniss and Smollar, 1985). Apart from the perspective of grandchildren, Herlyn et al (1998) also report an ambivalent pattern in grandparent–grandchild relations from the perspective of grandmothers. These grandmothers were somewhat older and had older grandchildren compared to the other identified grandmother types. They were characterised by an oscillation between the wishes for more closeness and more distance.Adolescent grandchildren might want to spend more and more time with peers outside their families (see Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986), maybe leaving their grandparents disappointed if the frequency of contact decreases. However, also the grandparents might not always be ready to spend a large amount of time with their grandchildren or to fulfil grandparental caregiving roles and this might contradict their felt normative obligations towards their grandchildren, thus resulting in ambivalent feelings. As grandmothers today are more often than in the past gainfully employed, an over-involvement in childcare might disturb their own work–life balance and this can also create tensions or mixed feelings in intergenerational relations (see Arthur et al, 2003). According to the results in these pattern studies, the ambivalence concept thus seems fruitful in the study of grandparent–grandchild relations from both perspectives – the grandchildren’s and the grandparents’. The ambivalence approach might also be more interesting than a mere conflict approach – although studies tackling the issue of grandparent–grandchild conflicts are rather rare to date, first results indicate that conflicts between grandparents and grandchildren might not be carried out openly in general – those studies that have assessed conflicts showed rather low reported levels (for example, Albert, 2007). At later stages in the grandparent–grandchild relations, a relationship constellation where (young adult) grandchildren provide support for their ageing grandparents may also produce ambivalences; in particular, as stated earlier, caregiving roles of

156

Grandparent–grandchild relations

grandchildren for their grandparents are not clearly defined and this may raise insecurities in grandchildren about acting in an adequate way (Fruhauf et al, 2006). Finally, ambivalences may be mediated by the parent generation (see Michels et al, 2011). As the grandparent–grandchild relationship is at least partly shaped by the middle generation, an ambivalent or tense relationship quality between adult children and their own parents could set the stage for ambivalences also between grandparents and grandchildren – not least if loyalty conflicts arise for the grandchildren. An important issue in this context refers also to the quality of the relations between the middle generation and the parents-in-law (see also Lüscher, 2008).

Future developments and directions of research In the following section, some ideas on open questions and future issues with regard to grandparent–grandchild relations will be presented.The discussion will start with an outlook regarding continuing socio-demographic changes, then the impact of changes in gender roles and developments regarding new information and communication technologies will be addressed. First of all, the age at which parents have their first child is currently increasing and this will consequently enlarge the intergenerational space also between grandparents and their grandchildren. In contrast to the quite early ages at which parents had their first child until the mid-1970s, in the European Union today the mean age of women at the birth of their first child is in their late 20s, and the mean age at childbirth in general (including also further births) is 30.36 (OECD, 2009; Harper et  al, 2010). A tendency towards older ages at the transition to grandparenthood is already noticeable, such as in the German Ageing Survey (see Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010): whereas in 1996, of respondents aged 55 to 69 years, 60% had grandchildren, in 2008 this had significantly dropped to 54%; however, in the older group of the 70- to 85-year-olds, the numbers remained basically unchanged with values of 75% in 1996 and 77% in 2008. According to Grünheid and Scharein’s (2011) prospective calculations, in 2060 grandparents will be on average more than 10 years older at birth of their grandchildren than today; thus, even if one considers the higher life expectancies, it is an open question whether the common life time between generations will slightly decrease again; also, the current trend towards an increase of four-generation families might not continue. The postponement of parenthood might also be related to lower birth rates. In some countries in Europe such as (Western) Germany, childlessness is actually rather high: for instance, of the birth cohort from 1960, 21% of women remained childless (similar numbers are reported for Switzerland, Dorbritz, 2008). Growing ‘grandchildlessness’ may then be a consequence, either due to (a) one’s own childlessness or (b) childlessness of one’s own children. Regarding childlessness, studies have indicated that older adults without children obtain less social support – even if they do not differ from older adults with children concerning the amount 157

Intergenerational relations

of provided support for others –, and they report more loneliness (Wagner et al, 1996). Not much is known so far about the consequences of grandchildlessness. A recent study by Hagestad (2008) suggested a tendency for lower levels of generativity of non-grandparents in the sense of a generally weaker concern for future generations, not only within family but also within society (see also Chapter One; Chapter Four). Parents of adult children cannot regulate the timing when (and if) grandchildren are born, although they might try to influence their children’s fertility decisions by offering care opportunities, gifts or financial support (see Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010). However, it is up to the child generation to decide when and if they want to have children, and this may also lead to insecurities or disappointments for the potential grandparents. It is an open question in how far an unfulfilled wish to become grandparents might influence the relations between ageing parents and their adult children – one might speculate whether such relations are characterised by higher intergenerational ambivalences. It should be noted here as well that such disappointments or unfulfilled desires may also occur due to large geographic distances between grandparents and their grandchildren or due to low contact frequencies between the generations (see Mann and Leeson, 2010). Divorce rates and the number of single parents are rising and this has certainly an impact on intergenerational relations, too. As Harper and Ruicheva (2011) point out, maternal grandparents often provide support for single or divorced mothers, sometimes even taking over the roles of the partner. Although grandparents’ support in these cases might be essential, certainly these constellations increase the risk of intergenerational strain, such as when single mothers live in the parental home, if boundaries and roles are not clear or if the norm of non-interference is not adhered to by the grandparents. Interestingly, separation and divorce rates (and remarriage) in the grandparent generation have also increased; this may imply also that grandparents might have grandchildren from children by different own partnerships, including also step-grandchildren. This makes the picture of grandparenthood more and more complex, and the relations towards different sets of grandchildren might be very dissimilar (Attias-Donfut, 2008; Höpflinger, 2009). As not much is known so far about the consequences of divorce in the grandparent generation, future research should take this issue of growing interest into account. A further topic that has gained research interest in the last years refers to the grandparents’ role as custodial parents (for example, Pinazo-Hernandis and Tompkins, 2009).This particular case of grandparental investment emerges especially in those cases where the parent generation is affected by difficulties such as teen pregnancy or mental or physical illness. Notably, in some African countries, this kind of grandparental investment seems to have resulted from the AIDS/HIV epidemic and is essential not only for the survival and well-being of grandchildren but also for society as a whole (see Oduaran and Oduaran, 2010). More and more has also been written about grandparents who take over the parental role while the parent generation migrates for job reasons; in this case, grandparents might provide 158

Grandparent–grandchild relations

practical support whereas parents deliver mostly financial resources for the family (Attias-Donfut, 2008). Interestingly, similar dynamics can be noted regarding some parts of Europe – such as migrants from Poland or Romania moving to Western European countries (see, for example, White, 2010) – as well as in China where the middle generation might migrate from rural to urban places in search of work (Chen et al, 2011; Cong and Silverstein, 2012). A further aspect that might gain importance in the next years refers to the socio-economic status of the different generations and its potential influence on intergenerational relations. In many Western countries, the current grandparent generation is mostly economically independent and financial support flows rather from the older to the younger generations (see Mahne and Motel-Klingebiel, 2010).This grants today’s grandparents a large amount of freedom: in general they have enough time and resources available in order to shape their intergenerational relations in line with their own preferences. It is, however, an open question whether future generations of grandparents will benefit from the same material security due to changes in social security and pension systems, and in how far such developments could influence grandparent–grandchild relations in the future. It should be noted here that grandparents differ in their socio-economic status: grandparents who are less well-off may not have enough resources to support their grandchildren who might be at risk of poverty – which is certainly a potential source for the reproduction of social inequalities (see also Attias-Donfut, 2008; Motel-Klingebiel et al, 2010a). Changes in gender roles might also affect the roles of grandmothers and grandfathers. So far, grandparent research has often explicitly or implicitly referred to grandmothers, whereas grandfathers have only recently been brought into focus. According to Mann and Leeson (2010), grandfathers seem increasingly to enjoy their grandparent role, which gives them the chance to compensate for a lack of time in their earlier relations with their own children. Accordingly, grandfathers might take over new and more involved roles compared to earlier times when grandfathers constituted rather formal or distant figures. As Mann and Leeson (2010) put it, it would be interesting to study how far the public discourse around the new father roles also applies now to the new grandfathers. Finally, new information and communication technologies (such as e-mail, SMS, phone, Skype) may help to bridge large distances between grandparents and grandchildren. Research interest on these issues is only just starting, as grandparents in the past did not make use of these technologies to such a great extent as most likely will be the case in the future. Results of recent studies show that different kinds of communication rather complement instead of substitute each other. For instance, in a study by Quadrello et al (2005), those who lived closer seemed to have more face-to-face as well as phone contact, and also more contact via SMS, whereas with increasing residential distances, more often letters and postcards were exchanged, as could be expected of a more formal grandparenting style. Although a lack of opportunity structures for frequent personal contacts might thus not always be compensated by (new) technologies, Höpflinger et al (2006) evoke the potentials 159

Intergenerational relations

of new communication technologies to increase intergenerational contacts also when grandparents and grandchildren live even farther apart. Maybe in the future these possibilities to stay in contact might be combined with a higher mobility of (some) grandparents enabling them to surmount larger distances to see their grandchildren. Notably, in contrast to face-to-face meetings, contacts via new communication technologies might be more easily established by grandparents and grandchildren without the involvement of the parent generation.

Conclusions Grandparenthood is multi-faceted, and grandparent–grandchild relations are highly complex issues. In the study of grandparent–grandchild relations, a life-span perspective should be taken that considers both the timing of grandparenthood (as an on-time or off-time event) as well as the specific needs and resources of grandparents and grandchildren in different stages of their lives.Therefore, it would also not be correct to speak of the ‘grandparent generation’ in terms of a societal generation (although they belong to the same family generation). Grandparent-grandchild relations are highly idealised today and might even be taken for granted as a general notion, but a closer look reveals that role definitions are not as clear as it might seem at first sight, and grandparenthood is lived out in very different ways. Not everyone becomes a grandparent today, and at the same time, being a grandparent does not necessarily mean that grandparents take up specific roles that might be expected by society. Grandparents are highly appreciated for helping out when there is need, providing affective, moral, practical or financial support both for grandchildren as well as – and often related to this – also for the adult children.The negotiation efforts between grandparents and their adult children regarding such grandparental support are, however, still widely unknown. It is also an open question how such tasks are regulated if grandparents are not willing, or if it is not possible for them (for example, due to job constraints), to provide requested or needed support. In ageing societies, grandparents might also become a new ‘sandwich’ generation – for instance, if grandmothers care for their own parents or their ageing partners and for grandchildren at the same time. Altogether, grandparents may be an especially important source for those kinds of support that the public service does not provide, such as care when children are ill, but these services might not be taken for granted. As Lüscher (2008, p 56) puts it, grandparenthood might be seen as a kind of ‘gift’ that is, however, not equally distributed and not appreciated in the same ways by everyone. Policymakers should take this into account and, therefore, not rely on grandparents’ contribution to childcare as a matter of course when making decisions regarding public services, although it is undoubtedly desirable to support grandparental voluntary engagement wherever possible.

160

Grandparent–grandchild relations

References Albert, I. (2007) Intergenerationale Transmission von Werten in Deutschland und Frankreich [Intergenerational transmission of values in Germany and France], Lengerich: Pabst Science. Arthur, S., Snape, D. and Dench, G. (2003) The moral economy of grandparenting, London: National Centre for Social Research. Askham, J., Ferring, D. and Lamura, G. (2007) ‘Personal relationships in later life’, in J. Bond, S.M. Peace, F. Dittman-Kohli and G.J.Westerhof (eds) Ageing in society: an introduction to social gerontology (3rd edn), London: Sage, pp 186–208. Attias-Donfut, C. (2008) ‘Les grand-parents en Europe: De nouveaux soutiens de famille [The grandparents in Europe: new family support]’, Informations sociales, vol 5, no 149, pp 54–67. Bengtson,V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. Bengtson,V.L., Lowenstein, A., Putney, N.M. and Gans, D. (2003) ‘Global aging and the challenge to families’, in V.L. Bengtson and A. Lowenstein (eds) Global aging and its challenge to families, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, pp 1–24. Chan, C.G. and Elder, G.H. Jr. (2000) ‘Matrilineal advantage in grandchild– grandparent relations’, The Gerontologist, vol 40, pp 179-90. Chen, F., Liu, G. and Mair, C. A. (2011) ‘Intergenerational ties in context: grandparents caring for grandchildren in China’, Social Forces, vol  90, no  2, pp 571-94. Cherlin, A.J. and Furstenberg, F.F. (1986) The new American grandparent, New York: Basic Books. COM (2005) Green Paper Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Cong, Z. and Silverstein, M. (2012) ‘Caring for grandchildren and intergenerational support in rural China: a gendered extended family perspective’, Ageing & Society, vol 32, pp 425–50. Dolbin-MacNab, M.L., Rodgers, B.E. and Traylor, R.M. (2009) ‘Bridging the generations: a retrospective examination of adults’ relationships with their kinship caregivers’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 7, pp 159–76. Dorbritz, J. (2008) ‘Germany. Family diversity with low actual and desired fertility. Childbearing trends and policies in Europe’, Demographic Research, vol  19, pp 557–98. Drew, L.M. and Silverstein, M. (2007) ‘Grandparents’ psychological well-being after loss of contact with their grandchildren’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 21, pp 372–79. Erikson, E.H. (1974) Dimensions of a new identity, New York: Norton. Eurostat (2009) Life expectancy by age and sex, available at: http://appsso.eurostat. ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_mlexpec&lang=en Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Intergenerational relations in an ageing society: emerging topics in Europe’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, pp 101–4. 161

Intergenerational relations

Friedlmeier, M.,Albert, I.,Trommsdorff, G. and Kagitcibasi, C. (2012) ‘Adolescents’ relationship with maternal grandmothers in four cultures: the contribution of different types of intergenerational solidarity’, Paper presented at the workshop on “Value of Children and Intergenerational Relations”, 29–30 March 2012, Konstanz, Germany. Fruhauf, C.A., Jarrott, S.E. and Allen, K.R. (2006) ‘Grandchildren’s perceptions of caring for grandparents’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 27, pp 887–911. Grünheid, E. and Scharein, M.G. (2011) ‘Zur Entwicklung der durchschnittlichen gemeinsamen Lebenszeit von Drei- und Vier-Generationen-Familien in West- und Ostdeutschland – Eine Modellrechnung [On the development of average shared life time of three- and four-generation families in West and East Germany]’, Comparative Population Studies, vol 36, no 1, pp 3–40. Hagestad, G.O. (2006) ‘Transfers between grandparents and grandchildren: The importance of taking a three-generation perspective’, Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, vol 18, no 3, pp 315–32. Hagestad, G. (2008) ‘The book-ends: emerging perspectives on children and old people’, in C. Saraceno (ed) Families, ageing and social policy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 20–37. Hank, K. and Buber, I. (2009) ‘Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 30, pp 53–73. Harper, S. (2005) ‘Grandparenthood’, in M.L. Johnson (ed) The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing, Cambridge: University Press, pp 422–28. Harper, S. and Ruicheva, I. (2010) ‘Grandmothers as replacement parents and partners: the role of grandmotherhood in single parent families’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, no 3, pp 219–33. Harper, S., Smith, P.K. and Hagestad, G.O. (2010) ‘Editorial and introduction’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, no 3, pp 207–18. Havighurst, R.J. (1948) Developmental tasks and education, NewYork: David McKay. Hayslip, B. Jr., Henderson, C.E. and Shore, J. (2003) ‘The structure of grandparental role meaning’, Journal of Adult Development, vol 10, no 1, pp 1–11. Herlyn, I., Kistner,A., Langer-Schulz, H. and Lehmann, B. (1998) Großmutterschaft im weiblichen Lebenszusammenhang [Grandmotherhood in the female life cycle], Freiburg: Centaurus. Hoff, A. (2007) ‘Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent–grandchild and parent–child relationships in Germany’, Aging & Society, vol 27, pp 643–65. Höpflinger, F. (2009) ‘Beziehungen zwischen Grosseltern und Enkelkindern [Relations between grandparents and grandchildren]’, in K. Lenz and F. Nestmann (eds) Handbuch persönliche Beziehungen, Weinheim: Juventa, pp 311–35. Höpflinger, F. and Hummel, C. (2006) ‘Heranwachsende Enkelkinder und ihre Großeltern. Im Geschlechtervergleich [Grandchildren and their grandparents. Gender specific differences]’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol  39, pp 33–40.

162

Grandparent–grandchild relations

Höpflinger, F., Hummel, C. and Hugentobler, V. (2006) Enkelkinder und ihre Grosseltern – intergenerationelle Beziehungen im Wandel [Grandchildren and their grandparents – changing intergenerational relations], Zürich: Seismo-Verlag. Igel, C. and Szydlik, M. (2011) ‘Grandchild care and welfare state arrangements in Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 21, no 3, pp 210–24. Inglehart, R. (1998) Modernisierung und Postmodernisierung [Modernisation and Postmodernisation], Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag. Kivnick, H. Q. (1983) ‘Dimensions of grandparenthood meaning: deductive conceptualization and empirical derivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 44, pp 1056–68. Kornhaber, A. (2002) The grandparent guide: the definitive guide to coping with the challenges of modern grandparenting, New York: McGraw-Hill. Lauterbach, W. (1995) ‘Die gemeinsame Lebenszeit von Familiengenerationen [The shared life time of family generations]’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, vol 24, no 1, pp 22–41. Leist,A.K. and Ferring, D. (2011).‘Technology and aging: inhibiting and facilitating factors in ICT use’, in R. Wichert, K. Van Laerhoven and J. Gelissen (eds) Constructing ambient intelligence: AmI 2011 Workshops, Berlin: Springer CCIS Series, pp 163–5. Lejalle, B. (2005) ‘Mode de garde des jeunes enfants: entre souhait et réalité… [Caretaking of young children: between desire and reality]’, Vivre au Luxembourg: Chroniques de l’enquête PSELL-3/2003, vol 6, pp 1–2. Lüscher, K. (2008) ‘Großelternschaft – eine soziologische Annäherung [Grandparenthood]’, in G. Klosinski (ed) Großeltern heute – Hilfe oder Hemmnis? Tübingen: Attempo, pp 33–58. Lüscher, K. and Pillemer, K. (1998) ‘Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parent–child relations in later life’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 60, pp 413–25. Lüscher, K., Liegle, L., Lange, A., Hoff, A., Stoffel, M., Viry, G., et  al (2010) Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy: a trilingual compendium, Bern: Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences. Mahne, K. and Motel-Klingebiel, A. (2010) ‘Familiale Generationenbeziehungen [Intergenerational family relations]’, in A. Motel-Klingebiel, S. Wurm and C. Tesch-Römer (eds) Altern im Wandel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp 188–214. Mann, R. and Leeson, G. (2010) ‘Grandfathers in contemporary families in Britain: evidence from qualitative research’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, no 3, pp 234–48. Mayer, A.-K. and Filipp, S.-H. (2004) ‘Perzipierte Generativität älterer Menschen und die Qualität der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung [Elderly people’s perceived generativity and the quality of parent–child relationships]’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, vol 24, pp 166–81. Michels,T.,Albert, I. and Ferring, D. (2011) ‘Emotional relations with grandparents and received support: the adolescent view’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 9, no 3, pp 1–17. 163

Intergenerational relations

Motel-Klingebiel, A., Simonson, J. and Romeu Gordo, L. (2010a) ‘Materielle Sicherung [Material security]’, in A. Motel-Klingebiel, S. Wurm and C. TeschRömer (eds) Altern im Wandel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp 61–89. Motel-Klingebiel, A., Wurm, S., Huxhold, O. and Tesch-Römer, C. (2010b) ‘Wandel von Lebensqualität und Ungleichheit in der zweiten Lebenshälfte [Change of quality of life and inequality in the second half of life]’, in A. MotelKlingebiel, S. Wurm and C. Tesch-Römer (eds) Altern im Wandel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp 15–33. Neugarten, B.L. and Weinstein, K.K. (1964) ‘The changing American grandparent’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 26, pp 199–206. Oduaran, A. and Oduaran, C. (2010) ‘Grandparents and HIV and AIDS in SubSaharan Africa’, in M. Izuhara (ed) Ageing and intergenerational relations: family reciprocity from a global perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 95–110. OECD (2009) OECD Family database, available at: http://www.oecd.org/docu ment/4/0,3746,en_2649_37419_37836996_1_1_1_37419,00.html. Pinazo-Hernandis, S. and Tompkins, C.J. (2009) ‘Custodial grandparents: the state of the art and the many faces of this contribution’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 7, pp 137–43. Quadrello, T., Hurme, H., Menzinger, J., Smith, P.K., Veisson, M., Vidal, S. and Westerback, S. (2005) ‘Grandparents use of new communication technologies in an European perspective’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, pp 200–7. Rossi, A.S. and Rossi, P.H. (1990) Of human bonding: parent–child relations across the life course, New York: Aldine. Schönpflug, U. (2009) ‘Epilogue: toward a model of cultural transmission’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission: psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp 460–77. Sciplino, C., Smith, P. K., Hurme, H., Rusek, M. and Bäckvik, P. (2010) ‘Representations of grandparents in children’s books in Britain, Italy, Greece, Finland, and Poland’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol  8, no  3, pp 298–316. Silverstein, M., Bengtson,V.L. and Lawton, L. (1997) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol 103, pp 429–60. Silverstein, M., Giarrusso, R. and Bengtson,V.L. (1998) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the grandparent role’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp 144–58. Smith, P.K. (1991) ‘Introduction: the study of grandparenthood’, in P.K. Smith (ed) The psychology of grandparenthood: An international perspective, London: Routledge, pp 1–16. Spitze, G. and Ward, R.A. (1998) ‘Gender variations’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed), Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport: Greenwood, pp 113–27. Steinberg, L. and Silverberg, S.B. (1986), ‘The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence’, Child Development, vol 57, pp 841–51.

164

Grandparent–grandchild relations

Svensson-Dianellou, A., Smith, P.K. and Mestheneos, E. (2010) ‘Family help by Greek grandparents’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol  8, no  3, pp 249–63. Szinovacz, M.E. (1998) ‘Grandparent research: past, present, and future’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport: Greenwood, pp 1–22. Triadó, C., Villar, F., Solé, C., Osuna, M.J. and Pinazo, S. (2005) ‘The meaning of grandparenthood: do adolescent grandchildren perceive the relationship and role in the same way as their grandparents do?’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 3, pp 101–20. Uhlenberg, P. and Kirby, J.B. (1998) ‘Grandparenthood over time: historical and demographic trends’, in M.E. Szinovacz (ed) Handbook on grandparenthood, Westport: Greenwood, pp 23–39. Van Ranst, N., Verschueren, K. and Marcoen, A. (1995) ‘The meaning of grandparents as viewed by adolescent grandchildren: an empirical study in Belgium’, International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 41, pp 311–24. Wagner, M., Schütze,Y. and Lang, F.R. (1996) ‘Soziale Beziehungen alter Menschen [Social relations of older persons]’, in K.U. Mayer and P.B. Baltes (eds) Die Berliner Altersstudie, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp 301–20. White,A. (2010) Polish families and migration since EU accession, Bristol: Policy Press. Wieners, T. (2002) ‘Gestaltung und Bedeutung von Großeltern-EnkelBeziehungen aus der Perspektive der Enkelkinder [Form and meaning of grandparent–grandchild relations from the perspective of grandchildren]’, in C. Schweppe (ed) Generation und Sozialpädagogik, Weinheim: Juventa, pp 223–41. Witkin, G. (2012) The modern grandparent’s handbook: the ultimate guide to the new rules of grandparenting, USA: Penguin Group. Youniss, J. and Smollar, J. (1985) Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

165

ten

Family change theory: a preliminary evaluation on the basis of recent cross-cultural studies Boris Mayer

Introduction1 Family change theory (Kagitcibasi, 1996, 2007) is an approach which can be used to explain how modernisation and globalisation processes affect the family. The most important assumption of the theory is that when traditional interdependent cultures modernise, they need not necessarily develop in the direction of the independent family model typical of Western individualistic societies. Instead, they may develop towards a family model of emotional interdependence that combines continuing emotional interdependencies in the family with declining material interdependencies and with rising personal autonomy. In this chapter a preliminary evaluation of the empirical status of family change theory is given based on a review of recent cross-cultural studies. It will be shown to what extent the few studies that have been systematically conducted in this respect have found results either supporting or not supporting aspects of the theory, and where the strengths and problems of this research lie.

Modernisation and family change Around the world, cultural and social change in the last decades as well as the recent revolution in communication technologies and social media have created increasing synchronisation of shared information and similarities in lifestyles across otherwise culturally and economically very different contexts. Modernisation theorists have argued that this development will eventually lead to a global culture following the Western cultural model (Inkeles and Smith, 1974). In spite of continuing economic differences and severe poverty in some regions of the world, in most regions changes in direction of greater affluence, higher levels of education and higher life expectancy (summarised in the Human Development Index (HDI); UNDP, 2011) have been observed. Debate is going on whether economic globalisation will eventually lead to a general cultural homogenisation or whether longstanding cultural traditions (for example, religions) have an impact on the ways societies manage their paths through modernisation, as recent theoretical approaches argue (Berger and Huntington, 2002; Inglehart and Oyserman, 2004). 167

Intergenerational relations

The way in which families function and intergenerational relationships are negotiated in a society is an important aspect of that society’s culture.The family as the main socialisation agent is responsible for the transmission of cultural values and practices and its functioning is at the same time affected by the larger cultural context (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Trommsdorff, 2009). Early family modernisation theorists believed that the Western nuclear family with its high importance of the spousal relationship and its de-emphasising of contact with the extended kin group is the prototype of a modern family that will eventually emerge in all societies (Goode, 1963). This development is reflected in an increased emphasis on individual freedom, autonomy and self-expression, and a declining importance of traditional orientations, authority and individual dependencies (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005). Declining interpersonal and familial bonds may in turn bear the risk of increasing isolation and interpersonal alienation in a society (for example, Bellah et al, 1985).

Kagitcibasi’s Family change theory Family change theory (FCT) (Kagitcibasi, 1996, 2007) presents an alternative to these classical modernisation theoretical assumptions with regard to the family. As compared to other theoretical approaches that focus on the Western family (for example, Bengtson, 2001; see also Chapter Two; Chapter Three), this theory takes a global perspective and specifically contrasts non-Western and Western family cultures. According to FCT, three ideal-typical family models can be differentiated. First, the family model of (total) interdependence is prevalent in collectivistic low-affluence cultures in the Majority World2 where modernisation processes have not (yet) had a strong impact.This is especially the case in rural areas. In this family model, extended families are the norm and there is a high level of fertility. Children are valued for economic as well as for emotional reasons and have the responsibility of caring for their parents in old age. Interdependencies among family members are strong within the material as well as within the emotional domain.This implies that personal autonomy is devalued while strong hierarchies and, in many cases, a patriarchal ideology are emphasised. Patriarchal ideology is related to a relatively low status of women and to authoritarian parenting practices.At the same time, the strong hierarchies in this family model are usually combined with close intimate bonds that provide a nurturing environment for the developing individual. Second, and on the contrary, the family model of independence is typical for affluent Western cultures with an individualistic orientation. In this family model, nuclear families with low fertility levels prevail.Autonomy is highly valued in this family model and material as well as emotional interdependencies are relatively de-emphasised. Because social security systems usually provide for the elderly, independent of parental status, in modern welfare states, having children has turned from an economic asset to an economic liability. Thus, utilitarian reasons for having children are irrelevant, and the only remaining reasons for having 168

Family change theory

children are emotional. In the family model of independence, childrearing focuses on instilling personal autonomy and self-worth in children using ‘democratic’ and often permissive parenting strategies. Third, as a synthesis of these two models, in the family model of emotional interdependence, personal autonomy is gaining importance and material interdependencies and traditional hierarchies are declining as a result of modernisation processes while emotional closeness and relationship orientation remain very important. Autonomy (especially women’s) is no longer perceived as a threat to group functioning but as an asset for succeeding in a modern work environment. Therefore, childrearing goals and parenting practices in this model are authoritative, focusing on individual autonomy as well as on proper conduct and the value of familial relationships. With regard to cultural and family change, FCT suggests that the family model of (total) interdependence prevalent in agrarian low-affluence communities will not necessarily lead to the independent Western family model when these cultures modernise. Instead, the family model of emotional (or psychological) interdependence3 is assumed to emerge, meaning that material interdependencies and traditional hierarchies will decrease whereas emotional interdependencies will not decrease.

The Value of Children Studies and family change theory The origin of theorising about an alternative path of family development in economically developing collectivistic cultures is the Value of Children Study (VOC Study) carried out in the 1970s (Hoffman and Hoffman, 1973; Kagitcibasi, 1982). This cross-cultural research project studied fertility change and its determinants from a psychological perspective. A major proposition of the project was that the values that (potential) parents ascribe to their children(to-be) can be seen as individual-level psychological mediators for the macrolevel relations between (a) modernisation, industrialisation, and the changing opportunity structures resulting from them (for example, through the development of state-governed social security systems) and (b) declining fertility levels in many societies. It was expected that as a result of these social and institutional changes, the economic reasons for having children (economic values of children, VOC) would decline, because having many children would no longer bring economic benefits in modern industrialised societies (as compared to agrarian societies where more children could help more on the family farm and could provide more old-age security for the parents). In turn, the declining economic VOC should lead to reduced numbers of children in individual families and, therefore, to a declining fertility rate at the societal level.A major finding of the project was then that while economic reasons for having children were losing importance in economically developing contexts, the emotional (or psychological) values of having children were not declining – they became even more salient with economic development in many cultures. However, a high importance attached to emotional reasons for having children does not necessarily motivate (potential) parents to have many 169

Intergenerational relations

children. This is because emotional needs – in contrast to economic needs – can be satisfied by having only one or two children. Therefore, a cultural context where emotional VOCs are of high importance may well go along with overall low fertility. The most important conclusion from this result was, however, that emotional bonds in terms of the expectation of emotional closeness with own children and the need for emotional satisfaction resulting from this relationship did not lose importance in the process of socioeconomic development. This finding was the starting point for Kagitcibasi’s differentiation between emotional and material interdependencies in the family, and for her theorising about different patterns of family change as reflected in FCT.A third VOC dimension, the socialnormative VOC, is related to the social benefits from having children and to the normative societal pressures with regard to having children. Recently, a newValue of Children and Intergenerational Relations Study (VOC-IR Study) was carried out by an international team led by Trommsdorff and Nauck (2005).This study – including 18 cultural groups up to now – represents a replication and extension of the original VOC study. It includes a three-generation connected sample of grandmothers, mothers and adolescent children as well as an additional sample of mothers of young (3- to 5-year-old) children and analyses the interrelations among cultural values, intergenerational relationship quality and support, VOC and fertility behaviour. Three of the eight studies reviewed below are based on data from the new VOC-IR study.

Family change theory as a cross-cultural heuristic model FCT suggests that in Western cultures a family model of independence prevails that is characterised by relatively low emotional interdependencies among family members. This seems to contradict many studies showing that intergenerational relations within Western families are far from being distant but instead are emotionally close and characterised by high intergenerational solidarity (for example, Rossi and Rossi, 1990; Eggebeen and Wilhelm, 1995; Bengtson, 2001; see also Chapter Twelve). It is important to note that FCT does not deny that there is emotional closeness in the family model of independence. However, the theory suggests that when taking a global perspective and contrasting Western families with families in most other parts of the world, family relations are relatively more distant in the West. In essence, the validity and utility of FCT cannot be judged in terms of the existence or non-existence of certain forms of family solidarity in one particular cultural context, but only through a global comparison of family cultures with respect to the hypothesised patterns regarding material and emotional interdependencies. Thus, the three family models represent ideal types and serve as a heuristic for identifying family patterns across diverse cultural contexts. As Kagitcibasi et  al (2010) point out, diversity emerges ‘out of a myriad of significant cultural elements shaped by religion, history and values’ (p 655).Thus, the variations in family values and relationships are very broad and allow for 170

Family change theory

culture-specifics, as in many approaches in cross-cultural psychology. Nevertheless, FCT makes clear predictions regarding the patterns of material and emotional interdependencies across different cultural contexts, which allow the formulation of testable hypotheses. Since the theory is about change over time, it calls for longitudinal or (at least) multi-wave cross-cultural studies. Often though, such studies are difficult to realise due to limited resources of individual researchers or collaborative research groups. As a less powerful but still valuable alternative approach, cross-sectional crosscultural studies can be an important step in testing FCT. In this case, different stages of societal modernisation are assumed to be represented by societies with different levels of socioeconomic development at a certain point in time. Caution is necessary here to avoid the unreflected extrapolation of cultural differences to cultural change (‘reading history sideways’, Thornton, 2005, p 4).

Review of cross-cultural studies on family change theory The purpose of the present chapter is to review the relatively few cross-cultural studies based on FCT that exist to date and to reach a preliminary conclusion with regard to the empirical status of FCT. With one exception (Kagitcibasi and Ataca, 2005), all studies explicitly aiming to test FCT to date are cross-sectional, typically comparing cultural contexts selected a priori to represent one of the three ideal-typical family models.The review does not include studies referring (only) to autonomy and relatedness and their coexistence in individual selves, as this would include a wider body of literature (for example, Ryan et al, 1995). The review is rather detailed, allowing the identification of the study-specific conceptualisation and operationalisation of material and emotional interdependencies in the family since the differentiation of these two forms of interdependence and the patterns characteristic for the three proposed family models lie at the heart of FCT. This will be a chronological review, starting with a study published shortly after Kagitcibasi (1996) first presented FCT in its full form.

Greek and Dutch Students’ Resource Allocation Van den Heuvel and Poortinga (1999) looked at Greek and Dutch students’ resource allocation on the background of FCT. The authors asked students to indicate how much of various resources they would allocate to recipients representing different degrees of familial and interpersonal closeness (parents, aunt/ uncle, good friend, colleague) on a Likert-type scale. Resources were classified as either material (money, goods and information) or non-material (services, status and love), and hypotheses were formulated on the basis of three competing theoretical approaches: individualism/collectivism, Kagitcibasi’s FCT and the authors’ own ‘viewpoint of universality with context-specific-variations’ (Van den Heuvel and Poortinga, 1999, p 5). The latter claims that theories of broad psychological differences underestimate cross-cultural similarities in psychological 171

Intergenerational relations

functioning and, therefore, resource allocation should vary with different recipients rather than cross-culturally. Results showed that Greek adolescents overall reported a higher allocation of resources than Dutch adolescents, and this difference was largest for material resources. Also, Greek and Dutch students allocated most resources to close kin (children and parents) and least resources to colleagues and neighbours.The authors interpret this result as supporting their context-specific theory of universality. In her rejoinder to the article, Kagitcibasi (1999) argues that contrary to the authors’ interpretation, the results were overall in line with FCT since the greatest differences between the Greek and the Dutch students’ responses appeared for the allocation of material investments and smaller differences for the allocation of emotional investments, and because across all kinds of allocated resources the greatest difference resulted for remote kin, to whom Greek students allocated more resources than Dutch students. Overall, this study was not really able to test FCT since (a) it compared only two cultural groups, lacking a third one to have all three hypothesised family models represented; and (b) it did not formulate explicit hypotheses with regard to which group should represent which family model; the groups are only characterised as individualistic (Dutch students) versus collectivistic (Greek students), but not in terms of family models.The Dutch were implicitly meant to represent the Western family model of independence, but the hypothesised family model of the Greek students remains unclear: in comparison to the Dutch group they may most likely represent the family model of emotional interdependence. It is interesting and somewhat disturbing, however, that other studies have conceptualised Greek samples as representing the two other (opposing) family models as well: in Koutrelakos’ (2004) study (see next section), Greeks living in Greece (as compared to Greeks living in the US and to white Americans) are hypothesised to represent the family model of (total) interdependence, whereas Keller et al (2006) hypothesised that Greek middle-class women represented the family model of independence (together with German and Euro-American women, see below).

Greeks’, Greek Americans’ and white Americans’ cognitive schemas of intimate relationships Koutrelakos (2004) compared Greeks living in Greece (hypothesised to represent the family model of (total) interdependence) with Greek Americans (family model of emotional interdependence) and with white Americans (family model of independence) on two cognitive schemas guiding intimate relationships.The first schema concerns the endorsement of low self-disclosure in intimate husband–wife relationships, which is seen as reflecting traditional hierarchies that in turn are closely linked to material interdependencies in FCT. It is argued that in Greek traditional families, both male authority over women and a lack of intimate self-disclosure characterise spousal relationships.This low self-disclosure is normative and is based on a feeling of discomfort and a fear of rejection if certain things about the self would be 172

Family change theory

expressed authentically to the partner. It is further argued that in traditional Greek society, the primary relationship is not that between husband and wife but that between parent and child, where there is more self-disclosure. On the contrary, self-disclosure between intimate partners is highly valued in individualistic cultures such as American mainstream society. It reflects the importance of the spousal relationship in the nuclear family as well as the equality of husband and wife. The results of the group comparison of the low self-disclosure variable were in line with FCT and showed that Greeks in Greece endorsed low self-disclosure in spousal relationships more than Greek Americans as well as white Americans (the latter two did not differ significantly) . The second cognitive schema referred to the concept of sacrificing the self to meet the needs of the partner and was conceptualised as representing emotional interdependencies in FCT. This self-sacrificing (for example, ‘In a close relationship, my responsibility is to make the other person happy’, Koutrelakos, 2004, p 98) can be seen as a form of unconditional emotional support given to the partner and constitutes a core value in traditional Greek culture according to the author. In line with FCT, the results showed that while Greeks in Greece and Greek Americans did not differ from each other, they both scored higher on self-sacrificing than white Americans. Thus, while Greek Americans were on the side of white Americans when it came to the endorsement of low self-disclosure (representing traditional hierarchies/material interdependencies in FCT), they were on the side of Greeks living in Greece when it came to the importance of self-sacrificing (representing emotional interdependencies in FCT).This pattern of similarities and differences is in line with delineations based on FCT that assume that traditional hierarchies/ material interdependencies diminish with the acculturation of Greeks in America, but the emotional interdependencies do not. In this sense, Greek Americans in this study reflected the family model of emotional interdependence with regard to these very specific measures of hierarchy and emotional dependencies between spouses, whereas the two other groups reflected the more extreme family models. Though the argumentation is straightforward in this study, it remains to be asked in how far especially the endorsement of low self-disclosure between spouses can represent the domain of material interdependencies/traditional hierarchies in FCT. At first glance one would assume that self-disclosure is a variable belonging to the emotional interdependence domain rather than representing low hierarchies (assumed to be closely linked to declining material interdependencies). Furthermore, while it seems to make sense to assume that Greeks living in Greece should be more interdependent than Greek Americans in this study, the a priori assumption that Greeks in Greece represent the family model of (total) interdependence is at least questionable when considering that Greece is a (South-)Western European industrialised country. This issue will be discussed further later in this chapter.

173

Intergenerational relations

The Value of Children, son preference, and expectations of grown-up children across time, generations, and regional and social strata in Turkey Kagitcibasi and Ataca (2005) compared Turkish data from the original VOC study (1975) with data from the new VOC-IR (2003) study. Results showed that Turkish young mothers’ emotional VOCs increased and economic VOCs decreased over time. Also, son preference declined steeply across the two time points. Son preference is seen as an important indicator for the family model of (total) interdependence in FCT since it reflects the higher economic utility of sons as compared to daughters in this family model. In addition, the authors report comparisons across four generations (grandmothers, older mothers, younger mothers and adolescents) and three social strata (urban high-socioeconomic status (SES), urban low-SES and rural) for the 2003 VOC-IR data. It was expected that rural participants endorse a family model of (total) interdependence, while urban low-SES participants as well as urban high-SES participants should represent the family model of emotional interdependence. Results showed that emotional VOCs were similarly important for all generations and social strata. Rural participants reported the highest importance of economic VOCs, followed by urban low-SES participants and urban high-class participants, respectively. Furthermore, urban high-SES mothers reported lower expectations of financial and emotional support from grown-up children than did urban low-SES mothers and rural mothers (in this order). Urban high-SES mothers also placed less emphasis on obedience as a parenting goal than the other two samples but emphasised independence and self-reliance more than urban low-SES and rural mothers. The declining material interdependencies across time and social strata as well as the high emotional VOCs in all samples provide support for FCT. However, Kagitcibasi and Ataca (2005) do not discuss that the emotional support expectations of grown-up sons and daughters were on the decline from rural samples over urban low-SES samples to urban high-SES samples. According to FCT, these emotional interdependence variables should not decline in the family model of emotional interdependence. Thus, the question remains whether the Turkish urban high-SES samples may possibly represent aspects of the family model of independence because of the low emotional support expectations expressed. Also, an issue that will be discussed more thoroughly below is the status of emotional values of children in FCT. Can emotional VOCs be representative for the domain of the emotional interdependencies when they are emphasised in all cultural contexts independent of family model status as some studies suggest?

Familism, socialisations goals, and parenting ethno-theories of women from nine cultures Keller et  al (2006) analysed cultural models related to FCT by comparing women from nine cultural contexts on parenting-related variables. German, Euro-American and Greek middle class women represented the family model 174

Family change theory

of independence; Nso and Gujarati farming women from Cameroon represented the family model of (total) interdependence, and urban Indian, Chinese, Mexican and Costa Rican women represented the family model of emotional interdependence (referred to as the autonomous-related model). The authors understand familism – encompassing loyalty, reciprocity and solidarity with family members – as the key concept differentiating between cultural and family models. In addition, autonomous socialisation goals (focusing on self-confidence and competitiveness) and relational socialisation goals (focusing on obedience and care for others) as well as autonomous parenting ethno-theories (focusing on early self-regulation and faceto-face interaction) and relational parenting ethno-theories (focusing on body contact and prompt satisfaction of physical needs) were studied. The expected pattern according to FCT was that women from emotionally interdependent contexts would score as high as women from (totally) interdependent contexts on familism and the other relationship-focused variables; and at the same time they would score as high as women from independent contexts on the autonomy-focused variables. Women from cultural groups representing the family model of (total) interdependence reported the highest familism, relational socialisation goals and relational parenting ethno-theories, all representing the emotional interdependence domain. Mothers from cultures representing the family model of independence showed the lowest values on all three measures, and mothers from cultures representing the family model of emotional interdependence scored in-between. Furthermore, mothers from independent and from emotionally interdependent cultural contexts reported higher autonomous socialisation goals and higher autonomous parenting ethno-theories than mothers from (totally) interdependent cultural contexts. The authors conclude that because of the intermediate position of the cultural contexts representing the family model of emotional interdependence (urban India, China, Mexico and Costa Rica) on family-oriented and relationship-oriented variables, their results signify that emotional relatedness is decreasing as an adaptation to changing lifestyles in addition to material interdependencies in urban educated families.The question remains ‘whether autonomous relatedness is a qualitatively distinct model [...] or whether it represents a transitory stage between interdependence and independence’ (Keller et al, 2006, pp 166f). Overall, the results of this study suggest that autonomy may grow faster and emotional interdependence change slower, but eventually relatedness will also decline in modernising interdependent cultural contexts. In contrast to the studies by Koutrelakos (2004) and by Van den Heuvel and Poortinga (1999), Greece middle class mothers were classified as representing the family model of independence by Keller et al (2006). An inspection of the differences among the three cultures assigned to the independent model (Germany, USA and Greece) showed that both Greek and American mothers reported higher familism, relational socialisation goals and relational parenting ethno-theories than German mothers but did not differ from each other (see Keller et al, 2006, p 163). Greek mothers also reported lower values on these emotional interdependence measures than the groups assigned to the two (emotionally) interdependent family models. Thus, 175

Intergenerational relations

the assignment of the Greek mothers to the family model of independence seems to be empirically justified. Nevertheless, the different assignments of Greek samples to different family models in the studies reviewed here highlights that there is no consistent framework that allows categorising a certain culture to a certain family model on theoretical grounds and/or prior research.

Family roles, family values and interdependent self-construal of students from 27 cultures The study by Georgas et al (2006) is the only large-scale cross-cultural study that was specifically designed to test Kagitcibasi’s FCT.The study compared over 5,000 university students from 27 nations with respect to a number of family-related variables. Hypotheses were derived from FCT as well as from the eco-cultural framework (Berry et al, 2002). While the eco-cultural framework predicts that all kinds of family interdependencies (material as well as emotional) will decline from low-affluence to high-affluence cultures, FCT predicts that while material interdependencies will gradually decline, emotional interdependencies will not decline with rising affluence.To test the predictions based on FCT, three a priori clusters of cultures were formed based on the level of affluence and on the general cultural background of the respective society.4 The first cluster included six cultures characterised by low affluence with a collectivistic cultural background (for example, India, Indonesia and Nigeria), representing the family model of (total) interdependence.The second cluster included 15 cultures characterised by increasing affluence with a collectivistic cultural background (for example, Brazil, Greece, South Korea and Turkey), representing the family model of emotional interdependence. The third cluster included six cultures characterised by high affluence with a Western individualistic cultural background (for example, Canada, France and Germany), representing the family model of independence. The focus of the results summarised here is on those variables in the study that are most important for FCT: 1. Family roles: (i) expressive family roles (for example, ‘Gives emotional support to children’, ‘Gives emotional support to wife/husband’, ‘Keeps the family united’); (ii) instrumental family roles (including financial, practical as well as childcare responsibilities, for example, ‘Contributes financially’, ‘Does the housework’, ‘Takes children to school’). Each respondent was asked how far these family roles were typical for different family positions, like mother, father, siblings, grandparents or uncles/aunts. While expressive family roles represented emotional interdependencies in FCT, instrumental family roles represented material interdependencies in FCT.The family roles instrument was especially developed for the study by Georgas et al (2006). 2. Values and self-construals: (i) interdependent self-construal (Singelis, 1994), (ii) family relationship values (Georgas, 1991) and (iii) embeddedness values (Schwartz, 1994), all representing emotional interdependencies in FCT; and (iv) traditional 176

Family change theory

hierarchical family values (Georgas, 1991), representing material interdependencies in FCT. It was expected that cultures hypothesised to reflect the family model of emotional interdependence would show similarly high expressive family roles (emotional interdependence domain) as cultures hypothesised to reflect the family model of (total) interdependence while at the same time showing relatively low instrumental family roles (material interdependence domain).The results showed, however, that on most expressive family roles, the cultures hypothesised to reflect the family model of (total) interdependence scored higher than the cultures hypothesised to reflect the family model of emotional interdependence and the family model of independence, respectively. For some of the instrumental family roles a similar pattern occurred on some family positions, but for most family positions no differences were found. Furthermore, cultures in the emotional interdependence cluster scored significantly lower than cultures in the (total) interdependence cluster on interdependent self-construal, family values and embeddedness values, all representing the emotional interdependence domain. Similar differences were found for the traditional hierarchical family values representing the material interdependence domain. To conclude, most measures belonging to the emotional interdependence domain were considerably lower in cultures assigned to the family model of emotional interdependence than in cultures assigned to the family model of (total) interdependence. While the results confirmed a declining importance of material interdependencies and hierarchies with rising affluence, the continuing high importance of emotional ties was not confirmed. Nevertheless, focusing on the still relatively high absolute mean values of most emotional interdependence variables in the independence cluster, the authors conclude that ‘to a large extent the predictions of the Family Change Model are borne out by the results’ (Georgas et al, 2006, p 229).Though I do not support this conclusion since it is derived largely independent of the resulting patterns of emotional and material interdependencies, the results of this large-scale study provide an invaluable resource for understanding young adults’ views on family relationships in a global perspective.

Emerging adults’  Value of Children, son preference and expectations of grown-up children in the US and urban and rural Turkey Aycicegi-Dinn and Kagitcibasi (2010) compared the perceived value of children across samples of emerging adults from two Turkish regions (urban versus rural) and from a metropolitan area in the US. In addition to reasons for having children, their VOC-instrument included items representing son preference as well as expectations of grown-up children. A factor analysis revealed two factors representing material interdependencies (social/traditional VOC including son preference and economic expectations from grown-up children) as well as two factors representing emotional interdependencies (emotional VOC and 177

Intergenerational relations

expectations of continued emotional closeness of grown-up children to their parents). Respondents were not only asked for their own values but also for their perception of their parents’ values. The results showed that the Turkish urban group reported lower social/traditional VOC than the rural group and the lowest economic expectations of grown-up children. While the emotional VOC was higher for both Turkish samples as compared to the American sample, Turkish urban participants scored lowest for the expectation of continuing closeness. Very similar results were shown for parents’ values of children and expectations of grown-up children. In additional analyses, when expectations of sons and daughters were differentiated, US parents held low expectations of their grown-up sons but they held the highest expectations of grown-up daughters. The authors interpret this finding as possibly reflecting an anti-patriarchal culture in the family model of independence. Overall, the hypothesised pattern of material and emotional interdependencies as predicted by FCT partly emerged in this study. However, instead of going along with the Turkish rural sample on high emotional interdependencies, urban Turkish emerging adults (and their perception of their parents’ views) scored lowest on emotional interdependencies with the exception of the emotional VOC. This result again questions the conceptualisation of the emotional VOC as a general indicator of emotional interdependence in the family.

Relationship quality and (expectations of) intergenerational support in Turkish, Palestinian, Israeli Arab, Israeli Jewish and German adolescents and their mothers Kagitcibasi et al (2010) compared Turkish, Palestinian, Israeli Arab, Israeli Jewish, and German adolescents and their mothers with respect to family-related variables from the new VOC-IR project.The Turkish sample was further divided into rural, urban low-class and urban high-class samples.Adolescents’ relationship quality with parents, the emotional support given to their parents as well as mothers’ material (financial) and non-material (emotional) expectations of grown-up children were compared across and within cultures. With regard to the expectations of grown-up children, the two scales representing the material versus the emotional interdependence domain were not analysed separately, however, but were joined to a total scale, with the result that a test of FCT with regard to the different kinds of expectations was no longer possible. Furthermore, mothers’ relationship quality with their own mothers, and their practical, emotional, as well as financial support given to parents was compared across and within cultures. It was expected that Germany, as an affluent and Western individualistic culture, reflects the family model of independence. All other samples were considered ‘cultures of relatedness’ (Kagitcibasi et al, 2010, p 655), and no specific predictions were made with regard to which cultural group reflected the family model of (total) interdependence and the family model of emotional interdependence.

178

Family change theory

Only a few relevant results will be discussed in the following. Within Turkey, rural adolescents reported higher emotional support for mothers than urban high-class adolescents, with urban low-class adolescents in-between. Furthermore, Turkish rural mothers had higher expectations of support from their adult children than the two urban samples but urban high-class mothers reported the highest support for their own mothers in all three support domains. Within Israel and Palestine, Israeli Arab adolescents reported the highest intimacy with as well as the highest emotional support for their mothers while Israeli Jews were lowest on both measures. Also, Israeli Jewish mothers reported the lowest expectations of grown-up children as well as the lowest intimacy with their own mothers. For the cross-cultural comparisons, the three Turkish groups as well as the Israeli Arab and Jewish groups were combined, respectively.5 Turkish adolescents reported the highest intimacy with their mothers, followed by Israeli (Jews and Arabs combined) and Palestinian adolescents, and by German adolescents who also reported the lowest emotional support for their mothers. Palestinian mothers reported the highest expectations of support from their grown-up children, followed by Israeli,Turkish and – much lower – German mothers. German mothers reported also the lowest intimacy, emotional support and financial support of their own mothers. The authors argue that while their study was rather exploratory, the results were generally in line with FCT since especially the Turkish rural group, the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs reported higher emotional support and intimacy (adolescents) as well as higher expectations of support and intimacy (mothers) compared to the German group. This interpretation does not take into account the inconsistent findings of the within-country comparisons, however. Also, it would have been helpful to formulate clear FCT-based expectations with regard to specific family models in this study. For example, the Turkish high-class as well as the Israeli Jewish group may be considered as representing the family model of emotional interdependence while the Palestinian and Turkish rural groups may represent the family model of (total) interdependence. This and a clear separation of measures representing the emotional versus the material interdependence domain (especially with regard to the expectations from grown-up children) would have allowed a more concrete test of the propositions of FCT.

Adolescents’ and their mothers’ patterns of cultural and family-related values in India,Turkey, and Germany Mayer et al (2012) employed a person-oriented approach to FCT by analysing individual-level patterns of cultural and family-related value orientations across three cultures (India, Turkey and Germany) and two connected generations (mothers and their adolescent children). The cultures were a priori specified to reflect the family model of (total) interdependence (India), the family model of emotional interdependence (Turkey) and the family model of independence (Germany), based on their economic background and general cultural orientation. 179

Intergenerational relations

The results of an individual-level cluster analysis of the full sample revealed three patterns of cultural and family-related value orientations. These patterns could be theoretically linked to the three family models. The cluster (pattern) representing the family model of (total) interdependence was characterised by low individualism, high family values and high economic-normative VOCs. On the contrary, the cluster representing the family model of independence was characterised by high individualism, low collectivism and family values, as well as very low economic-normative VOCs.The cluster representing the family model of emotional interdependence was characterised by a middle position: a high importance of individualism and a low importance of economic-normative VOCs (representing material interdependencies) were accompanied by high collectivism and family values (representing emotional interdependencies). Emotional VOCs were high in all three family models and even highest in the family model of independence, again questioning their utility for representing emotional interdependencies in the family. The results also showed that these family model value configurations differed across the three cultures in accordance with predictions based on FCT: the majority of German participants preferred the independent family model; the majority of Turkish participants the emotionally interdependent family model; and the majority of Indian participants the (totally) interdependent family model (see Figure 10.1). Within Turkey, the highest occurrence of the independent family model was in the urban high-class group; the highest occurrence of the emotionally interdependent family model was in the urban low-class group; and the highest occurrence of the (totally) interdependent family model was in the rural group. Within India, urban as compared to rural participants were overall more emotionally interdependent and the rural as compared to urban participants more (totally) interdependent. In all three countries mothers were overall more (totally or emotionally) interdependent than their adolescent sons and daughters, suggesting rather global processes of cultural change in direction of more independent family models in the adolescent generation. The differences between mothers and adolescents may also be partly due to age-specific effects that may be related to the experience of (not) having own children and an own family.6 In spite of these intergenerational differences, significant intergenerational stability and intra-family transmission of family models was found. Overall, this study demonstrated that the patterns of emotional and material interdependencies characteristic for three family models as suggested by FCT can be identified empirically at the individual level and that the cross-cultural differences with respect to these patterns were in line with expectations. However, the within cultural differences in Turkey as well as the generational differences suggest that the family model of emotional interdependence is a transitional rather than an alternative converging model, since the Turkish urban high-SES group as well as globally the adolescent group displayed substantially higher proportions of the family model of independence than the respective comparison groups.

180

Family change theory Figure 10.1: Family model cluster memberships across cultures and generations based on data provided in Mayer et al (2012) 100

Interdependence (n = 678)

90 80

Emotional interdependence (n = 659)

70 60 %

Independence (n = 488)

50 40 30 20

Germany

Turkey

Adolescents

Mothers

Adolescents

Mothers

Adolescents

0

Mothers

10

India

Conclusions The findings from the studies previously discussed offer some support for FCT, but a straightforward evaluation of the theory’s empirical status remains difficult. The distinctive feature of the theory, the family model of emotional interdependence could be partly identified and seems to be most prevalent in urban areas of economically developing cultures with a collectivistic background. However, cultures specified a priori as representing the family model of emotional interdependence were consistently lower in emotional interdependencies than cultures specified as representing the family model of (total) interdependence, a result not in line with FCT (see Kagitcibasi and Ataca, 2005; Georgas et al, 2006; Keller et al, 2006; AycicegiDinn and Kagitcibasi, 2010; Kagitcibasi et al, 2010). Only in the studies by Mayer et al (2012) and by Koutrelakos (2004) were emotional interdependencies not lower in the family model of emotional interdependence. For the Mayer et al (2012) study this result may be due to the person-oriented approach applied, which is especially useful when the central analytical entity is a pattern of operating factors like that of material and emotional interdependencies in FCT (Bergmann, 2001). In the other studies the picture may have been blurred by intra-culturally mixing individuals with an emotionally interdependent outlook with those with an independent outlook (which also may be on the rise), leading to an in-between

181

Intergenerational relations

position of these cultures with regard to emotional interdependencies at the level of mean values. This in-between position with regard to emotional interdependencies in combination with the clear-cut results regarding strongly declining material interdependencies and declining traditional hierarchies in modernising cultural contexts suggests that a global shift takes place in direction of familial independence in both domains – material as well as emotional – but that the decline may be slower for the emotional interdependencies (Keller et al, 2006; Greenfield, 2009). As already pointed out in the introduction to this chapter, in spite of the observed differences in emotional interdependence within families, this does not mean that emotional interdependencies were low in absolute terms in Western independent family cultures. On the contrary, Georgas et al (2006) suggested that the cultures pre-specified as representing the family model of independence in their study may be more precisely termed as emotionally interdependent since even those cultures displayed high absolute values of emotional interdependence (albeit substantially lower than the cultures pre-specified as totally interdependent; see also Mayer et al, 2012). Similarly, Kagitcibasi (2007) suggests that the independent family model may be more an individualistic cultural ideal-type rather than a real family model, and that emotional interdependencies are in fact much higher than expected. This would be in line with research generally identifying intensive and close intergenerational relationships in Western families (for example, Rossi and Rossi, 1990). Also, as Bengtson (2001) suggests, stronger bonds between generations in the nuclear family (for example, between grandparents and grandchildren) may make up for weaker bonds with extended kin (see also Hank and Buber, 2008; Chapter Nine). To reach a preliminary conclusion, it seems to be clear that modernisation actually does affect the level of emotional interdependence in the family. When material interdependencies weaken and individual autonomy rises, emotional bonds also seem to loosen to some extent. In this sense, FCT seems to be wrong. However, it is possible that the weakening of emotional ties may overall be less pronounced than the weakening of material ties and of traditional hierarchies. While families in the West obviously do experience strong emotional bonds, these bonds may be even stronger and possibly more satisfying in cultures characterised by a reformulated family model of emotional interdependence, one that takes into account the fact that emotional interdependencies weaken to some extent in the process of modernisation. This model could then be a real alternative not only for modernising collectivistic cultures but also for the Western family model of independence in which the basic human need for relatedness may be less than optimally fulfilled, as Kagitcibasi (2007) suggests. Overall then, FCT provides a valuable heuristic framework for evaluating global differences between family cultures, even if its assumptions with regard to a convergence to a family model of emotional interdependence may not bear out in the strict sense. Since the focus of FCT is on global comparisons and trends, its utility for cross-cultural comparisons

182

Family change theory

within specific cultural areas (for example, between Southern and Northern Europe) is, however, limited. The studies reviewed here used very different operationalisations of emotional and material family interdependence. Material interdependence is sometimes operationalised through hierarchical family relations as in the very specific measure of low self-disclosure between spouses used by Koutrelakos (2004).This operationalisation depends on the FCT definition of material interdependence as implying hierarchical family relations and low individual autonomy. This definition has to be further empirically validated. Overall, the heterogeneous operationalisations found here call for future studies explicitly aimed at defining and validating measures able to capture emotional and material interdependencies in the family in a cross-culturally equivalent way. An important note concerns the operationalisation of emotional interdependence through emotional values of children (emotional VOCs). The very high endorsement of emotional VOCs in nearly all cultures in the original VOC Study as well as in the new VOC-IR Study (for example, Mayer and Trommsdorff, 2010; Trommsdorff and Mayer, 2012) suggests that emotional reasons for having children may be important for (potential) parents at all times and in all places. Thus, the emotional VOC may represent a very special emotional aspect of family interdependencies, one that does not necessarily reflect the existing emotional closeness between family members, but rather an anticipated desire for closeness with a child. This desire seems to be universally high, but it may not necessarily lead to the close bonds that it anticipates in all cultural contexts. Especially when children become adolescents and adults, the emotional closeness may weaken in Western cultures. One may also speculate that especially in Western cultures emotional VOCs are based more on a desire for personal growth and joy experienced through having a child rather than on the anticipated closeness with the child per se. This would give the high salience of emotional VOCs in Western societies a rather individualistic interpretation. In sum, the special nature of emotional VOCs makes them unsuitable as indicators of overall emotional interdependence in the family, and this has created confusion in some studies as noted earlier (see especially Kagitcibasi and Ataca, 2005; Aycicegi-Dinn and Kagitcibasi, 2010). A further important point concerns the a priori assignment of cultures to one of the three family models that seems rather arbitrary at times. As mentioned before, participants from Greece were assigned to each of the three family models in different studies (Keller et al, 2006: independence; Van den Heuvel and Poortinga, 1999: emotional interdependence; Koutrelakos, 2004: total interdependence). It is obvious that applying FCT makes sense only when there are clear guidelines on which hypotheses with regard to a specific culture’s predominant family model can be based.These conditions are clearest when using FCT in multi-cultural comparisons of very different cultural contexts that can be clearly categorised with regard to their level of affluence and general cultural background.

183

Intergenerational relations

Outlook The family has received a lot of attention recently in Western societies, partly due to permanently low fertility rates and higher life expectancies that are challenging the functioning of social security systems and increasing the need for intergenerational solidarity. Societal efforts are being made to reconcile jobs and families and to re-establish a work–life balance that may help emotional interdependencies to thrive (Bertram, 2012). In addition, the recent economic crisis in Europe and the US seems to allow family bonds to grow more important again (see also Chapter Twelve). Although few in the West are waiting for a ‘return of patriarchy’ as Longman (2006) expects it, the family model of emotional interdependence (or its reformulated version presented here) may indeed constitute an inspiring paradigm for the future of the family in a globalised world. Future studies are needed to further examine the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness in the family on the basis of cross-culturally valid indicators. Cross-cultural studies with larger numbers of cultures are needed to illuminate and evaluate the various paths of family change in modern and modernising societies. Family change theory, as well as competing explanations (see, for example, Nauck, 2009), will play an important role in this endeavour. Notes The author would like to thank the editors as well as Olaf Reis and Gisela Trommsdorff for valuable comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

1

2

‘Majority World’ is Kagitcibasi’s term for the non-Western part of the world.

Both ‘emotional interdependence’ and ‘psychological interdependence’ – as well as their combination – have been used in the literature. In this chapter the term ‘emotional interdependence’ will be used throughout the text.

3

A slightly different clustering was employed for hypotheses based on the eco-cultural framework. Results related to this clustering will not be discussed here. 4

The combination of the Israeli Arab and the Jewish group is justified with their geographic proximity by Kagitcibasi et al (2010). Based on the results of the within-culture comparisons reported by the authors and based on ethnic and cultural heritage it may have been advisable to combine the two Arabic groups (Israeli Arabs and Palestinians) and to treat the Israeli Jewish participants as a separate sample. 5

Because of the cross-sectional design of the study, a separation of the effects of cultural change and age was not possible. 6

References Aycicegi-Dinn, A. and Kagitcibasi, C. (2010) ‘The value of children for parents in the minds of emerging adults’, Cross-Cultural Research, vol 44, no 2, pp 174–205.

184

Family change theory

Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan,W.M., Swidler,A. and Tipton, S.M. (1985) Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life, London: Hutchinson. Bengtson, V.L. (2001) ‘Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 63, no 1, pp 1–16. Berger, P.L. and Huntington, S.P. (eds) (2002) Many globalizations. Cultural diversity in the contemporary world, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bergmann, L.R. (2001) ‘A person approach in research on adolescence: some methodological challenges’, Journal of Adolescent Research, vol 16, no 1, pp 28–53. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H. and Dasen, P.R. (2002) Cross-cultural psychology: research and applications (2nd edn), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bertram, H. (2012) ‘Care, attachments, and the diversity of modernity: perspectives for a future-oriented family policy’, in H. Bertram and N. Ehlert (eds) Family, ties, and care. Family transformation in a plural modernity, Berlin: Barbara Budrich, pp 611–48. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Eggebeen, D.J. and Wilhelm, M.O. (1995) ‘Patterns of support given by older Americans to their children’, in S.A. Bass (ed) Older and active: how Americans over 55 are contributing to society, New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, pp 122–68. Georgas, J. (1991) ‘Intrafamily acculturation of values in Greece’, Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, vol 22, no 4, pp 445–57. Georgas, J., Berry, J.W., Van de Vijver, F.J.R., Kagitcibasi, C. and Poortinga, Y.H. (eds) (2006) Families across cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goode, W.J. (1963) World revolution and family patterns, Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Greenfield, P.M. (2009) ‘Linking social change and developmental change: shifting pathways of human development’, Developmental Psychology, vol  45, no 2, pp 401–18. Hank, K. and Buber, I. (2008) ‘Grandparents caring for their grandchildren. Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 30, no 1, pp 53–73. Hoffman, L.W. and Hoffman, M.L. (1973) ‘The value of children to parents’, in J.T. Fawcett (ed) Psychological perspectives on population, New York: Basic Books, pp 19–77. Inglehart, R. and Oyserman, D. (2004) ‘Individualism, autonomy, self-expression. The human development sequence’, in H.Vinken, J. Soeters and P. Ester (eds) Comparing cultures: dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective, Leiden: Brill, pp 74–96. Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, cultural change, and democracy:The human development sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inkeles,A. and Smith, D.H. (1974) Becoming modern: Individual change in six developing countries, London: Heinemann.

185

Intergenerational relations

Kagitcibasi, C. (1982) ‘Old-age security value of children: cross-national socioeconomic evidence’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol  13, no  1, pp 29–42. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996) Family and human development across cultures: a view from the other side, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kagitcibasi, C. (1999) ‘The model of family change: a rejoinder’, International Journal of Psychology, vol 34, no 1, pp 15–17. Kagitcibasi, C. (2007) Family, self, and human development across cultures: theory and applications (2nd edn), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kagitcibasi, C. and Ataca, B. (2005) ‘Value of children and family change: a threedecade portrait from Turkey’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol 54, no 3, pp 317–37. Kagitcibasi, C., Ataca, B. and Diri, A. (2010) ‘Intergenerational relationships in the family: ethnic, socioeconomic, and country variations in Germany, Israel, Palestine, and Turkey’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol  41, no  5–6, pp 652–70. Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Jensen, H., Papaligoura, Z., Holub, C., Lo, W., Tomiyama, A. J., Su, Y., Wang, Y. and Chaudhary, N. (2006) ‘Cultural models, socialization goals, and parenting ethnotheories’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 37, no 2, pp 155–72. Koutrelakos, J. (2004) ‘Acculturation of Greek Americans: change and continuity in cognitive schemas guiding intimate relationships’, International Journal of Psychology, vol 39, no 2, pp 95–105. Longman, P. (2006) ‘The return of patriarchy’, Foreign Policy Magazine, 1 March, pp 1–3. Mayer, B. and Trommsdorff, G. (2010) ‘Adolescents’ value of children and their intentions to have children: A cross-cultural and multilevel analysis’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol 41, no 5–6, pp 671–89. Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kagitcibasi, C. and Mishra, R.C. (2012) ‘Family models of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India’, Family Science, vol 3, no 1, pp 64–74. Nauck, B. (2009) ‘One or two pathways to modernity? A systematic comparison of Kagitcibasi‘s “Model of Family Change” and the “Model of the Second Demographic Transition”’, in S. Bekman and A. Acsu-Koc (eds) Perspectives on human development, family, and culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 209–26. Rossi, A.S. and Rossi, P.H. (1990) Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course, New York: de Gruyter. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. and Grolnick, W.S. (1995) ‘Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: their relation to development and psychopathology’, in D. Cicchetti and D.J. Cohen (eds.) Developmental psychopathology, Vol 1: Theory and methods, New York: Wiley, pp 618–55. Schwartz, S.H. (1994) ‘Are there universal aspects in the structure and content of human values?’, Journal of Social Issues, vol 50, no 4, pp 19–45. 186

Family change theory

Singelis, T.M. (1994) ‘The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol 20, no 5, pp 580–91. Thornton, A. (2005) Reading history sideways:The fallacy and enduring impact of the developmental paradigm on family life, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trommsdorff, G. (2009) ‘Intergenerational relations and cultural transmission’, in U. Schönpflug (ed) Cultural transmission: psychological, developmental, social, and methodological aspects, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 126–60. Trommsdorff, G. and Mayer, B. (2012) ‘A cross-cultural study of intergenerational relations’, in H. Bertram and N. Ehlert (eds) Family, ties, and care: Family transformation in a plural modernity, Berlin: Barbara Budrich, pp 315–42. Trommsdorff, G. and Nauck, B. (eds) (2005) The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies, Lengerich: Pabst Science. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2011) Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and equity: A better future for all, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Van den Heuvel, K. and Poortinga, Y.H. (1999) ‘Resource allocation by Greek and Dutch students: a test of three models’, International Journal of Psychology, vol 34, no 1, pp 1–13.

187

Part III Applied issues and practical focus

189

eleven

How does family sociology contribute to the definition and measurement of a concept of family care for elderly persons? Amandine J. Masuy

Introduction The determinants of informal care and its sustainability over time represent an important research question in the ageing society of today given that population ageing has become an urgent topic on the agenda of most West-European countries (Ferring, 2010). As recent studies have shown, the challenge will be to meet the increasing demand for elderly care with a shrinking health budget (Spillman and Pezzin, 2000; Rodrigues and Schmidt, 2010; see also Chapter Twelve).Against this background, the family is increasingly important in providing the necessary – and less cost-intensive – care if the sustainability of public financing is challenged. When highlighting the importance of the family one has to underline that women are traditionally charged with elderly care within the family. Over the last three decades, lower fertility and higher participation by women in the labour force, marital instability and geographical mobility have reshaped family interactions and the availability of adult children to take on caring responsibilities. Despite these social and demographic changes, there is still strong evidence in the literature that the family remains the first source of elderly care with the specification that wives and adult daughters are no longer the sole care providers (Di Rosa et al, 2011). In this chapter, a definition of ‘family care for older adults’ will be proposed, and specific indicators that describe this particular family situation will be derived and discussed. The present author takes the – certainly consensual – position that an analysis of the phenomenon and its major characteristics as well as the development of meaningful social policies will be possible only on the basis of a sound definition. Conceptualising care for elderly persons in the family will thus avoid misestimation of the care situations and needs associated with dependent elderly persons in a family. As a first step, a historical perspective will be given by describing some different meanings underlying the care concept.

191

Intergenerational relations

Family care in the perspectives of medical science and social policy In the traditional family model, looking after the children, the sick and the elderly members of the family was not considered as a separate ‘care’ activity but as an integrative and ‘natural’ part of the woman’s duty.The term ‘care’ itself originates in part from the medical world referring to the professional activities directed to frail or dependent people that were usually performed under medical supervision. The term ‘community care’ appeared in Great Britain in the 1950s. In the context of care budget retrenchments, it officially indicated care policies for dependent people aiming at reducing the frequency and the length of the stay in hospital and care institutions (Degavre and Nyssens, 2008).Titmuss (1963) was one of the first authors in favour of community care although he did not define and refine the term ‘community’, in particular whether or not it included the family. In gender studies following a feminist perspective, the term ‘care’ is discussed in its meaning and significance outside of the medical institutions (for example, Land, 1978; Finch and Groves, 1983; Ungerson, 1987). Authors from this perspective introduced the concept of ‘informal care’ to refer to the ‘activity’ of looking after dependent family members.The purpose underlying this discourse evidently was to equate ‘caring’ and other ‘invisible (domestic) duties’ performed by women with ‘work’ or ‘economic activity’, and no longer consider these as ‘natural duties’. Gender studies contributed mainly to two of the three ‘care debates’ identified by Martin (2008): the philosophical debate on the ethics of care (Tronto, 1998), and the political debate concerning the articulation of the private and the public spheres through the organisation of ‘social care’. The feminist perspective also urged the inclusion of the care regime specificities in the general welfare states typology of Esping-Anderson (1990; see also Lewis, 1992; see also Chapter Two). This chapter focuses on the caring relationship within the family, and the care regime specificities that result will be elaborated using conceptual contributions from a feminist perspective. A first contribution is to consider informal care as ‘invisible work’ (Waerness, 1978). ‘Invisible’ refers to a phenomenon that exists but is difficult to identify (in this case because it is embedded in social norms or roles), whereas ‘work’ refers to an activity requiring an effort involving a cost (in time, money, stress, and so on).A second concept is ‘family negotiation’ (Finch and Mason, 1993).This term describes the concept that family care responsibility and its modalities are not fixed, but are rather the result of a continuous negotiation between the members of the family, taking into account their common and individual norms, expectations and personal life histories. These notions will be elaborated further in the following section.

The specificity of family care for older adults The feminist position brought the care debate to the political arena. Protagonists of such a position recognised the difference between caring for a child, a sick 192

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

or an elderly relative, but their focus was mostly on the implications of care for the provider, and not on the care recipients and their specific needs. Care for an elderly person in a state of dependence differs from ‘child’ care, evidently not only by the age of the care recipient, but by several other aspects. These should be accounted for in the definition and the measurement, that is, construction of indicators of family care for elderly persons. In the following some of these specificities that may seem quite obvious at a first glance but nevertheless need elaboration because of their immediate importance for social policy will be listed. To care for a young child is a major and primary part of the parental role: future parents know that they are responsible for their children and that their role is to care for them. Grandparents or other family members may give occasional support but the daily childcare is usually assumed by one or both parents (see also Chapter Nine). Moreover, the care intensity is expected to decrease over time as children grow up and gradually gain independence and autonomy. Caring for an elderly relative is quite different (Trabut and Weber, 2009). First, it represents a kind of ‘activity’ that is ‘added’ to a pre-existing relationship. Furthermore, it is often very difficult to identify when the care relationship starts, and family ‘carers’ do not always have a clear insight into the content and the duration of their caring role. Additionally, the intensity of care is likely to increase over time and to affect the quality of the pre-existing relationship. Even if the care responsibility can be shared within the family or with professionals, there is often one main individual who is in charge of the bulk of the care (Masuy, 2011). It is also interesting to pinpoint some differences between family care and formal care for elderly persons because it highlights – as argued earlier – some ‘invisible’ aspects of family care. Formal care is usually well-defined in time, tasks and costs. The relationship between the care recipient and the care provider is a contractual one and is motivated and defined by the care needs. Although affective bonds or affinities may develop and make the relationship more than simply ‘contractual’, one professional may substitute another if needed. The family care relationship follows other ‘rules’, more implicit and complex than those of the labour market. The content, time and opportunity costs of informal care are very difficult to evaluate (Van den Berg et al, 2005; Davin et al, 2009; De Meijer et al, 2010).This is to some extent because part of the activities will be performed by the carer anyway (for example, preparing meals for the whole family) and because they are not considered as a specific ‘caring task’ (if there are no special regimes to be considered). The nature and history of the relations also influence what is perceived, what is effectively given, and what is declared as care by both interaction partners. All this taken together, a perfect ‘substitution’ of a family carer by a formal carer does not seem to be possible. In the following section, this notion of a lack of comparability between formal and informal care will be discussed in more detail, and it will be shown that this also holds for the choice and measurement of indicators representing the need for informal care.

193

Intergenerational relations

The standard measures of family care for elderly persons Two linked phenomena may help to explain the increasing political interest in elderly family care over the last decades in Western countries: (a) the intensification of the population ageing process which increases the demand for long-term care, and (b) the shrinking offer of institutional and community formal care due to increasing costs and often a shortage of health care workers.As has been shown in many studies, the family is often the first and the main source of care in old age. To rely on the family, therefore, seems to be a cheaper and easier solution from an economic perspective. But family care certainly has its limits in time, skills and availability and may have consequences on the carers’ work (Henz, 2006; Crespo, 2007; Heitmueller and Inglis, 2007) and health (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2006; Ekwall and Hallberg, 2007; De Koker, 2010; Perrig-Chiello and Hutchison, 2010). It is thus important to identify the person in charge of caring, the amount and intensity of care and the consequences of care. This should help policy makers to develop measures to support the elderly living in the community and their family carers. The first attempts to identify and measure informal care activities were motivated by economic reasons. This might explain why most of the tools and theories used in questionnaires and in the early research on informal care stem from health economics. Besides this, an apparent influence of the medical sphere can also be derived if one inspects the criteria used to define the needs and the (missing) capacities of the care recipient. A first list was defined by Katz et al (1963) including the activities of daily living (ADL), such as getting up, lying down, eating, using the toilet and washing oneself. While this list comprises the basic or essential activities,1 a second list – established by Lawton and Brody (1969) – includes instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). This list comprises more complex and demanding activities such as preparing meals, doing the shopping, using transportation, using the telephone, doing housework, washing clothes, managing money and administrative tasks. These two series of activities are often used in hospitals and institutions of elder care to evaluate the level of dependency of the elderly patient. Moreover, a professional care division is also based on these activities, since there are services for housework, meals-on-wheels, and nurses for helping with ADL, and so on. Using ADL and IADL to describe informal care activities is however problematic. This is especially so with respect to IADL care that is provided by co-resident carers, since the majority of these activities can be considered as being part of the usual household division of tasks (Chappell, 1991; De Koker, 2008). Therefore, a woman may not identify doing the washing up as ‘caring for her husband’ because she did it long before his disability occurred. In contrast, a man will more easily identify doing the washing up as ‘caring for his wife’ if he never did it beforehand. The ADL/IADL criteria may over- or underestimate the informal care provided.

194

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

Such a view also has consequences for the economic perspective on formal and informal care. Here, an attempt is made to describe the intensity/load of informal care in order to measure the collective and individual cost of informal care, as well as to evaluate what would be the most efficient combination of formal and informal care. Using the ‘time allocation theory’ (Becker, 1965), caring is considered as one of the weekly activities to which individuals decide to allocate a certain amount of time based on rational choice and in order to maximise their well-being.To quantify the ‘caring time’, economists ask the carer or the care recipient how much time is spent in helping with the ADL and IADL or for ‘caring’. Like the medical approach, the economic approach suffers from a specification problem, since the time spent in caring is not so easy to estimate. For instance, how to evaluate the ‘net’ time allocated to IADL care when the carer spends two hours doing the weekly family shopping? Another problem is its translation into policy: the mere measure of the intensity of care is not very informative for policy makers.To implement a financial compensation policy, the caring intensity should be translated into (opportunity) costs. Another possibility would be to opt for a support policy for intensive carers but this requires defining a caring intensity threshold above which a carer is entitled to professional support. A third problem comes from the use of the rational choice to justify the caring time. Caring is, per se, a relational activity: the time allocated and its content will be influenced by the needs and resources of both sides and not only by an individual well-being criterion (see also Chapter Thirteen, as well as Chapter Twelve).

Towards a sociological approach to care A sociological perspective in care is primarily interested in what makes the ‘social link’. Family care (or family solidarity in general) is, per se, a kind of social link or interaction and, therefore, family care for older adults can be considered as a sociological object. While the disciplinary approaches like economics or medical sciences (necessarily) focus on selected aspects of care fitting the specific disciplinary objectives, a sociological perspective tries to describe the complexity of the ‘informal caring’ relation and its context. In such a view, an explanation of family solidarity relying on the needs of the care recipient or as a result of a rational choice can be considered as too narrow. Such a position is perhaps more commonly found in non-English-speaking Europe, where the sociological tradition is more critical and theoretical. In France, for instance, sociologists have discussed the concept of ‘care’ and the difficulty of translating this term into French (Martin, 2008).They found that although ‘care’ can be translated into Sorge in German or into cuidado in Spanish, they were not able to find a direct translation into French. While ‘help’ and ‘cure’ are perfectly translated into aide and traitement, ‘care’ does not match any existing word. The closest term to ‘care’ in French would be soin. 195

Intergenerational relations

Sociological research in Europe reflects the idea that ‘care’ means something more than cure and help. This ‘more’ refers to the relational aspect of caring: the two participants come with their own personal history, values and expectations and will have to (re)negotiate the modalities of their interactions. A sociologist perspective on care, thus, highlights three important aspects: first, the need to situate family care for elderly persons in its context; second, the role of social and individual norms and expectations in the definition of interaction which constitutes care; third, the complexity of defining the content and the delimitation of family care.

Family care for elderly persons in its context Family sociologists tend to consider care for older adults as a specific form of family solidarity, and following the typology of Bengtson and Roberts (1991), this would be classified as ‘functional solidarity’.The authors identify five other forms of solidarity – ‘associative’, ‘emotional’, ‘consensual’, ‘normative’ and ‘structural’ – and they show how these various types of solidarity are interrelated and should be studied simultaneously. Other researchers looked at the interrelations between upward and downward solidarities between generations (Künemund and Rein, 1999; Wolff and AttiasDonfut, 2007).The majority of the results converge in concluding that, in Western countries, financial support is more often descending while instrumental support is more often ascending (Fokkema et al, 2008). Of course, this also depends on the age and resources of family members. Within this context, it should be underlined that a sociological approach is broader than the economic and medical perspective because it does not restrict the study to a specific phenomenon such as the transfer from a carer to a care recipient, but it investigates the network of all the potential carers. Family sociology is interested in the whole system of exchanges of goods within a family and thus resituates family care in its context. The conception of global system of exchange refers to the anthropological theory of the don contre-don of Mauss (2001 [1950]): all social relationships are ruled by three obligations, namely, to give, to receive and to give back. In other words, the exchanges are regulated by a reciprocity mechanism. Even though Mauss has built his theory at the society level, social networks studies have found evidence of the reciprocity mechanism in smaller scale networks like school, family or neighbourhood as well (Antonucci and Akiyama, 1987; Déchaux, 1996; Degenne and Lebeaux, 1997). These studies also show that the modalities of the relationship between two network members may be influenced by their relationship with the rest of the network. Applied to informal care it means that, for instance, the fact and the way that a daughter provides care for her mother is influenced by the decisions of the other potential carers.

196

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

Discovering the influence of social norms on care decisions Alongside the reciprocity principle, filial obligations and other social, cultural or generational norms (such as gender roles definition, public–private mix arrangement or the tendency towards familiarism or individualism) may influence family caring decisions (Dwyer and Seccombe, 1991; Dwyer and Coward, 1992). Moreover, these factors also affect the carer’s and the care recipient’s self-definition, expectations and perception of care (Ikkink et al, 1999). For instance, if a father thinks that it is ‘natural’ that women take care of the elderly, he will be more likely to evaluate the help received from a son as an activity of ‘care’ since this would represent an ‘extra-role activity’.The same help received from a spouse or daughter will probably not get such an evaluation since it represents an ‘integrated-role activity’. Similarly, children living in a country with a high level of collectivism may find it more ‘natural’ to care for their relatives than those brought up in a more ‘individualist’ culture (see also Chapter Ten).

Accounting for the complexity of care interactions If the modalities of family care for the elderly person are ruled by social, cultural and generational norms, then one may wonder how this kind of solidarity will survive the individualisation of the society. Sociological studies on intergenerational solidarities present a twofold answer to this question: family solidarities and concern are still very strong today, but their modalities have changed. One change concerns the means of communication and the available care resources. The new information and communication technologies make longdistance contact easier, and the development of community care services may thus allow children to provide financial support (buying the services) if they cannot provide the support required themselves (Quadrello et al, 2005). A second change deals with the effect of individualisation on the adult child– parent relationship. This will probably be more visible to study when the baby boomers become the care recipients: this generation was the first to benefit from the contraceptive revolution.The availability of contraception may have reduced the number of unplanned and unwanted children in this generation; due to this, a generation practising birth control may even have developed closer and more affective relationships with their ‘wanted’ children.This does not, however, exclude the possibility that a child may feel closer to one parent than to the other and vice versa which will have a further impact on care interactions (De Singly, 1993). Besides, the social norms of autonomy and ‘self-development’ also affect the care interactions: some parent may not want to ‘depend on’ their children and prefer to receive formal care. Of course, all these aspects are interrelated and contribute to the feeling of ambivalence adult children may face when they try to balance their willingness to care for a beloved parent and wanting to preserve their reciprocal autonomy (Connidis and McMullin, 2002; Bengtson and Giarrusso, 2002; Ferring et al, 2009; see also Chapter Three). 197

Intergenerational relations

A third factor which may have an impact on informal care is the destandardisation of family structure. In pre- and post-war Europe, the traditional family form comprised a married couple having (numerous) children, siblings and some elderly relative to care for over a relatively short time. This has dramatically and continuously changed during the last 50 years, since family structures tend to be diverse. While the average number of children is decreasing, the number of coexisting generations is on the rise; marriage is less frequent and less stable; more women are working and remain on the labour market up to the age of 50 years or even longer; life expectancy is still increasing, even at very old ages. These changes result in a decreasing number of potential family carers and in the onset of new caring situations, like the ‘sandwich generation’ of adults who support their parents and their children at the same time, or elderly couples where the spouse who is caring also needs to be cared for (Gaymu et al, 2008). It also raises the issue of how to organise long-term community care for the isolated elderly person: such as those who are childless, migrants, or divorced parents having lost contact with their children.

Conclusion: towards a new definition The aim of this chapter has been to provide some ideas for further discussing the concept of family care for elderly persons and its measurement from a sociological view point. Two nuances should be pointed out before concluding. The first is that the three contributions described here are not only defended by sociologists. Psychologists and other social researchers also highlight the limitations of the rational choice theory and underline the importance of a holistic view of the elderly person and his/her needs. The second is that most theoretical work on family solidarity referenced here concerns intergenerational solidarity only, while putting aside intragenerational solidarity like spousal care, for instance. Research on spousal care often focuses on the consequences of these specific care configurations, but only very few have looked at the identification and the content of the provided care (for example, Arber and Ginn, 1990; De Koker, 2008).Taking all this into consideration, it can be seen that family care for the elderly person is a ‘legitimate’ issue for social policy given that the ultimate aim of social policy is the individual and collective well-being of the population. In the present author’s opinion, social policy should take the specificities of family care for the elderly person into account to a much greater extent. Many studies show that elderly family care is a widespread phenomenon. But the literature also highlights the frequent and dramatic consequences of caring ‘too much’. At the individual level, providing intense care may result in psychological and physical health problems and difficulties for the carer who must combine work and family responsibilities; if ‘carer’s burnout’ occurs, the risk of emergency institutionalisation for the elderly person is higher; finally, there is a risk of deterioration of relationship quality and ill treatment that may occur from both 198

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

sides. At the collective level, family care may lead to an important decrease in the participation in the labour force by women, who still tend to be more flexible and less work oriented than men (Henz, 2006); this clearly represents a threat to gender equality as well as to the sustainability of pension systems. Finally, family carers who exceed their physical and psychological limits may also need support and, therefore, rather than reducing the public costs of ageing, relying too much on family care may increase the ageing ‘burden’ and related costs. Studies on family care for elderly persons usually rely on an ‘objective’ measure of care by making use of survey questions asking, for example, what are the activities performed, the number of hours spent providing care or, simply, whether the respondent provides or receives care from family members. The underlying assumptions are that elderly family caring is well delimited, objectively perceived and reported (no respondent bias). These studies will usually lead to a definition of risk groups by fixing (more or less arbitrarily) a cut-off point: people caring more than x number of hours, or for x number of activities, and so on are to be considered as target groups for social policies. Other studies (for example, Mandemakers and Dykstra, 2008) questioned the previous assumptions and found many parameters that may influence how people perceive and report the provided and received care: the analysis level, the identity of the respondent or the timing of the interview in the care history (for example, underestimation is more frequent at the beginning of the care relationship). These findings highlight the subjective aspect of the definition of care and the reluctance of the respondents to give information related to more personal and intimate aspects of care. An intermediate definition is suggested here, based on the extra dimension of care and trying to integrate subjective and objective elements. This would involve defining and measuring care by the ‘extra’ resources (time, money, space) the respondent (carer or care recipient) ‘estimates’ that a given carer uses partly or totally for the care recipient(s). The term ‘resources’ refers to an observable or measurable objective aspect. The term ‘extra’ denotes that resources which are usually allocated to the care recipient are excluded (for example, task division, long-term cohabitation). The term ‘estimate’ indicates the subjective aspect, because what is ‘extra’ or ‘usual’ is defined by the respondent her- or himself. From such a perspective, care may include several activities and investments (for example, loss of time when the carers are not able to work, to sleep or to do other usual activities because they are worried for the care recipient; the time spent in searching for information on the illness; the space given to the care recipient in case of a new cohabitation situation, and so on). Although this definition also has its limitations, it has two main advantages.The first is that it does not contravene the intimacy of the family because the definition allows for a differentiation between usual task division and care.The second is that it focuses on areas where social policy may have an impact. For instance, by asking the respondent to ‘estimate’ what constitutes ‘extra activities’, it will be possible to identify what is or should become ‘too heavy’ in the current care interaction, and 199

Intergenerational relations

this is where social policy has a role to play. Alongside these ‘subjective’ indicators, objective measures of the individual and collective costs of informal care also have to be further developed, including the physical, psychological and social costs as well as economic costs. By combining both approaches, a holistic and, thus, more sound analysis of the phenomenon of informal care will be possible and this will form the background of to adequate social policy planning. Note 1

The French term ‘actes essentielles de la vie’ describes this more explicitly.

References Antonucci, T.C. and Akiyama, H. (1987) ‘Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 42, no 5, pp 519–27. Arber, S. and Ginn, J. (1990) ‘The meaning of informal care: gender and the contribution of elderly people’, Ageing and Society, vol 10, no 4, pp 429-54. Becker, G.S. (1965) ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, The Economic Journal, vol 75, no 299, pp 493–517. Bengtson, V.L. and Roberts, R.E. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 53, no 4, pp 856–70. Bengtson, V.L. and Giarrusso, R. (2002) ‘Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships?’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, no 3, pp 568–76. Chappell, N.L. (1991) ‘Living arrangements and sources of caregiving’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 46, no 1, pp S1–S8. Connidis, I.A. and McMullin, J.A. (2002) ‘Sociological ambivalence and family ties: a critical perspective’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 64, no 3, pp 558–67. Crespo, L. (2007) Caring for parents and employment status of European mid-life women. CEMFI Working Paper no 0615, Madrid, Spain, available at: ftp://ftp.cemfi.es/ wp/06/0615.pdf. Davin, B., Paraponaris, A. and Verger, P. (2009) ‘Entre famille et marché: Déterminants et coûts monétaires de l’aide formelle et informelle reçue par les personnes âgées en domicile ordinaire’, Revue management et avenir, vol 6, no 26, pp 190–204. De Koker, B. (2008) ‘Socio-demographic determinants of informal caregiving: co-resident versus extra-resident care’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 6, no 1, pp 3–15. De Koker, B. (2010) ‘Perceived care giver burden of spouses and children in Flanders: who’s feeling more burdened and why?’, in G. Doblhammer and R. Scholz (eds) Ageing, care need and quality of life:The perspective of care givers and people in need of care, Wiesbaden:Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften-Springer, pp 204–21.

200

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

De Meijer, C., Brouwer, W., Koopmanschap, M.,Van den Berg, B. and Van Exel, J. (2010) ‘The value of informal care: A further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers’, Health Economics, vol 19, no 7, pp 755–71. De Singly, F. (1993) Sociologie de la famille contemporaine, Paris: Nathan. Degavre, F. and Nyssens, M. (2008) ‘L’innovation sociale dans les services d’aide à domicile: les apports d’une lecture polanyienne et féministe’, Revue Française de Socio-économie, vol 2008/2, pp 79–98. Degenne, A. and Lebeaux, M.-O. (1997) ‘Qui aide qui, pour quoi?’, L’année Sociologique, vol 47, no 1, pp 117–47. Déchaux, J.-H. (1996) ‘Les services dans la parenté : fonction, régulation, effets’, in J.-C. Kaufmann (eds), Faire ou faire faire, Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, pp 39–54. Di Rosa, M., Kofahl, C., McKee, K., Bień, B., Lamura, G., Prouskas, C., Döhner, H. and Mnich, E. (2011) ‘A typology of caregiving situations and service use in family carers of older people in six European countries.The EUROFAMCARE study’, GeroPsych:The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 24, no 1, pp 5–18. Dwyer, J.W. and Coward, R.T. (1992) Gender, families, and elder care, Newbury Park (California): Sage. Dwyer, J.W. and Seccombe, K. (1991) ‘Elder care as family labor: the influence of gender and family position’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 12, no 2, pp 229–47. Ekwall, A.K. and Hallberg, I.R. (2007) ‘The association between caregiving satisfaction, difficulties and coping among older family caregivers’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol 16, no 5, pp 832–44. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ferring, D., Michels, T., Boll, T. and Filipp, S.-H. (2009) ‘Relationship quality with ageing parents: on solidarity, conflicts, and ambivalence’, European Journal of Ageing, vol. 6, no 4, pp 253–65. Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Editorial’, GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 23, no 4, p 181. Finch, J. and Groves, D. (1983) A labour of love:Women, working and caring, London: Routledge. Finch, J. and Mason, J. (1993) Negotiating family obligations, London: Routledge. Fokkema, T., ter Bekke, S. and Dykstra, P.A. (2008). Solidarity between parents and their adult children in Europe. NIDI report no 76. Amsterdam: Knaw Press, available at: http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/ en/output/reports/nidi-report-76.pdf/ nidi-report-76.pdf. Gaymu, J., Festy, P., Poulain, M. and Beets, G. (2008) Future elderly living conditions in Europe (FELICIE), Paris: Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques (INED). Heitmueller, A. and Inglis, K. (2007) ‘The earnings of informal carers: Wage differentials and opportunity costs’, Journal of Health Economics, vol  26, no  4, pp 821–41. 201

Intergenerational relations

Henz, U. (2006) ‘Informal caregiving at working age: effects of job characteristics and family configuration’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 68, no 6, pp 411–29. Ikkink, K.K.,Van Tilburg,T. and Knipscheer, K.C. (1999) ‘Perceived instrumental support exchanges in relationships between elderly parents and their adult children: normative and structural explanations’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 61, no 4, pp 831–44. Katz, S., Ford,A.B., Moskowitz, R.W., Jackson, B.A. and Jaffe, M.W. (1963) ‘Studies of illness in the aged’, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 185, no 12, pp 914–19. Künemund, H. and Rein, M. (1999) ‘There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out’, Ageing and Society, vol 19, no1, pp 93–121. Land, H. (1978) ‘Who cares for the family’, Journal of Social Policy, no 7, pp 257–84. Lawton M.P. and Brody, E.M. (1969) ‘Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living’, The Gerontologist, vol  9, no  3, pp 179–86. Lewis, J. (1992) ‘Gender and the development of welfare regime’, Journal of European Social Policy, vol 2, no 3, pp 159–73. Mandemakers, J.J. and Dykstra, P.A. (2008) ‘Discrepancies in parent’s and adult child’s reports of support and contact’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 70, no 2, pp 495–506. Martin, C. (2008) ‘Qu’est-ce que le social care? Une revue de questions’, Revue Française de Socio-économie, vol 2008/2, pp 27–42. Masuy, A.J. (2011) How does elderly family care evolve over time? An analysis of the care provided to the elderly by their spouse and children in the Panel Study of Belgian Households 1992–2002, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain no 660/2011. Mauss, M. (2001) Sociologie et anthropologie, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. (2006) ‘Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: an updated meta-analysis’, Journals of Gerontology: Series B, vol 61, no 1, pp P33–P45. Perrig-Chiello, P. and Hutchison, S. (2010) ‘Family caregivers of elderly persons. A differential perspective on stressors, resources, and well-being’, GeroPsych:The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 23, no 4, pp 195–206. Quadrello, T., Hurme, H., Menzinger, J., Smith, P.K., Veisson, M., Vidal, S. and Westerback, S. (2005) ‘Grandparents use of new communication technologies in a European perspective’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, no 3, pp 200–7. Rodrigues, R. and Schmidt, A.E. (2010) ‘Expenditures for long-term care. At the crossroads between family and state’, GeroPsych:The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 23, no 4, pp 183–93. Spillman, B.C. and Pezzin, L.E. (2000) ‘Potential and active family caregivers: changing networks and the “sandwich generation”’, The Milbank Quarterly, vol 78, no 3, pp 347–74.

202

Elderly care definition and measurement in sociology

Titmuss, R. (1963) ‘Community care: fact or fiction’, in H. Freeman and J. Farndale (eds) Trends in the mental health services, Oxford: Pergamon, pp 221–25. Trabut, L. and Weber F. (2009) ‘How to make care work visible? The case of dependence policies in France’, in N. Bandelj (ed) Economic sociology of work, Bingley: Emerald Group, pp 343–68. Tronto, J.C. (1998) ‘An ethic of care’, Generations, vol 22, pp 15–20. Ungerson, C. (1987) Policy is personal: Sex, gender and informal care, London: Tavistock. Van den Berg, B.,Alb, M., Brouwer,W., Van Exel, J. and Koopmanschap, M. (2005) ‘Economic valuation of informal care: the conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving’, Social Science & Medicine, vol 61, no 6, pp 1342–55. Waerness, K. (1978) ‘The invisible welfare state: women’s work at home’, Acta Sociologica, vol 30, no 2, pp 193–225. Wolff, F.-C. and Attias-Donfut, C. (2007) ‘Les comportements de transferts intergénérationnels en Europe’, Économie et Statistique, vol 403–404, pp 117–41.

203

twelve

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society: socio-demographic determinants of intergenerational support to elderly parents Susana Coimbra, Luísa A. Ribeiro and Anne Marie Fontaine

Introduction Over the last years, demographic and social changes in Western societies have led to changes in family relationships. Particularly in Europe, we have been supporting the development of welfare states which promote the survival of the most vulnerable and dependent, such as the elderly. However, a decrease in birth rates and increase in longevity have increased the imbalance between those who support the welfare system (active population) and those who only benefit from it (inactive population).The current worldwide financial crisis is likely to further enhance competition between generations for scarce resources and services. On the one hand, increasing longevity leads to an extended retirement period and increases public spending on pensions and health care. On the other hand, the difficulty of entering the job market and securing a permanent position is an important setback affecting the younger generation. They tend to remain financially dependent on their parents for more years when compared to previous generations, postponing marriage and parenthood (Seedsman, 2006; Daatland, 2007; Yarrow, 2009; Ferring, 2010; Haberkern and Szydlik, 2010). Between the financially dependent youth and the elderly pensioners lies the so-called ‘sandwich generation’ (Grundy and Henretta, 2006), composed of middle-aged adults who face increasing demands from both their children and their parents. Changes in the situation of women also deserve attention, considering the demographic and social changes that impact on family intergenerational solidarity. In fact, intergenerational solidarity is a multidimensional construct that cannot be reduced to its financial facet (Bengston and Roberts, 1991; see also Chapter Two).Women are largely the main providers of instrumental and emotional support, especially for older relatives (for example, Stein et al, 1998).They are the most important mediators of the relations between generations both publicly (performing most professional care and services) and privately (performing most informal care and coordinating and complementing professional care and services) (Attias-Donfut and Arber, 2000). However, women are nowadays well represented in higher education and the labour market, and 205

Intergenerational relations

gender values and stereotypes are less pervasive than in previous generations.This shift of women’s roles in society is thus conflicting with the central position they still occupy in intergenerational help, care and support, bringing special challenges for female members of the sandwich generation. The phenomenon of the ageing population requires new support systems and interpersonal relationships between generations. It has been hypothesised that demographic and social changes may jeopardise the welfare system as a social contract between generations and genders, as well as private solidarity and cohesion between family members. Intergenerational solidarity, sustainability and equity are perhaps more prominent issues now than for previous generations (Daatland, 2007; Bengtson and Oyama, 2010; Lowenstein, 2010).We are witnessing profound changes in cultural-contextual structures (that is, societal and macro economy conditions within which intergenerational relations develop) that have important repercussions on opportunity, need and family structures of intergenerational solidarity (Szydlik, 2008). However, the ‘generational conflict’ is nothing but a myth (Arber and Attias-Donfut, 2000; see also Chapter Eight), and family solidarity is not apparently decreasing, but rather changing (for example, Seedsman, 2006; Lowenstein, 2010): it may have different expressions and patterns in different generations and different social groups that deserve particular consideration. The way intergenerational solidarity is traditionally operationalised standardises the diversity of family experience. Thus, it does not take into consideration how certain groups of people are often privileged over others. Groups with fewer economic resources and women may represent underprivileged groups within family/intergenerational relationships. However, those groups are probably also more interested in changing the status quo because the current structured social relations are less favourable to them.They are, then, more prone to exercise personal agency in their everyday lives, renegotiating and transforming expectations their family members and society as a whole hold towards them (Connidis and McMullin, 2002a, 2002b). This chapter will focus on the specificity of these vulnerable groups in the intergenerational solidarity literature. The aim is to review theoretical and empirical studies regarding socio-demographic factors that may impact on intergenerational solidarity, such as socio-economic status and gender. The first part of this chapter offers an account of the role of socio-economic factors in intergenerational support between adult children and their elderly parents. The fact that some features of the new generation of young adults may impact on intergenerational solidarity, in particular their tendency to prolong their dependency towards their parents and to present higher levels of individualism, is emphasised. The second part of this chapter gives an overview of the main research findings about differences in intergenerational support between genders and about associated factors moderating the relation between gender and support to ageing parents.

206

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

The role of socio-economic factors in intergenerational support Research on intergenerational solidarity has emphasised two major motives behind exchanges or transfers between family members: altruism and reciprocity. Altruistically motivated behaviours, attitudes and values refer to the provision of resources to family members based on need, while reciprocal transfers are based on the provision of resources in exchange for earlier transfers received. Research has suggested that family members tend to provide support mainly based on the need of the recipient (Lennartsson et al, 2010). For instance, children who are still students and do not have a job are more likely to receive economic support from their parents. However, a balance of exchange based on the resources of each generation is also expected over the life course. Typically, intergenerational support flows from older to younger generations, namely, from parents to children, until very late in life.When health, autonomy and/or wealth decline, the direction of flow reverses. Children become the main providers of support for their parents (Attias-Donfut, 2001; Silverstein et al, 2002; Szydlik, 2008; Lennartsson et al, 2010; Schwarz et al, 2010; Fingerman et al, 2011). This pattern reflects the concept of ‘solidarity bank’: parental support is perceived as an investment that is expected to have a long-term return. Most of the time, parental ‘credit’ is not used immediately, but it is saved to be ‘debited’ when it is usually most needed, in their later life (Antonucci, 1985). Nevertheless, empirical findings also suggest that patterns of intergenerational financial support vary according to the level of development of nations and corresponding norms, values and traditions (see also Chapter Ten). In developing countries, intergenerational financial transfers tend to flow upward, probably as a gratitude gesture or a payback for the investment of the parents in the education of their children, particularly when social mobility occurs.The opposite happens in developed countries: the intergenerational transfers tend to flow downward, probably as an exchange for the instrumental support ageing parents receive from their adult children (Lennartsson et al, 2010). Societal attributes (for example, economic development and welfare policies) and cultural preferences (norms and values) seem to be inextricable motives for giving support. In fact, not only private family practices and resources, but also public services available in different societies tend to be consistent with prevailing norms and values, influencing each other reciprocally (Broese van Groenou et al, 2006; Haberkern and Szydlik, 2010; Schwarz et al, 2010).

Intergenerational solidarity: what may be expected from the young generation? In a time when the stability of career and romantic relationships is declining, intergenerational relationships become increasingly significant for young people’s subsistence and can become potentially asymmetrical or unbalanced. Parental 207

Intergenerational relations

investment is extensive and lasts longer, and the probability of having that investment returned is uncertain. In fact, the traditional markers of transition to adulthood are typically achieved later nowadays: concluding education, entering the labour market, conjugality and parenthood. Young people have to invest more in their education in order to deal with the uncertainty and instability of the labour market. Besides financial constraints, increasing divorce rates and the overall reversibility of different forms of romantic relationships make settling down less appealing. This combines to keep young people in industrialised societies in a limbo, in an extended moratorium between adolescence and adulthood. This new life period has been labelled emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2004; Arnett and Tanner, 2006). The greater emotional, functional, financial and residential dependency (cohabitation) towards the family of origin is a key feature of this stage (Rossi, 1997; Andrade, 2010). The current generation does not benefit from the economic growth and social protection that characterised the context of ‘baby boomers’ and preceding generations, when upward social mobility was based on educational meritocracy. The new generation has to cope with economic slowdown and stagnation, and unemployment, in spite of an increase in academic qualifications (Chauvel, 2006, in press). For the first time in recent history, at least in Western societies, the younger generation does not expect that the life conditions for their generation will be as good as they were for their parents’ generation (Yarrow, 2009). Self-focus is a key feature of emerging adults, who are taking on greater independence and responsibility for themselves compared to when they were adolescents, for instance, not being so closely supervised by their parents. Since most of them have not yet started a family of their own, a considerable sense of personal freedom remains (Arnett, 2004; Arnett and Tanner, 2006). Accordingly, Twenge (2006) labelled the new generation as generation me, because of its tendency to present higher levels on self-centred traits, such as narcissism or self-esteem (Twenge and Campbell, 2001, 2009). Self-focus emerges as the best way to deal with the mismatch between the high aspirations held for the new generation and the increasingly complex, demanding and competitive world they have to face during transition to adulthood. This does not mean that emergent adults or members of the generation me are spoiled or selfish (Twenge, 2006; Arnett, 2007). However, they are probably the best example of how changes in industrialisation, emancipation and secularisation in Western Europe have influenced personal attitudes and behaviour, increasing autonomy and individualism (Merz et al, 2009; see also Chapter Ten).

The impact of socio-economic status (SES) on intergenerational support Money transfers, time availability and geographic proximity are variables closely associated with SES which have considerable impact on intergenerational solidarity. The relations among them, however, are not linear and often vary throughout the life span. High SES adult children tend to have jobs that are more 208

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

time consuming, but that, simultaneously, have more flexible work schedules and conditions, making the family–work reconciliation easier. Regarding geographic proximity, adult children’s economic needs have strong influences on proximity to parents (or even co-residence) earlier in the life course, while parents’ financial and health needs become stronger influences later in life that seem to vary according to the SES of adult children. Greenwell and Bengtson (1997) investigated the relationships between social class, geographic distance and the type and degree of contact between middleaged children and their parents. Low SES adults (working class) tend to maintain a traditional extended family structure characterised by geographic proximity (or coresidence) and frequent in-person contact between generations. However, conflicts regarding life-style (for example values), scarcity of resources and long-term employment opportunities seem to reduce, across the life span, their frequency of intergenerational contact, as compared to higher SES adults. Higher SES adults, on the other hand, are more prone to geographical mobility, in particular when beginning their careers. In spite of their geographic distance, they tend to maintain frequent contact by phone or by using rapid means of transportation. Furthermore, they are in a better position to return to their home towns over the course of their careers, and to live with or near their parents when their needs for support increase. Parents with lower incomes, thus, live further away from their middle-aged children and maintain less telephone contact with them. This situation may reflect the declining availability of stable working-class jobs for middle-aged children in their community of origin or the inability of parents to support the costs of moving to the areas where their children now live, assuming that the parents would like to move away from their home towns. High social class parents, however, may be in a better position to ‘purchase proximity to and contact with their children’ (Greenwell and Bengtson, 1997, p S24). Either way, these findings clearly suggest that those parents who are in more financial need are the ones who receive less support from their middle-aged children. Broese van Groenou et al (2006) analysed the impact of elderly people’s socioeconomic status on the use of informal and formal help provided by the social structure outside the household in four countries (Great Britain, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands). Informal help refers to assistance with personal care and household tasks provided by relatives, friends and neighbours, whereas formal care refers to assistance provided by public social services. In all the assessed countries, it was possible to observe that both types of help, informal and formal, were mostly used by older people with low SES.This group, mostly women over 75 years of age and widowed, tended to be in poor health and in more need of help, and to have less material and social resources such as the ability to purchase private assistance or obtain support from children, although no information was provided regarding the family structure or characteristics, including the existence or proximity of children. However, other variables such as cultural preferences (norms and values) and societal attributes (welfare policies and services) also impact on the use of help. In 209

Intergenerational relations

fact, cross-national differences remained when SES and other socio-demographic variables (for example, health or marital status) were controlled for, and the impact of socio-economic status itself also varies across societies. For instance, a positive, strong association between SES and co-residence is observed in Italy (a familistic welfare regime) but not in Great Britain (a liberal welfare regime) (see also Chapter Two). Similarly, regardless of the SES of the respondents, it has also been observed that unmarried persons (widowed or single) in Great Britain and the Netherlands tend to live alone, thus leading to a higher probability of receiving help from outside the household, whereas in Italy and in Belgium sharing the household with others (for example, siblings) who may provide informal care is common. In the Netherlands and Belgium, privately paid help decreased the use of informal help, suggesting that they are mutually exclusive, whereas in Italy, one increases the other, suggesting that the two forms are mutually reinforcing. These results apparently corroborate the previously mentioned reciprocity between cultural preferences and societal attributes (Haberkern and Szydlik, 2010). A significant interaction between SES and country was found, indicating that the impact of SES on the use of formal and informal help was relatively large in the Netherlands and Great Britain, but small or absent in Italy and Belgium. Low SES older people in the former countries had a higher chance of receiving informal help from outside the household than in the latter. In the Netherlands, the probability of receiving informal help from outside the household was nearly six times greater for low SES older people (5.84) than for those with a high SES, whereas this probability was significantly lower in Italy and Belgium (odds ratio of 2.91 and 2.34, respectively). In all assessed countries, SES differences in the use of informal help were greater than those for formal help. Furthermore, disability had a stronger relationship with formal than informal help, suggesting that formal help is more associated with the degree of need of elderly people (needs-driven), whereas informal help is influenced more by other factors, such as the availability of family members. In fact, despite the maturation of welfare states, a growing body of research has shown that family solidarity remains an important source of support between family members, even though it has been mostly assessed through financial transfers. Recently, Lennartsson et  al (2010) analysed the reciprocity in timefor-money exchanges among two longitudinal Swedish samples. They observed that high social class parents tend to provide money if they have frequent social contact with their children, rewarding them for their time investment.This timefor-money exchange is more pronounced among higher social class individuals partly because economic resources are available, but also because time is regarded as a scarce, valuable good. In this first section, the impact of macrosystemic and structural features on intergenerational solidarity was analysed. The next section will explore the intrafamilial division of support to ageing parents provided by adult children, focusing on the role of gender. 210

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

The role of gender in intergenerational support Gender is a strong predictor of intergenerational support. Young and middleaged women have been consistently found to feel a higher sense of obligation to support their parents, provide them with more help, avoid conflict with them and engage in personal interchanges in comparison with men (Stein et al, 1998). Having one or more daughters is associated with receiving greater instrumental and emotional help in old age (Spitze and Logan, 1990). Men tend to offer less instrumental and emotional support, to spend less time with helping behaviours and to volunteer less to assist elderly parents (Matthews and Heidorn, 1998).This finding is consistent with female traditional roles in the family and more traditional patterns of labour market participation. However, this could also reflect the focus on typical feminine tasks usually assessed in the studies (for example, cooking, doing the laundry) (Matthews and Heidorn, 1998). There are also important interactions between gender and both socio-demographic and family variables influencing helping behaviours. For example, support exchanges are influenced by the closeness of the relationship between caregiver and receiver, which, in turn, varies according to the gender of those giving and receiving support (for example, Kaufman and Uhlenberg, 1998). This general pattern where women are often regarded as the main caregivers is moderated by a series of factors that influence the relationship between gender and helping behaviour, such as composition of the sibling network, professional and family competing demands, parental civil status and health, geographic distance and the nature of the relationship between children and parents.

Size and gender of the sibling network Several studies have investigated the role of size and composition of the sibling group on distribution of parental care among male and female children. Aspects such as number of siblings, sibling spacing, birth order and gender composition of the sibling network have been investigated. Number of siblings has been reported as having a negative effect on the support each sibling provides to the parents, an effect that seems stronger for female children (Spitze and Logan, 1991). One can speculate that each sibling feels less responsibility for the parents if other children are available. Studies seem to support the idea that only children provide more help, especially if they are women (Spitze and Logan, 1991). Having at least one daughter has been in fact related to direct support to ageing parents with some studies reporting no further advantage of having more children of either sex (Spitze and Logan, 1990; Lye, 1996). In families with more than one child, the division of parental care among siblings is often disproportionate, with one sibling providing more support than other(s) (Ingersoll-Dayton et al, 2003). Men who are only children or in male-only sibling groups are more likely to provide care because there are no available females (Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2003). Moreover, in 211

Intergenerational relations

sibling groups composed only of male siblings, it was found that brothers acted independently from one another and expected parents to ask for help. Volunteer help was offered only in times of acute difficulties. Sons seem more focused on describing their parents as independent and seek to maintain their self-sufficiency (Matthews and Heidorn, 1998). With regard to co-residence, shared households between elderly parents and adult children seem to be positively associated with number of children and, more specifically, with the number of daughters in the sibling network (Soldo et al, 1990). However, the availability of many siblings can also lead to a diffusion of responsibility with each child feeling less responsible for taking the parents into his/her home (Szinovacz, 1997).

Characteristics of the support (type of tasks) Despite the fact that women are the main support providers for both mothers and fathers, several recent studies have highlighted the importance of considering the specificity of the help provided by men. It has been suggested that when male children only are present, they might be less involved in typically male tasks and would engage in more similar caregiving behaviours as women (Spitze and Logan, 1990; Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2003). Daughters are more likely to provide assistance with household chores and personal care, but for ‘gender-neutral’ tasks (for example, providing transportation) both sons and daughters share similar responsibilities (for example, Matthews and Heidorn, 1998). Moreover, sons are also involved in more indirect tasks such as maintenance chores, and financial and managerial assistance (for example, Miller and Cafasso, 1992).This division seems consistent with traditional and normative gender roles. When daughters are unavailable, sons may perform more of the helping behaviours seen in women (as mentioned above). However, gender norms may still discourage sons from performing certain tasks (for example, intimate types of care), especially when it comes to sons providing personal care to mothers (Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2000). Furthermore, the nature of the task is important in predicting involvement in parental caregiving and impact on how filial obligation influences involvement in care. For traditionally male tasks, commitment to care seems less important for men’s involvement. Stronger commitment of men to parental care was found to be significantly associated with their higher involvement in traditionally female care tasks. In sum, when caregiving involves typically male tasks, men use less excuses to avoid them and filial commitment seems less of a requirement (Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2003).A stronger level of commitment seems to be needed to perform tasks more associated with female types of care.

212

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

Characteristics of the recipient of support Solidarity between generations has been regarded as largely dependent on the need of the recipient, according to the altruism hypothesis described in the first part of this chapter. Although children may have distant relationships with their parents, geographically or emotionally, there is usually the need to reorganise these relationships when a parent becomes old or ill, so support provision can be negotiated (Connidis, 2001). Poor health is in fact a strong motivator triggering helping behaviours from children. Sick parents, as well as those who are widowed, are more likely to share the home with their children when compared to healthy married elderly parents (for example, Lee and Dwyer, 1996). However, beyond cohabitation, married fathers (as opposed to divorced and remarried fathers) might receive more help from their children. In fact, parents’ civil status influences the level of support they can expect to receive from their children. Marriage has been found to be protective for fathers due to the ‘kinkeeper’ role of mothers (Coward et al, 1992) who usually maintain tighter relationships with their children. Although fathers receive less support from children when compared to mothers (regardless of civil status), divorced fathers or those who remarry are at a further disadvantage. Divorce increases, therefore, the gap between support received by mothers and fathers and increases men’s vulnerability (Kalmijn, 2007). This is consistent with studies showing that parental divorce seriously affects the children’s relationship with the father but not with the mother, since mothers usually receive the custody of their children (for example, Cooney and Uhlenberg, 1990).When fathers divorce, they will not typically share the household with their children, which decreases opportunities to invest in them (Matthews and Heidorn, 1998). Other studies have shown that it is not only the experience of a dissolved marriage but also emotional problems in the family underlying divorce that can decrease the feelings of obligation in the adult child, especially in relation to the father (for example, Rossi and Rossi, 1990).The detrimental impact of parental divorce on intergenerational solidarity between adult children and their fathers, in particular, is observable regardless of its context (even in societies with high divorce rates like Norway) or timing (even when children are already adults) (Daatland, 2007). Findings with regard to widowhood are inconsistent. In at least one study it was found that both male and female children with only one living parent reported higher levels of obligation than children with two living parents, which seems to indicate that the death of a parent can be evocative of higher obligation to help (Stein et al, 1998). In a recent review of studies about the effects of divorce and widowhood on social contacts and support offered to elderly parents, an overall increase in support after widowhood was found, which benefited mainly mothers. Widowers seem to face more challenges and to become more isolated than widows (Kalmijn, 2007).

213

Intergenerational relations

Characteristics of the provider of support Kaufman and Uhlenberg (1998) examined the effect of children’s life course transitions on the quality of the relationship with their parents. They found a differential effect for sons, daughters, mothers and fathers with regard to changes resulting from events such as having children, increased working hours and increased geographical distance. Adult children who are married or who have children themselves tend to have a better understanding of their parents’ lives and, therefore, have better relationships with them when compared to unmarried and divorced children (Lawton et al, 1994). Getting married led to an improvement in the relationship between children and parents, especially for daughters. However, childcare obligations, work responsibilities and other family duties are competing demands that can decrease ability and willingness to take care of ageing parents. Having dependent children seems to decrease feelings of obligation for parental care in women (Lee and Dwyer, 1996). Single children are more likely to offer support than married children. Also, sons are more likely to take the role of the caregiver if they are unmarried and live with their parents (Campbell and MartinMatthews, 2000). In relation to working hours, most studies have concentrated on female samples. Being married and employed seem to operate as competing aspects, decreasing the number of hours daughters spend taking care of their elderly mothers (Lang and Brody, 1983).Working women contemplating caregiving anticipate a conflict of roles when a parent becomes more dependent.The nearest living daughter or the one with fewest competing demands will generally assume the main caregiver role (Dautzenberg et al, 2000). After an adult child’s divorce, relationships with parents have been found to deteriorate. Changes in the quality of the child’s marriage also seemed relevant. Those who are in deteriorating marriages are more likely to report a decline in relationship quality with mothers. For men, this decline also affected the relationship with their fathers (for example, Kaufman and Uhlenberg, 1998).

Geographic distance and living arrangements Geographic proximity is one of the most important predictors of social contact between parents and children (Aldous et al, 1985), and siblings living in close proximity are the ones often responsible for parental care (for example, Connidis and Davies, 1990; Lawton et al, 1994; Connidis and Kemp, 2008). Geographical distance between parents and children varies across the lifespan and may be dependent upon family events such as the death of a parent, which can lead to greater residential closeness between children and the surviving parent. Hence, widowed parents might live closer to their children than married parents, which facilitates contact, whereas divorced fathers might move away from their adult children after divorce, as previously mentioned (Cooney and Uhlenberg, 1990).

214

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

A line of research has emphasised the importance of assuming a life course perspective because the development of childhood bonds and styles of interacting are seen as carrying over to later life relationships (Szinovacz, 1997; Schwarz and Trommsdorff, 2005; see also Chapter Five). In a study exploring whether living arrangements in childhood influenced patterns of co-residence when children reach adult age, Szinovacz (1997) found that those children raised by single fathers had more unfavourable attitudes towards co-residence with parents whereas women raised in traditional extended families had more positive attitudes. Moreover, co-residence can also influence filial care involvement and the types of tasks that are performed. For example, co-residence of male children with their parents has been found to predict greater amount of traditionally female care, as mentioned above (for example, assistance with laundry, meal preparation). Living apart does not diminish the amount of traditionally male tasks (for example, managerial tasks) carried out by male children (Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2000). Physical proximity between two generations stimulates emotional intimacy by facilitating sharing activities and interests and promoting stronger ties (Connidis and Davies, 1990). However, it has also been found that the affective closeness of the relationship is not necessarily affected by distance (Rossi and Rossi, 1990). Moreover, frequency of contact does not necessarily guarantee a closer relationship. Lawton, Silverstein and Bengtson (1994) tested the assumption that affection between generations and social contact reinforce each other. However, they found that only in the mother–child relationship did contact and affection reinforce each other. Greater affection between fathers and children did not lead to increased contact, and increased contact did not lead to greater affection.

Motivations to help Besides the need of the recipient and the altruism of the provider of support, it is also possible to identify other important motivations to help that vary according to gender: quality and closeness of relationship, on one hand, and formal obligations, on the other. Affection and intimacy between generations have been suggested as being the strongest motivators for daughters whereas obligation, inheritance and frequency of contact seem more motivating for sons (Silverstein et al, 1995). Sons seem to provide support out of obligation independent of the quality of the relationship. Frequent contact between sons and parents would be required before engaging in support, whereas daughters are more motivated by emotional closeness. Sons would have, therefore, a more utilitarian orientation in accordance with the traditional male roles associated with control of economic assets (Silverstein et al, 1995). However, an aspect that should be taken into account is the different reporting style of women and men. Emotional support is more often associated with daughters, but there could be a gender bias since women report involvement in emotional behaviour more often than men (Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2003). 215

Intergenerational relations

Emotional closeness has also been associated with less caregiver burden. Cicirelli (1993) analysed caregiving motives in a sample of women caring for their elderly mothers and found that obligation (a feeling of duty and responsibility for one’s parents) and attachment (emotional bond between the mother and her caregiver) were strong motivations to offer help, predicting amount of help offered. Feelings of stronger emotional attachment were associated with less caregiver burden whereas stronger feelings of obligation were more associated with felt burden. Finally, affection and obligation are motivations to offer help that cannot be isolated from the circumstances faced by the recipient of support. As seen earlier, when parents’ needs increase, for example, due to sickness or loss of partner (for example, Lee and Dwyer, 1996), there might be an increased motivation to offer support, regardless of the level of affection and obligation between children and parents.

Conclusions Several socio-demographic aspects influencing intergenerational exchanges have been pointed out in this chapter. As has been seen, studies are sometimes inconclusive and contradictory, reflecting both natural variations across samples but also different methods and constructs used to assess support between generations. Nowadays, family solidarity is not exclusively determined by the interdependence of functions or by the similarity of values among family members (see also Chapter Six). Role expectations, distribution of care and provision of caregiving behaviours are currently more diffuse and anomic. Family ties and relationships between young adult children and their parents are mainly sustained by emotional or affectional bonds (Hammarstrom, 2005), perceptions of felt obligation (Abraham and Stein, 2010) or filial maturity. Filial maturity refers to the adult offspring’s actual help or willingness to help motivated by love and sense of duty, reflecting a successful coping with the normative experience of parental care (Marcoen, 1995). To be filially mature implies, then, the ability to recognise parents as individuals that exist independently of the parent–child relationship, with past histories, limitations (Birditt et al, 2008) and care needs. Indeed, the ways in which filial and overall familiar responsibilities are perceived, anticipated and performed may change from one context to the other, may vary from one generation to the next and may differ from one social class to another (Bengtson, 2001; Da Roit, 2007). Groups with lower economic resources, low social class individuals or younger generations, may negotiate their intergenerational relationships differently, adopting different patterns of attitudes and behaviours compared to the norm of middle and upper social class individuals and previous generations. These differences do not reflect absence of solidarity but, rather, different ways of expressing it. Money, like time, is obviously a vital resource for all kinds of relational support, and family intergenerational support systems are far from being an exception. This is particularly true when these resources are in short supply and are, therefore, extremely valued (Grundy and Henretta, 2006). It is 216

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

often assumed that socio-economic resources can facilitate the quality of the relationships, increase cohesion among family members and help to avoid conflicts and rupture (Szydlik, 2008). However, the literature often fails to distinguish between family financial constraints and relational problems, since they are frequently co-occurring. Financial constraints and relational problems represent different types of risk for family support systems and do not equally jeopardise intentions to provide help and actual solidarity behaviours.When intergenerational solidarity indicators are directly (for example, financial transfers) or indirectly (for example, geographic distance due to employment opportunities) related to financial constraints, differences are unavoidably found across socio-economic statuses and generations. Therefore, research should focus on diversifying and explicating the indicators of intergenerational solidarity behaviours and attitudes as to include and/or describe, for example, other types of transfers like emotional or instrumental support. In this chapter, the importance of taking gender into account when studying intergenerational relations has been emphasised. There is a consensus regarding the importance of studying differences between men and women in a broader context, taking into account family and socio-demographic variables. These can often act as a moderator in the relationship between gender and intergenerational support. One important aspect to be taken into account with regard to the role of gender is that the higher prevalence of female caretakers is not solely related to gender-specific expectations of support to ageing parents but also to the samegender expectations of support, since mothers live longer than fathers (Lee et al, 1993) and remarry less often (Kalmijn, 2007). Children tend to be closer to the same-sex parent and find it easier to share interests and activities.This is especially true for the daughter–mother dyads (for example, Bould, 1997; Campbell and Martin-Matthews, 2003). It remains an open question to determine how much smaller the gender divide would be if as many elderly men as elderly women needed care. In the current situation, it seems that men are still generally more vulnerable and unsupported in old age, especially when they live outside marriage or extended family units in less conventional family formats such as divorce and remarriage. Emergent important issues for research in the area of gender and intergenerational support include the study of sub-cultural and inter-cultural variations in parent–child interactions reflecting differences in gender roles across cultures. Finally, another important avenue for future research concerns the role of children-in-law, who have often received less attention in this area of research (for example, Shuey and Hardy, 2003). References Abraham, K.M. and Stein, C.H. (2010) ‘Staying connected: Young adults’ felt obligation toward parents with and without mental illness’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 24, no 2, pp 125–34. Aldous, J., Klaus, E. and Klein, D.M. (1985) ‘The understanding heart: Aging parents and their favorite children’, Child Development, vol 56, no 2, pp 303–16. 217

Intergenerational relations

Andrade, C. (2010) ‘Transição para a idade adulta: Das condições sociais às implicações Psicológicas’, Análise Psicológica, vol 2, no XXVII, pp 255–67. Antonucci,T.C. (1985) ‘Personal characteristics, social support, and social behavior’, in R.H. Binstock and E. Shanas (eds) Handbook of aging and the social sciences, New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp 94–128. Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. (2000) The myth of generational conflict: the family and state in aging societies, London: Routledge. Arnett, J. (2000) ‘Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties’, American Psychologist, vol 55, pp 469–80. Arnett, J.J. (2004) Emerging adulthood.:The winding road from the late teens through the twenties, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arnett, J.J. (2007) ‘Suffering, selfish, slackers? Myths and reality about emerging adults’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol 36, no 1, pp 23–9. Arnett, J.J. and Tanner, J.L. (eds) (2006) Emerging adults in America. Coming of age in the 21st century, Washington: American Psychological Association. Attias-Donfut, C. (2001) ‘The dynamics of elderly support: The transmission of solidarity patterns between generations’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol 34, no. 1, pp 9–15. Attias-Donfut, C. and Arber, S. (2000) ‘Equity and solidarity across generations’, in S. Arber and C. Attias-Donfut (eds) The myth of generational conflict: the family and state in aging societies, London: Routledge, pp 1–21. Bengtson, V.L. (2001) ‘Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 63, pp 1–16. Bengtson, V.L. and Oyama, P.S. (2010) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and conflict: what does it mean and what are the big issues?’, in M.A. Cruz-Saco and S. Zelenev (eds) Intergenerational solidarity: strengthening economic and social ties, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 35–52. Bengtson,V.L. and Roberts, R.E.L. (1991) ‘Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 53, pp 856–70. Birditt, K.S., Fingerman, K.L., Lefkowitz, E.S. and Dush, C.M. (2008) ‘Parents perceived as peers: filial maturity in adulthood’, Journal of Adult Development, vol 15, pp 1–12. Bould, S. (1997) ‘Women and caregivers for the elderly’, in J.M. Coyle (ed) Handbook on women and aging, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, pp 430–42. Broese van Groenou, M.B., Glaser, K.,Tomassini, C. and Jacobs,T. (2006) ‘Socioeconomic status differences in older people’s use of informal and formal help: a comparison of four European countries’, Ageing & Society, vol 26, pp 745–66. Campbell, L.D. and Martin-Matthews, A. (2000) ‘Primary and proximate: The importance of coresidence and being primary provider of care for men’s filial care involvement’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 21, pp 1006–30. Campbell, L.D. and Martin-Matthews, A. (2003) ‘The gendered nature of men’s filial care’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 58, no B, pp 350–58.

218

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

Chauvel, L. (2006) ‘Les nouvelles générations devant la panne prolongée de l’ascenseur social’, Revue de l’OFCE, vol 96, pp 35–50 (available at: http://www. louischauvel.org/ofceralentissementgenerationnel5.pdf). Chauvel, L. (in press) ‘Between welfare state retrenchments, globalization, and declining returns to credentials:The French middle classes under stress [eBook]’, in K.S. Newman (ed) Middle crises: the challenges of the middle classes in a globalized world, Oxford: Oxford University Press (available at: http://www.louischauvel. org/ChauvelinNewmanmiddleclass.pdf). Cicirelli, V.G. (1993) ‘Attachment and obligation as daughters’ motives for caregiving behavior and subsequent effect on subjective burden’, Psychology and Aging, vol 8, pp 144–55. Connidis, I.A. (2001) Family ties and aging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Connidis, I.A. and Davies, L. (1990) ‘Confidants and companions in later life:The place of family and friends’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 45, pp 141–49. Connidis, I.A. and Kemp, C.L. (2008) ‘Negotiating actual and anticipated parental support: Multiple sibling voices in three-generation families’, Journal of Ageing Studies, vol 22, pp 229–38. Connidis, I.A. and McMullin, J.A. (2002a) ‘Ambivalence, family ties, and doing sociology’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 64, pp 594–601. Connidis, I.A. and McMullin, J.A. (2002b) ‘Sociological ambivalence and family ties: A critical perspective’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 64, pp 558–67. Cooney, T.M. and Uhlenberg, P. (1990) ‘The role of divorce in men’s relations with their adult children after mid-life’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 52, pp 677–88. Coward, R.T., Horne, C. and Dwyer, J.W. (1992) ‘Demographic perspectives on gender and family caregiving’, in J.W. Dwyer and R.T. Coward (eds). Gender, families, and elder care, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp 18–33. Da Roit, B. (2007) ‘Changing intergenerational solidarities within families in a Medi-terranean welfare state: elderly care in Italy’, Current Sociology, vol 55, pp 251–69. Daatland, S.O. (2007) ‘Marital history and intergenerational solidarity: the impact of divorce and unmarried cohabitation’, Journal of Social Issues, vol  63, no  4, pp 809–25. Dautzenberg, M.G.H, Diederiks, J.P.M., Philipsen, H., Stevens, F.C., Tan, F.E.S. and Vernooij-Dassen, M.J.F.J. (2000) ‘The competing demands of paid work and parent care: middle-aged daughters providing assistance to elderly parents’, Research on Ageing, vol 22, pp 165–87. Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Intergenerational relations in ageing societies: Emerging topics in Europe’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 8, no 1, pp 101–4. Fingerman, K.L., Pitzer, L.M., Chan, W., Birditt, K.S., Franks, M.M. and Zarit, S. (2011) ‘Who gets what and why: Help middle-aged adults provide to parents and grown children’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 66, no B, pp 87–98.

219

Intergenerational relations

Greenwell, L. and Bengtson,V.L. (1997) ‘Geographic distance and contact between middle-aged children and their parents: the effects of social class over 20 years’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 52, no B, pp 13–26. Grundy, E. and Henretta, J.C. (2006) ‘Between elderly parents and adult children: a new look at the intergenerational care provided by the sandwich generation’, Ageing and Society, vol 26, no 5, pp 707–22. Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. (2010) ‘State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European countries’, Ageing and Society, vol 30, no 2, pp 299–323. Hammarstrom, G. (2005) ‘The construct of intergenerational solidarity in a lineage perspective: a discussion on underlying theoretical assumptions’, Journal of Aging Studies, vol 19, no 1, pp 33–51. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Neal, M.B., Ha, J.H. and Hammer, L.B. (2003) ‘Redressing inequity in parent care among siblings’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 65, pp 201–12. Kalmijn, M. (2007) ‘Gender differences in the effects of divorce, widowhood and remarriage on intergenerational support: does marriage protect fathers?’, Social Forces, vol 85, no 3, pp 1079-104. Kaufman, G. and Uhlenberg, P. (1998) ‘Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents’, Journal of the Marriage and the Family, vol 60, pp 924–38. Lang,A.M. and Brody, E.M. (1983) ‘Characteristics of middle-aged daughters and help to their elderly mothers’, Journal of Marriage and Family, vol 45, pp 193–202. Lawton, L., Silverstein, M. and Bengtson,V. (1994) ‘Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 56, pp 57–68. Lee, G.R. and Dwyer, J.W. (1996) ‘Aging parent-adult child coresidence: further evidence on the role of parental characteristics’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 17, pp 46–59. Lee, G.R., Dwyer, J.W. and Coward, R.T. (1993), ‘Gender differences in parent care: demographic factors and same-gender preferences’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 48, pp 9–16. Lennartsson, C., Silverstein, M. and Fritzell, J. (2010),‘Time-for-money exchanges between older and younger generations in Swedish families’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 31, no 2, pp 189–210. Lowenstein, A. (2010) ‘Determinants of the complex interchange among generations: Collaboration and conflict’, in M.A. Cruz-Saco and S. Zelenev (eds) Intergenerational solidarity: Strengthening economic and social ties, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 53–82. Lye, D.N. (1996) ‘Adult child-parent relationship’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol 22, pp 79–102. Marcoen, A.A. (1995) ‘Filial maturity of middle-aged adult children in the context of parent care: model and measures’, Journal of Adult Development, vol 2, no 2, pp 125–36. 220

Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society

Matthews S.H. and Heidorn, J. (1998) ‘Meeting filial responsibilities in brothersonly sibling groups’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 53, no B, pp 278–84. Merz, E.M., Özeke-Kocabas, E., Oort, F.J. and Schuengel, C. (2009) ‘Intergenerational family solidarity: value differences between immigrant groups and generations’, Journal of Family Psychology, vol 23, no 3, pp 291–300. Miller, B. and Cafasso, L. (1992) ‘Gender differences in caregiving: fact or artifact?’, The Gerontologist, vol 32, pp 498–507. Rossi, A.S. and Rossi, P.H. (1990) Of human bonding: parent-child relations across the life course, New York: Aldine. Rossi, G. (1997) ‘The nestlings – Why young adults stay at home longer: the Italian case’, Journal of Family Issues, vol 18, pp 627–44. Schwarz, B. and Trommsdorff, G. (2005). ‘The relation between attachment and intergenerational support’, European Journal of Ageing, vol 2, pp 192–99. Schwarz, B., Albert, I., Trommsdorff, G., Zheng, G., Shi, S. and Nelwan, P.R. (2010) ‘Intergenerational support and life satisfaction:A comparison of Chinese, Indonesian, and German elderly mothers’, Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, vol 41, no 5–6, pp 706–22. Seedsman, T.A. (2006) ‘Viewing participants as resources for one another, communities and societies: intergenerational solidarity toward a better world’, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, vol 4, no 1, pp 23–37. Shuey, K. and Hardy, M.A. (2003) ‘Assistance to aging parents and parents-inlaw: does lineage affect family allocation decisions?’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 65, pp 418–31. Silverstein, M., Conroy, S.J., Wang, H., Giarrusso, R. and Bengtson, V.L. (2002) ‘Reciprocity in parent-child relations over the adult life course’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 57, no 1, pp 3–13. Silverstein, M., Parrott, T.M. and Bengtson, V.L. (1995) ‘Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 57, pp 465–75. Soldo, B.J., Wolf, D.A. and Agree, E.M. (1990) ‘Family, households, and care arrangements of frail older women: A structural analysis’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 45, pp 238–49. Spitze, G. and Logan, J. (1990). ‘Sons, daughters, and intergenerational social support’, Journal of the Marriage and the Family, vol 52, pp 420–30. Spitze, G. and Logan, J.R. (1991) ‘Sibling structure and intergenerational relations’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 53, pp 871–84. Stein, C.H., Wemmerus,V.A., Ward, M., Gaines, M.E., Freeberg, A.L. and Jewell, T.C. (1998) ‘“Because they’re my parents”: an intergenerational study of felt obligation and parental caregiving’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 60, pp 611–22. Szinovacz, M. (1997) ‘Adult children taking parents into their homes: effects of childhood living arrangements’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol  59, pp 700–17.

221

Intergenerational relations

Szydlik, M. (2008) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and conflict’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol 39, no 1, pp 97–114. Twenge, J.M. (2006) Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before, New York: Free Press. Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2001) ‘Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: a cross-temporal meta-analysis’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol 5, pp 321–44. Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2009) The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement, New York: Free Press. Yarrow, A.L. (2009) ‘Sustainability and intergenerational solidarity’, Journal of American Society on Aging, vol 33, no 3, pp 103–4.

222

thirteen

Family caregiving for older people from a life-span developmental point of view Thomas Boll and Dieter Ferring

Introduction This chapter addresses family care as an important phenomenon in inter- and intragenerational relations, which will become increasingly important in Europe given the current demographic changes (see Ferring, 2010). Age-related diseases, functional declines, and inabilities to perform daily activities are ‘normal’ parts of the later life of many older people. Family members are then among the most important providers of care, in particular spouses and adult children (for example, Wolff and Kasper, 2006). Emerging impairments and the subsequent need for care are likely to initiate a change in the prior marital or child–parent relationship as well as in the life course and individual attributes of caring spouses or caring children. These changes will continue as the disablement progresses and the demand for care increases, as epitomised by the term ‘caregiving career’ (Aneshensel et al, 1995). It is therefore obvious to analyse family caregiving from the perspective of a discipline specialised on change over the life course, that is, life-span developmental psychology. This has only rarely been done in prior research. As a notable exception, Roberto and Jarrott (2008) applied the metatheoretical assumptions of life-span developmental psychology proposed by Baltes (1987) to the field of family caregiving for older adults (see also Shifren, 2009).This chapter will refer to more specific core concepts of life-span developmental psychology such as critical life events (Filipp and Aymanns, 2010), developmental tasks (McCormick et al, 2011), developmental goals and intentional self-development (Brandtstädter, 2001, 2011). These concepts allow, in connection with action- and emotiontheoretical approaches, for a more comprehensive and coherent picture of family caregiving for older people.This applies in particular to the positive experiences of caregiving in addition to the negative ones (‘burden’) and with respect to possible developmental gains resulting from caregiving such as competence development and personal growth.

223

Intergenerational relations

Caregiving situations as critical life circumstances: demands and adaptation The incidence of a disability of an older relative and the corresponding provision of care often meet the definition of a ‘critical life event’, which is an event that leads to a discontinuity and destabilisation of prior action orientations and life orientations (see Filipp, 2007). In this chapter, the term critical life circumstances will be used, to include also those cases where the disability does not arise suddenly (for example, from a stroke), but develops slowly (for example, from Alzheimer’s disease) and where not just temporary care, but also long-term care is required. What makes the disablement and the subsequent care provision ‘critical’ for family carers? From the perspective of action- and emotion-theoretical approaches in developmental psychology (Brandtstädter, 2001, 2011) it is the extent (a) to which the event or circumstances interfere with goals of carers and (b) to which these interferences cannot be easily overcome with existing action routines. Nonachievement of goals will result in frustration and other negative feelings and initiate individual coping behaviour.This chapter will elaborate this with respect to five related issues: elements of the caregiving situation, goals of family carers, caregivers’ appraisals and emotions, action possibilities, and goal adjustments of family carers.

Elements of the caregiving situation Caregiving represents a complex situation comprising several sources of strain (and gain) for recipients and providers of care. Caregiving challenges a multitude of goals of family carers, frustrating some of these and fulfilling others. Discrepancies between the demands of the caregiving situation and the individual goals thus constitute the realities to which family carers may adapt more or less successfully. Disablement of an older relative Older people’s disabilities often arise from age-related diseases such as neurodegenerative, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and sense disorders (Verbrugge and Jette, 1994). Most of them are chronic and tend to worsen, so that the demand for care increases with time. They often lead to impairments in specific body systems which in turn lead to functional limitations comprising either physical ones like immobility or mental ones like speech impairment, or both. These in turn may lead to difficulties in performing basic, instrumental, and life enriching activities of daily living (Verbrugge and Jette, 1994; Wilms et al, 1998; Albert et al, 2009). In particular, older people with dementia often become unable to entertain normal social relationships with their caregivers. Recently, attention has been drawn to the emotional, physical and existential suffering of the older relatives (Monin and Schulz, 2009), which contributes to the distress of family carers above and beyond the physical and cognitive declines of care recipients. 224

Family caregiving for older people

A final aspect of older people especially with dementia are problematic behaviours such as disturbances of memory, thinking, emotions, and behaviour (Roth et al, 2003). These contribute significantly to the subjective burden of family carers (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003a) and may motivate caregivers to institutionalise their relatives with dementia (Gaugler et al, 2009). Caregiving tasks The variety of care recipients’ problems mentioned earlier corresponds to a multitude of tasks for family carers. Among them are various kinds of skilled nursing, and in-home and out-of-home care management (for example, Gaugler et  al, 2002). Other tasks include support with carrying out the basic and instrumental activities of daily living as well as with life-enriching activities and the alleviation of suffering. Impact of caregiving on other life domains Extensive family care has an impact on various other life domains of the carers: family, job, financial situation, leisure time, and contact with other persons (for example, Pearlin et al, 1990; Aneshensel et al, 1995). From a developmental point of view, it makes particular sense to look at the age of family carers and, thus, at the corresponding developmental tasks and roles at a given time of life. Different impacts can be expected depending on whether middle-aged adult children or old spouses provide care. Caring children. Many adult children of disabled parents have a job and/or a family of their own. Besides caring for ageing parents, doing satisfactory work, maintaining close relationships, and raising children are among the widely recognised developmental tasks of middle-aged adults (McCormick et al, 2011; see also Chapter Twelve). However, extensive family care is not compatible with a full-time job and, in fact, family carers often reduce their working time or even terminate work (for example, Covinsky et al, 2001; Black et al, 2010). For working family carers, providing support may also interfere with their job performance (Barling et  al, 1994; Dallinger, 1996). Lack of sleep or intrusive care-related worries at work may negatively affect job performance, which may result in career downturn and even dismissal from the job. Moreover, reduced employment usually results in financial losses, not just during active working life, but – depending on pension schemes – also after retirement. Family care for older relatives may also interfere with adult children’s responsibilities for the family of their own. Caring children and caring spouses. For both categories of family carers, stress in the relations with other family members may arise (for example, Scharlach et al, 2006). Quarrels may result from disagreements about the status of the care recipient and the adequacy of care as well as about the recognition expected (but not received) for caregiving. Family care may also involve direct costs, from buying care products or even the remodelling of the house (for example, Black et al, 2010). Family care 225

Intergenerational relations

may also interfere with leisure time activities and with maintaining social relationships with other persons outside the family due to lack of time or due to feeling ashamed of their dependent relative.

Goals of family carers From an action- and emotion-theoretical view, the multiple goals of family carers must be considered in order to understand their actions and emotions in response to the caregiving situation. Some hypotheses on which goals are relevant can be derived from literature on the needs of family carers providing support to terminally ill relatives (Deeken et  al, 2003) and from the literature on the motivation of family carers. Goals regarding the fate of and relationship with the disabled relative. Literature on ‘communal relationships’ (for example, Mills et al, 2004) leads us to assume a general desire for the welfare of a disabled relative. Specific research on family members’ motivation to provide care identifies several other motivating factors in caregivers: feelings of love and affection, the general norm of altruism, parent- or spouserelated norms of responsibility, and the norm of reciprocity (for example, Silverstein et al, 1995, 2002; Albert et al, 2010; see also Chapter Twelve). Such general desires and norms are assumed to lead to more specific goals of care in response to the particular situation of the older relative as perceived by family carers: to cure illnesses, to keep health from getting worse, to preserve life, to maintain mental and physical functions, to maintain independence, to provide comfort, to maintain living in the familiar environment (compare Kaldjian et al, 2009). A general desire to stay emotionally close to each other should also be relevant for caregivers of older relatives, in particular for caring spouses. Love between spouses is conceived as an important binding element of marital relationships and desiring to stay close to the loved person is regarded as an essential feature of that love. A desire to stay emotionally close to the older parents needing care should also be present in caring children, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent. Goals regarding the fate of and relationship with other persons. Caring children with a family of their own usually will want to achieve the well-being of and maintain good relations with their spouse and children. Employed carers may experience responsibility for their job and desire good relations with their colleagues and superiors. Caring spouses may desire the well-being of their siblings and children. Moreover, both categories of caregivers may wish to have good relationships and regular contact with other relatives and friends. Goals regarding oneself. Caregivers usually strive to keep a positive level of wellbeing, which may lead to more specific goals, such as to stay healthy despite the stress of caring, to receive support from other relatives or professionals, to continue their career, to enjoy leisure time activities, to acquire new competencies and personality traits, to be a ‘good’ spouse or adult child. Some caregivers may even have an ambition to find more meaning in their life.

226

Family caregiving for older people

Caregivers’ appraisals and emotions in relation to caregiving According to action- and emotion-theoretical views, family carers’ actions and emotions in response to the caregiving situation should depend on how that situation is subjectively experienced by them, and this may be quite different for different carers. Conceptual analyses have thus emphasised the distinction between objective versus subjective burden (for example, Lawton et al, 1991; Chou, 2000; see also Chapter Eleven), which is further justified because subjective burden is more closely linked to carers’ mental health than objective burden (for example, Roth et al, 2003). An analogous distinction between objective versus subjective gains has not yet been explicitly drawn in the caregiving literature.The issues of subjective burden and subjective gains will be examined more closely below and remaining gaps and desiderata will be described. Possible paths for resolving them will be elaborated from developmental- and emotion-theoretical perspectives. Negative appraisals and emotions: subjective burden Prior caregiving literature has treated subjective burden as a composite construct including negative appraisals and negative emotions in relation to one’s caregiving situation (for example, Lawton et al, 1991; Chou, 2000).This composite nature is also reflected in widely used measures like the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI; Zarit et al, 1980) or the Caregiver Strain Index (CSI; Robinson, 1983) which combine ratings of such appraisals and emotions into one sum score of global subjective burden. However, empirical dimensional analyses urge for differentiation: several negative appraisal factors emerged consistently in connection with one negative emotion factor. Here the different appraisal factors were defined by different negative aspects of caregiving such as social burden, physical burden, impact on schedule and on finances; the emotional burden factor was consistently defined by sets of negative emotions such as embarrassment, shame, resentment, frustration, and anger in relation to caregiving (for example, Novak and Guest, 1989; Ankri et al, 2005). However, aggregating different negative emotions into one global emotional burden score diminishes heuristic chances for a deeper understanding of how people react and adapt to caregiving, because each emotion type is linked to different conditions and consequences. Unfortunately, in-depth examinations of single negative care-related emotions are still very rare, with one notable exception. Losada et al (2010) provided factor analytic evidence for different types of guilt arising from different aspects of the caregiving situation (doing wrong to the care recipient, failing to meet the challenges of caregivers, caring for oneself, neglecting other relatives, negative feelings towards other people).As will become evident in the next but one section, an action- and emotion-theoretical view can provide a good foundation for the broader and deeper analysis of further specific emotions in response to caregiving.

227

Intergenerational relations

Positive appraisals and emotions: subjective gains Research interest in positive aspects of family caregiving has greatly increased in the last two decades (early overview: see Kramer, 1997).These aspects have been labelled differently (satisfactions, gains, benefits, pleasures, rewards, enjoyments), and in this chapter subjective gains will be used as the generic term to describe these. Subjective gains are frequently conceived as a composite construct consisting of factual beliefs, positive evaluative beliefs, and sometimes also positive emotions regarding one’s caregiving.This is also reflected in major subjective gain measures like the Caregiver Satisfaction Scale (CSS; Lawton et  al, 1989) or the Carers’ Assessment of Satisfaction Index (CASI; Ekwall and Hallberg, 2007), which combine the ratings of factual beliefs, positive evaluative beliefs and positive emotions into sum scores of subjective gain. In one of the few dimensional analyses of subjective gain, Ekwall and Halberg (2007) found several belief-related factors referring to accomplishments for both the care recipient (his/her welfare) or for the caregiver (such as personal growth). Qualitative studies (for example, Peacock et al, 2010) have revealed that subjective gains refer to a broad range of caregiving facets which can be sorted into five major domains (see also Nolan et al, 1996; Kramer, 1997; Carbonneau et al, 2010): (1) benefits for care receiver, (2) benefits for caregiver, (3) positive relationships between caregivers and care receivers, (4) positive relationships between caregivers and other family members, and (5) increased meaning in caregivers’ lives. A separate emotional gain factor has not yet emerged, probably due to the very small number of emotion items contained in the relevant questionnaires. Moreover, systematic analyses of single positive emotions in relation to family caregiving like admiration, gratitude, joy or pride have yet to be done. Caregivers’ appraisals and emotions: developmental and emotion-theoretical perspectives Concepts from both life-span developmental psychology and psychology of emotion will help to analyse care-related emotions more comprehensively. According to an elaborated action-theoretical model of human development (Brandtstädter, 2001, 2011) as well as cognitive theories of emotion (for example, Ortony et  al, 1988; Reisenzein, 2009), the type of emotional response to a situation primarily depends on how this situation is appraised by the individual. More specifically, individuals’ comparisons between what is believed and what is desired to be the case are assumed to give rise to emotions. If a situation is evaluated as actually or potentially diverging from what is desired, negative emotions will result (for example, sadness, worry). If, however, the situation is perceived as actually or potentially fulfilling one’s desires, positive emotions will result (for example, happiness, hope). More complex emotions like pity, guilt, pride or gratitude will emerge from comparisons involving more elaborated beliefs and desires. With respect to multi-faceted situations (such as caregiving), 228

Family caregiving for older people

a broad spectrum of emotions can be hypothesised, which may refer to various aspects of that complex situation. Given a carer’s desire for the welfare of their older relative, the perception of a relative’s bad fate should give rise to pity or empathetic sadness for the relative; if the carer anticipates an increasingly worse fate for the relative, worry about the relative may arise. If family carers believe that they have knowingly violated a moral norm prescribing that they should serve their older relative’s welfare, guilt feelings are likely to emerge. If family carers believe that other family members have done less for the older relative than they should, anger towards other family members may result. If family carers believe that they are unable to do anything for the older relative’s welfare, helplessness may be evoked. The desires for the welfare of the older relative may also be fulfilled. If carers believe that the older relative’s situation has improved, this should elicit empathetic happiness, and an anticipation that the situation could improve in the future should evoke hope for the older relative. If family carers believe that they have improved their older relative’s welfare without much help from others, pride may arise. If family carers believe that professional personnel did more for the welfare of an older relative than they were obliged to do, gratitude should emerge. However, family carers usually desire their own welfare, too. If they experience irrevocable losses related to their job or leisure time, sadness may result. If a carer anticipates further losses in the future, worry about oneself will arise. If a carer believes that he or she should not have taken on so many caregiving responsibilities, which are interfering with the carer’s own welfare, anger towards oneself may be experienced. If family carers believe that they do not have sufficient means to avoid such losses, helplessness may emerge. If family carers believe that their older relatives could do more for themselves, to alleviate the carers’ workload, anger towards the older relative is likely to be the response. Carers’ desires for their own welfare may also be fulfilled. If, for instance, carers notice that their efforts are appreciated by others, joy or happiness may result. If carers become aware that they have autonomously acquired important competencies through caregiving, pride is a likely response. If carers believe that the workload of caregiving might be reduced in future, hope for better times may emerge. If family carers notice that other family members are taking over more care than is their duty, gratitude towards them should be elicited. Action- and emotion-theoretical approaches further assume that specific emotions are closely linked to typical action tendencies (for example, Frijda, 1996; Brandtstädter, 2011), negative emotions in particular to tendencies to reduce the discrepancy between what is believed and what is desired. Applying these tenets to caregiving, pity should be linked to a tendency to restore the welfare of the older relative, whereas worry about that person should be associated with actions to prevent his or her welfare from decreasing. Moreover, guilt feelings which usually go along with a desire to get rid of one’s guilt may well lead to apologising or to providing some reparation to the older relative. Anger towards the older relative may be linked to aggression directed towards the particular issue that is causing the 229

Intergenerational relations

carer to become angry. In contrast, carers’ helplessness should inhibit tendencies to promote the welfare of the relative and/or oneself. Some positive emotions are also assumed to be linked to action tendencies. For example, family carers’ gratitude towards other supporting family members could be expected to go along with a tendency to thank them. The transformation of these action tendencies into overt action is assumed to depend on opportunities for carrying out the respective actions and the carers’ beliefs regarding effective means of performing these actions.

Goal pursuit: action possibilities and resources of family carers Family carers usually have several care-related goals (for example, welfare of older relative, own welfare, welfare of other persons) against which they evaluate the actual caregiving situation. If there are discrepancies, carers are motivated to reduce them by actively changing the actual situation in the desired direction.According to action theories, those actions which are believed to be effective means for reducing or avoiding these discrepancies will be chosen. In the case of family care, carers are challenged by possible conflicts and discrepancies between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ with respect to various goals. For instance, serving the welfare of the older relative might interfere with the carers’ own welfare and vice versa. So carers must balance goals through the carefully considered choice of action paths. There are three basic possibilities of action: providing care themselves, use of informal support by relatives, friends, and others, and use of formal support by institutional care providers. Personal care provision and the development of caregiver skills Family carers will provide care personally if they believe that doing so is the best means to serve the welfare of their relative (without an excessive sacrifice of their own welfare and that of others). Which kind of care is provided should depend on the specific caregiving demands as perceived by family carers: support with basic and instrumental activities of daily living, with life-enriching activities, and with alleviating the suffering of their older relatives (for example, Gaugler et al, 2002). If family carers find it difficult to promote the welfare of the older relative, they may increase their efforts. If that is not enough, they may start to acquire new competencies. A first group of competencies is particularly relevant for the welfare of older relatives by dealing effectively with their diseases, functional declines, disabilities and problem behaviours. Among them are nursing skills, ability to respond in a flexible and emotionally accepting manner to cognitive declines, knowing how to preserve the strengths of care recipients, ability to correctly identify the amount or kind of support needed and attuning support provision to that information (compare Farran et  al, 2003). A second group of competencies is particularly relevant for carers’ own welfare and that of other persons, and for balancing 230

Family caregiving for older people

the various goals. Among these are the ability to communicate openly with the parties involved in or affected by caregiving and to flexibly coordinate caregiving with other familial or occupational duties. The ability to balance the duties of caring with self-care needs, such as using support and knowing how to live in a health-conscious manner, constitute further competencies required by carers (compare Farran et al, 2004). A general action-theoretical perspective predicts that the willingness to provide care and the way family members actually provide care do not just depend on the competencies that family carers actually have, but also on their belief whether they have such competencies. Use of informal support from relatives, friends, and others If principal caregivers come to believe that they are unable to provide adequate care, a desire to receive informal support (for example, by other family members) may arise (for example, Clipp and George, 1990). In some cases, other family members may participate in caregiving without being asked for help by the principal caregiver. In other cases, principal caregivers may actively mobilise support either indirectly by complaining about the caregiver burden or directly by explicitly asking for help. The receipt of informal support depends, of course, on the principal caregiver’s social networks, that is, the number and the closeness of their relationships to persons who could help. The effects of informal support on principal caregivers depend on their evaluations of the received in relation to the desired support: as too little versus sufficient versus too much; or as ensuring versus restricting freedom of action; or as implying that the principal caregiver is competent versus incompetent. As a result, caregivers can be more or less satisfied or dissatisfied with informal support. Satisfaction with informal support is consistently related to increased well-being of caregivers (for example, Roth et al, 2005). Use of formal support: professional home care services, day care units and nursing homes A progressive decline of the older relative’s condition may increase caregiving demands to a level which may exceed the power and/or competencies of both caregivers and their informal supporters.Approaching their limits, caregivers may search for additional means to serve the welfare of their older relative without sacrificing their own welfare and that of the other relevant persons involved.Which further options will be chosen should depend on family carers’ knowledge about such possibilities and on what they believe about their effectiveness in meeting the various care-related goals. In many cases a professional home care service is the first option considered, because it provides additional competence in caregiving such as medical care and some relief of the burden on primary and secondary family carers, while enabling older relatives to stay in their home environment. An alternative may be the use of day 231

Intergenerational relations

care units. Nursing homes are another possibility, although these will require a move from their home to a completely new environment. Support by adult day care centres represents an out-of-home option, and different possibilities exist across Europe, varying in availability (open days, opening hours) and in services offered: from medical care, personal assistance and meals, to social and physical activities. If the older relative’s condition deteriorates, the strength and/or competencies of family carers, informal supporters, and the professional home and day care services might be exceeded. Then, caregivers may come to believe that permanent institutionalisation is the only means that can serve the welfare of their older relative, their own welfare and that of the other persons involved.This institutionalisation usually releases family carers from very difficult and/or burdensome kinds of care (for example, skilled nursing, bodily care, care at night).Yet other kinds of family care will be continued at least sometimes (for example, help with eating, help with financial issues). However, new stressors may emerge, such as conflicts with nursing home staff. Longitudinal studies of the effects of institutionalisation provide inconsistent findings since some convey that stress levels of carers may stay the same or increase (Matsuda et al, 1997), whereas others indicate considerable reductions in burden (for example, Gaugler et al, 2009). This may be due to the fact that different family carers can perceive and evaluate the ‘objective institutionalisation’ very differently so that different profiles of strain will result.

Goal adjustments and other accommodative processes If increased effort by family carers and even an additional mobilisation of external support could not sufficiently change the actual caregiving situation in the desired direction, caregivers may come to believe that nobody can reduce the discrepancy. In that case, the discrepancy might be reduced in a fundamentally different way by adjusting the care-related goals to the constraints of the actual caregiving situation. Such accommodative processes have been described in general (not in relation to caregiving) in an action-theoretical model of human development (Brandtstädter 2001, 2011). The role of goal adjustment has only rarely been examined in relation to caregiving. As a notable exception, Leipold (2004) has provided evidence that a generalised flexible disposition towards goal adjustment had a buffering effect on the relation between care-related stressors and well-being of family carers of relatives with dementia. More recently, Wrosch et al (2011) found that related generalised dispositions (such as ‘goal disengagement’, ‘goal re-engagement’) buffered the association between caregiver burden and depression of family caregivers for mentally ill relatives. However, these dispositions and their measures refer to adjustment of goals in general and not to the adjustment of specific carerelated goals, so that future research will have to examine the accommodative dispositions and processes specifically for these goals. The following hypotheses

232

Family caregiving for older people

illustrate how the disengagement from old care-related goals and re-engagement in new care-related goals might look. Goals regarding the welfare of the older relative might shift from curing diseases to keeping the individual’s health from deteriorating, from prolongation of life to maintaining quality of life, from keeping the current health status to alleviating suffering – just to give three examples here. Goals related to the carer’s own welfare might shift from working full time to working part time, from frequent to rare leisure time activities, from frequent to rare contact with other family members or friends. Other accommodative processes involve a redefinition of central care-related concepts. To be a ‘good carer’ may thus shift from the view that a ‘good carer exclusively considers the desires of the recipient’ to the view that a ‘good carer considers both the needs of the recipient and the needs of the carer’. The definition of ‘good care’ may change from the ‘prolongation of life’ to ‘enabling acceptable quality of life’. As a last example, a view that ‘living with dementia is no life worth living’ may shift to the view that ‘living with dementia is a life worth living’. A redefinition of concepts may be supplemented by emphasising the positive aspects of the caregiving situation. The carer may thus focus on the opportunities that caregiving provides for repaying for received benefits, for expressing gratitude and affection and for expressing religious and moral values. In general, people will not easily engage in changing their concepts, and this is a step-by-step process that has been described elsewhere as ‘processing bad news under threat’ (see Ferring and Filipp, 2000).

Outcomes for family caregivers Mental and physical health outcomes Negative effects on the mental and physical health of family carers deserve attention for several reasons. First, they cause strain on family carers. Second, illness-induced absenteeism of family carers increases costs for businesses and public organisations alike, and medical treatment of family carers increases costs for them and for health insurance organisations and their contributors. Third, poor health of carers may reduce the quality and quantity of care they are able to provide and may lead to an earlier institutionalisation of older family members in nursing homes. So providers and recipients of family care as well as the economy and society at large should be interested in maintaining caregivers’ health. Physical health of carers Meta-analyses have found a poorer health of family carers as compared to non-carers, in particular with respect to global health self-ratings (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003b; Vitaliano et al, 2003). Prospective longitudinal studies also found that poor health in family carers and that larger amounts of or more strenuous 233

Intergenerational relations

caregiving were linked to worse health and even increased death rates of family carers (for example, Schulz and Beach, 1999; Vitaliano et  al, 2002). Another meta-analytic finding is that the health of caring spouses (who themselves will typically be elderly) is worse compared to that of caring adult children (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2011). That only a moderate, but significant difference emerged between carers and non-carers may be due to subjective gains of caregiving and due to the resources of family carers, namely, caregiver skills, and informal and formal support for carers. Moreover, one should note that physical health is influenced by several other factors beyond the provision of family care, like genes, socio-economic state, and health-related behaviour. Mental health of carers Several studies also compared the mental health of family carers with that of comparable non-carers. Meta-analyses found that mental health of family carers was worse than that of comparable non-carers; differences regarding mental health were larger than differences regarding physical health (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003b). Similar to findings regarding physical health, the mental health of family carers of relatives suffering from dementia only was worse than that of a mixed group of family carers of relatives, some of whom suffered from dementia and some did not (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003b). As with physical health, the mental health of caring spouses was worse than that of caring adult children (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2011).

Developmental changes in goals, competencies and personality attributes As described earlier, caregiving involves continuous adaptation through active pursuit of goals as well as goal adjustments (and other accommodative processes). Active goal pursuit may result in more permanent developmental changes such as the actual acquisition of new competencies and corresponding self-efficacy beliefs and may also induce a change in personality characteristics. Past research has shown that family carers believe that they have developed new competences and have experienced personal growth. Future research will have to demonstrate that actual competence development and personality change has taken place in response to being a family carer. Goal adjustments (and other accommodative processes) should also result in permanent developmental changes in the goal and belief systems of family carers, but this should be further examined in future research.

Conclusion Caring is a complex issue and its social relevance will increase in response to the current demographic change. Due to a continuously ageing population, the need for informal and formal care will rise in the near future in most European countries. 234

Family caregiving for older people

This should be a topic for interdisciplinary research, focusing on the different levels of the socio-ecological context. In this chapter, emphasis has been placed on a psychological analysis of the caring situation that is dedicated to life-span developmental psychology in general and to an action- and emotion-theoretical analysis of the personal adaptation in particular.The discussion has focused strongly on family carers as individuals and on their immediate environment. But in line with the basic tenets of life-span developmental psychology (for example, historical embeddedness, contextualism), the present authors are well aware of the constraints and the options that cultural and macro-social factors provide for the individual development in relation to caregiving. For instance, the constraints of public budgets and, linked to this, the problems of financing of health and care services frame the conditions in which the individual has to adapt. If a society does not sufficiently support family carers, this will have an impact on the individual level, increasing the burden of all involved persons. Moreover, and as a second example, developments of technologies to provide assistance (like service robots) that are promoted at the macro-level will have to find their way into individual lives in order to have the expected positive impact on the quality of life of carers as well as the quality of care. There are further examples of how macro-social factors may be translated into individual lives that cannot be elaborated here in detail. What is the advantage of the present analysis? By putting emphasis on subjective appraisals of objective life situations, by focusing on goals involved in the care situation and by highlighting accommodative efforts, it can be seen that ‘reality’ of family carers is mostly ‘reality as it is perceived’ (see Zittoun et al, 2013). Such a constructivist position helps to explain the inter-individual differences in response which can be observed between persons in comparable care situations. It also helps to explain that caring is a process where one has to continuously adapt to changes of the life situation, which results in intra-individual changes in goals, competencies, and even personality attributes. Finally, a life-span developmental analysis of the care situation underlines that one has to consider both the caregiver as well as the care recipient within the context of their individual biographies and their socio-cultural environment in order to develop a profound understanding of their life situation.This will be necessary in order to build up effective services and support for the carer, as well as for the care recipient, that will help to deal with the complex situation.All this is a prerequisite for developing an understanding at the socio-political level which can further promote and foster intergenerational relations and solidarity between generations in general. References Albert, I., Michels,T. and Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Patterns of intergenerational support and reciprocity’, in R. Zukauskiene (ed) Proceedings of the XIV European Conference on Developmental Psychology (18–22 August 2009, Vilnius, Lithuania), Bologna, Italy: Medimond s.r.l.

235

Intergenerational relations

Albert, S.M., Bear-Lehman, J. and Burkhardt,A. (2009) ‘Lifestyle-adjusted function: variation beyond BADL and IADL competencies’, The Gerontologist, vol  49, no 6, pp 767–77. Aneshensel, C.S., Pearlin, L.I., Mullan, J.T., Zarit, S.H. and Whitlatch, C.J. (1995) Profiles in caregiving:The unexpected career, San Diego, Academic Press. Ankri, J., Andrieu, S., Beaufils, B., Grand, A. and Henrard, J. C. (2005) ‘Beyond the global score of the Zarit Burden Interview: useful dimensions for clinicians’, International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 20, no 3, pp 254–60. Baltes, P.B. (1987) ‘Theoretical propositions of life span developmental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline’, Developmental Psychology, vol 23, pp 611–26. Barling, J., MacEwen, K.E., Kelloway, E. and Higginbottom, S.F. (1994) ‘Predictors and outcomes of elder-care-based interrole conflict’, Psychology and Aging, vol 9, no 3, pp 391–97. Black, S.E., Gauthier, S., Dalziel,W., Keren, R., Correia, J., Hew, H. and Binder, C. (2010) ‘Canadian Alzheimer’s disease caregiver survey: baby-boomer caregivers and burden of care’, International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, vol  25, no  8, pp 807–13. Brandtstädter, J. (2001) Entwicklung – Intentionalität – Handeln [Development – intention – action], Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Brandtstädter, J. (2011) Positive Entwicklung: Zur Psychologie gelingender Lebensführung [Positive development: on the psychology of a successful life management], Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Carbonneau, H., Caron, C. and Desrosiers, J. (2010) ‘Development of a conceptual framework of positive aspects of caregiving in dementia’, Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, vol 9, pp 327–53. Chou, K.-R. (2000) ‘Caregiver burden: a concept analysis’, Journal of Pediatric Nursing, vol 15, no 6, pp 398–407. Clipp, E.C. and George, L.K. (1990) ‘Caregiver needs and patterns of social support’, The Journal of Gerontology, vol 45, S102–S111. Covinsky, K.E., Eng, C., Lui, L.-Y., Sands, L.P., Sehgal,A.R.,Walter, L.C.,Wieland, D., Eleazer, G. and Yaffe, K. (2001) ‘Reduced employment in caregivers of frail elders: impact of ethnicity, patient clinical characteristics, and caregiver characteristics’, Journals of Gerontology: Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, vol 56A, no 11, pp 707–13. Dallinger, U. (1996) ‘Pflege und Beruf – ein neuer Vereinbarungskonflikt in der spaeten Familienphase. Ein Literatur- und Forschungsueberblick [Elder care and employment – A new intergenerational conflict in the late family phase]’, Zeitschrift fuer Familienforschung, vol 8, no 2, pp 6–42. Deeken, J.F.,Taylor, K.L., Mangan, P.,Yabroff, K.R. and Ingham, J.M. (2003) ‘Care for the caregivers: a review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers’, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol 26, no 4, pp 922-53.

236

Family caregiving for older people

Ekwall, A.K. and Hallberg, I.R. (2007) ‘The association between caregiving satisfaction, difficulties and coping among older family caregivers’, Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol 16, pp 832–44. Farran, C.J., Loukissa, D., Perraud, S. and Paun, O. (2003) ‘Alzheimer’s disease caregiving information and skills. Part  I: care recipient issues and concerns’, Research in Nursing and Health, vol 26, no 5, 366–75. Farran, C.J., Loukissa, D., Perraud, S. and Paun, O. (2004) ‘Alzheimer’s disease caregiving information and skills. Part II: family caregiver issues and concerns’, Research in Nursing and Health, vol 27, no 1, pp 40–51. Ferring, D. and Filipp, S.-H. (2000) ‘Coping as a “reality construction”: on the role of attentive, comparative, and interpretative processes in coping with cancer’, in J. Harvey and E. Miller (eds) Loss and trauma. General and close relationship perspectives, Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel, pp 146–65. Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Editorial to the special issue on family care giving’, GeroPsychThe Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, vol 23, p 181. Filipp, S.-H. (2007) ‘Kritische Lebensereignisse [Critical life-events]’, in J. Brandtstädter and U. Lindenberger (Hrsg) Entwicklungspsychologie der Lebensspanne. Ein Lehrbuch, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp 337–66. Filipp, S.-H. and Aymanns, P. (2010) Kritische Lebensereignisse und Lebenskrisen [Critical life-events and life crises], Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Frijda, N.H. (1996) ‘Passions: emotion and socially consequential behavior’, in R.D. Kavanaugh, B. Zimmerberg and V. Fein (eds) Emotion: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 1–27. Gaugler, J.E., Kane, R.L. and Kane, R.A. (2002) ‘Family care for older adults with disabilities: toward more targeted and interpretable research’, The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, vol 54, no 3, pp 205–31. Gaugler, J.E.,Yu, F., Krichbaum, K. and Wyman, J.F. (2009). ‘Predictors of nursing home admission for persons with dementia’, Medical Care, vol 47, no 2, pp 191–8. Kaldjian, L.C., Curtis, A.E., Shinkunas, L.A. and Cannon, K.T. (2009) ‘Goals of care toward the end of life: a structured literature review’, American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, vol 25, no 6, pp 501–11. Kramer, B.J. (1997) ‘Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next?’, The Gerontologist, vol 37, no 2, pp 218–32. Lawton, M.P., Kleban, M.H., Moss, M., Rovine, M. and Glicksman, A. (1989) ‘Measuring caregiving appraisal’, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, vol 44, no 3, pp 61–71. Lawton, M.P., Moss, M.S., Kleban, M.H., Glicksman,A. and Rovine, M. (1991) ‘A two-factor model of caregiving appraisal and psychological well-being’, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, vol 46, no 4, pp P181–P189. Leipold, B. (2004) Bewältigungsverhalten und Persönlichkeitswachstum pflegender Angehoeriger [Coping and personality growth in caregivers], Doctoral dissertation, Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (available at: http://www.diss.fu-berlin. de/2004/325/).

237

Intergenerational relations

Losada,A., Márquez-González, M., Peñacoba, C. and Romero-Moreno, R. (2010) ‘Development and validation of the Caregiver Guilt Questionnaire’, International Psychogeriatrics, vol 22, pp 650–60. Matsuda, O., Hasebe, N., Ikehara, K., Futatsuya, M. and Akahane, N. (1997) ‘Longitudinal study of the mental health of caregivers caring for elderly patients with dementia: effect of institutional placement on mental health’, Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, vol 51, pp 289–93. McCormick, C.M., Kuo, S.I.-C. and Masten, A.S. (2011) ‘Developmental tasks across the life span’, in K.L. Fingerman, C.A. Berg, J. Smith and T.C. Antonucci (eds) Handbook of life-span development, New York, NY: Springer, pp 117–40. Mills, J., Clark, M.S., Ford,T.E. and Johnson, M. (2004) ‘Measurement of communal strength’, Personal Relationships, vol 11, no 2, pp 213–30. Monin, J.K. and Schulz, R. (2009) ‘Interpersonal effects of suffering in older adult caregiving relationships’, Psychology and Aging, vol 24, no 3, pp 681–95. Nolan, M. Grant, G. and Keady, J. (1996) Understanding family care: a multidimensional model of caring and coping, Buckingham: Open University Press. Novak, M. and Guest, C. (1989) ‘Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory’, Gerontologist, vol 29, no 6, pp 798–803. Ortony, A., Clore, G.L. and Collins, A. (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Peacock, S., Forbes, D., Markle-Reid, M., Hawranik, P., Morgan, D., Jansen, L., Leipert, B. D. and Henderson, S.R. (2010) ‘The positive aspects of the caregiving journey with dementia: using a strengths-based perspective to reveal opportunities’, Journal of Applied Gerontology, vol 29, no 5, pp 640–59. Pearlin, L.I., Mullan, J.T., Semple, S.J. and Skaff, M.M. (1990) ‘Caregiving and the stress process: an overview of concepts and their measures’, The Gerontologist, vol 30, no 5, pp 583–94. Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. (2003a) ‘Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: a meta-analysis’, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, vol 58(B), no 2, pp 112–28. Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. (2003b). ‘Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis’, Psychology and Aging, vol 18, no 2, pp 250–67. Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. (2011) ‘Spouses, adult children, and children-in-law as caregivers of older adults: a meta-analytic comparison’, Psychology and Aging, vol 26, no 1, pp 1–14. Reisenzein, R. (2009) ‘Emotions as metarepresentational states of mind: naturalizing the belief-desire theory of emotion’, Cognitive Systems Research, vol 10, pp 6–20. Roberto, K.A. and Jarrott, S.E. (2008) ‘Family caregivers of older adults: a life span perspective’, Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, vol 57, no 1, pp 100–11.

238

Family caregiving for older people

Robinson, B.C. (1983) ‘Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index’, Journal of Gerontology, vol 38, pp 344–48. Roth, D.L., Burgio, L.D., Gitlin, L.N., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Coon, D.W., Belle, S.H., Stevens, A.B. and Burns, R. (2003) ‘Psychometric analysis of the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist: factor structure of occurrence and reaction ratings’, Psychology and Aging, vol 18, no 4, pp 906–15. Roth, D.L., Mittelman, M.S., Clay, O.J., Madan,A. and Haley,W.E. (2005) ‘Changes in social support as mediators of the impact of a psychosocial intervention for spouse caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease’, Psychology and Aging, vol 20, no 4, pp 634–44. Scharlach, A., Li, W. and Dalvi, T.B. (2006) ‘Family conflict as a mediator of caregiver strain’, Family Relations, vol 55, no 5, pp 625–35. Schulz, R. and Beach, S.R. (1999) ‘Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study’, JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 282, no 23, pp 2215–19. Shifren, K. (2009) ‘Introduction: a life span perspective on caregivers’, in K. Shifren (ed) How caregiving affects development: psychological implications for child, adolescent, and adult caregivers, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp 3–35. Silverstein, M., Conroy, S.J., Wang, H., Giarrusso, R. and Bengtson, V.L. (2002) ‘Reciprocity in parent-child relations over the adult life course’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, vol 57B, pp 2–13. Silverstein, M., Parrott,T. and Bengston,V. (1995) ‘Factors that predispose middleaged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol 57, pp 465–75. Verbrugge, L.M. and Jette, A.M. (1994) ‘The disablement process’, Social Science and Medicine, vol 38, no 1, pp 1–14. Vitaliano, P.P., Scanlan, J.M., Zhang, J., Savage, M.V., Hirsch, I., and Siegler, I.C. (2002) ‘A path model of chronic stress, the metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease’, Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 64, pp 418–35. Vitaliano, P.P., Young, H.M. and Zhang, J. (2003) ‘Is caregiving hazardous to one’s physical health? A meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin vol 129, no 6, pp 946–72. Wilms, H.-U., Baltes, M.M. and Kanowski, S. (1998) ‘Demenzerkrankungen und Alltagskompetenz: Effekte auch jenseits von ADL und IADL [Dementia and competence in activities of daily living: effects beyond ADL and IADL]’, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, vol 31, no 4, pp 263–70. Wolff, J.L. and Kasper, J.D. (2006) ‘Caregivers of frail elders: updating a national profile’, Gerontologist, vol 46, pp 344–56. Wrosch, C., Amir, E. and Miller, G.E. (2011) ‘Goal adjustment capacities, coping, and subjective well-being: the sample case of caregiving for a family member with mental illness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 100, no 5, pp 934–46. Zarit, S.H., Reever, K.E. and Bach-Peterson, J. (1980) ‘Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden’, The Gerontologist, vol 20, no 6, pp 649–55. 239

Intergenerational relations

Zittoun,T.,Valsiner, J.,Vedeler, K., Salgado, J., Gonçalves, M. and Ferring, D. (2013) Human development in the life course: melodies of living, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

240

Where do we go from here? An epilogue concerning the importance of solidarity between generations Dieter Ferring and Isabelle Albert

The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings. Albert Schweitzer1 At the present time, the projected scenarios of how Europe may develop in the future do not appear to be very promising. All the chapters in this book start with the observation of demographic and social change due to a continuously increasing life expectancy and a continuously decreasing fertility rate in the majority of European countries. All of the authors go on to explain that these changes will challenge societies at several levels of the socio-ecological context. The sustainability and distribution of public resources in various domains will be affected by these changes at the societal level, and this may have an impact upon the quality of exchanges and relationships at the family level. As a result, investment in work and employment, education and training, social security and health care provision – to name just four major areas of social policy – is facing challenges in all European countries. It also seems that this process is (sometimes) accelerated by economic globalisation which links national economies to the international market in such a way that the national GDPs and – associated to this – social security and welfare will depend more and more on the economic power of the individual nation. Europe currently thus faces one of the most demanding tests of its cohesion and economic collaboration since the introduction of the Euro, if not since the foundation of the Union. Some European countries are experiencing dramatic increases in unemployment, especially in youth unemployment, along with cutbacks in salaries, pension systems, health provision and reduced investment in education at all levels. On the other side, the liquidity of banks and especially investment banks is saved and guaranteed by national households, that is, by tax money, because of the system relevance that they are assumed to have. ‘System relevance’ – a new composite term of the early 21st century – describes the interconnectedness of the national and international financial system, which may lead to a domino effect; in other words, the insolvency of one ‘domino piece’ may lead to the instability and possible breakdown of the whole system.While on the 241

Intergenerational relations

one hand tax money is being used to stabilise banks that have taken speculative risks, on the other hand, as previously highlighted, social security, health provision, employment and work as well as education are all suffering cutbacks. Moreover, the distribution of wealth is being challenged, and the risk of social inequality is increasing in some European countries. It is no wonder that all this poses a threat to social peace and social cohesion.The mass protests which took place in Greece, Spain and Portugal during 2012 show that social peace is already threatened in these countries. A special Eurobarometer on ‘social climate’ published in 20122 shows that most Europeans have a negative view of social protection and inclusion. This includes the evaluation of how inequalities and poverty are addressed in their specific countries; the view on pension provision and unemployment benefits is also clearly negative. Exceptions to this general trend are relations between people from different countries, which are evaluated neutrally, and health care provisions which are evaluated positively. This sketch of the societal situation in Europe, however, does not find a correspondence in the evaluation of the personal situation since – according to this report – Europeans, in general, are more likely to feel positive about their personal situation than the national situation.Within this context, one may ‘recall’ that social surveys have repeatedly shown that the question ‘does money buy happiness?’ is to be answered with a clear ‘no’ (Easterlin, 1973, 1995). If one accepts that selfreport answers to survey questions reflect the views of individuals, these findings show that the evaluation of the life situation, and in particular subjective wellbeing, are subject to individual regulation processes which may sometimes render divergences between objective indicators and the subjective view (see Ferring and Boll, 2010). However, this should by no means exclude that life conditions can deteriorate in a way that will have a direct effect on individual well-being. In particular, research on human ageing illustrates this: limited mobility due to impaired physical and functional impairment, insufficient financial resources, feelings of isolation and being without support certainly will affect individual life evaluation. Significant factors that will make a difference between despair and hope – to use these two extremes as an illustration of individual well-being – are whether a person will have sufficient personal and social resources in a specific burdening situation. The availability of support is therefore certainly one of the most crucial protective factors, and this highlights the importance of solidarity and its various facets, that have been described throughout this book. In closing this book, we therefore want to underline that solidarity between generations in family and society will be needed in the future as a guarantee of both individual well-being and social welfare. Solidarity thus concerns all generations within family as well as birth cohorts that differ according to Mannheim’s concept of generations (see also Chauvel, 1998). Although current findings describe a comparatively high willingness to support one another within families, there are also discourses – and these especially in the public media – describing future scenarios of a ‘war between generations’ regarding the distribution of resources between the ‘young’ and the ‘old’ at the society level.3 Although one may 242

Epilogue

question the content of such discourses as well as the imprecise and polarising confrontation of the ‘young’ and the ‘old’, they may have some impact on public opinion nevertheless. Furthermore, asking for solidarity at the family level certainly cannot be the final argument and/or last resort here.This issue at the family level is also true at the macro-level of society. Behind this concept lie policy structures and practices that will (have to) promote solidarity between generations. In an ageing society this will include opportunities for intergenerational exchanges, as well as the development of policies that attempt to find a balance between societal investments into education, training and employment on the one hand, as well as social security and health provision on the other hand. Furthermore, this will also have to include the distribution of wealth in a society and the notion of social inequalities, as well as the question of intergenerational justice and of ‘resource fairness’ between the needs of those who are currently living and future generations. Notes Schweitzer, A. (1965) The teaching of reverence for life, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, p 9. 1

Special Eurobarometer 391, Social Climate (2012), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/index_en.htm. 2

As a crude indicator of the importance of this topic, a search on the term ‘war between generations’ using internet search engines (such as Google) will currently generate about 203,000 hits (see also Ferring, 2010). 3

References Chauvel, L. (1998) Le destin des générations. Structure sociale et cohortes en France au xxe siècle, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Easterlin, R. (1973) ‘Does money buy happiness?’, Public Interest, vol 30, pp 3–10. Easterlin, R. (1995) ‘Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, vol 27, pp 35–48. Ferring, D. (2010) ‘Intergenerational relations in an ageing society: emerging topics in Europe’, Journal of Intergenerational Relations, vol 8, pp 101–4. Ferring, D. and Boll,T. (2010) ‘Subjective well-being in older adults: current state and gaps of research’, in L. Bovenberg, A. Van Soest and A. Zaidi (eds) Ageing, health and pensions in Europe. An economic and social policy perspective, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 173–205.

243

Index Note: The following abbreviations have been used: f = figure; n = note; t = table

A AAI see Adult Attachment Interview absolute value transmission 107 Acitelli, L.K. 108 action-theoretical approach: caregiving 8, 226, 227, 228, 229–30, 231, 232, 235 active labour market policies (ALMP) 20 activities of daily living (ADL) 194–5, 200n adaptation reaction: change 119 adolescence 3, 7, 47, 93, 131 autonomy and 103, 104, 105, 106, 112, 131 Family Change Theory (FCT) 171–2, 178–80 grandparents and 153, 154, 156, 157 multidirectional perspective on value transmission 110f, 111–13 outcomes of value transmission process 106–9 perceptions of social change 125–6, 127 value transmission 6, 102, 103f, 104, 105f, 106 Adorno, T.W. 49 Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 adult day care centres 232 adulthood 3, 41, 131, 142, 223 conflict and other characteristics of relationships 139–41 conflict resolution styles 7, 138–9 cross-cultural perspective on conflict 137 Family Change Theory (FCT) 174, 177–8 gender differences on conflict 136–7 intergenerational tensions 136 middle adulthood/elderly parents 135–6 theoretical perspectives on conflict 132–3 see also emerging adulthood; young adulthood affective bonding 2 affective solidarity 27, 32, 139–40, 154 Africa 137, 158 age 18–19, 21, 72, 151 age-related disease 223, 224

ageing society 1, 26–7, 34, 41, 54, 160, 206, 243 caregiving 191, 194, 199, 223, 234 see also demographic change agency 49, 50, 52, 54, 69, 206 aggressive behaviour 139, 140 Ainsworth, M. 86, 88 Albert, I. 93 Albertini, M. 28 Allen, J.P. 93 altruism 207, 213, 215 ambivalence see intergenerational ambivalence Anttonen, A. 31 anxiety (hyperactivation) 89, 95 Aquilino, W.S. 133 Asian culture 95, 137 associative solidarity 27, 32, 139 Ataca, B. 174 atomisation 43f, 44 attachment 85–6, 94f, 95–6 assessment data quality 89–90, 92 assessment methods 88–9, 92 cultural context 87–8 development over the life-span 86–7 intergenerational transmission/congruence 6, 86, 90–3 negative undertone of ambivalence 45 Attias-Donfut, C. 152 Austria 29 Authoritarian Personality,The (Adorno) 49 authoritarian/authoritative parenting style 104, 168 autonomy 3, 7, 197, 208 adolescence 103, 104, 105, 106, 112, 131 Communist regime 120, 122 family change theory (FCT) 167, 168, 169, 175 intergenerational conflict and 132, 136, 139, 141 life-course perspective 132–3 avoidant (attachment) 86, 89, 95, 138, 140 Aycicegi-Dinn, A. 177

245

Intergenerational relations

B Baltes, M.M. 133 Baltes, P.B. 223 Bannink, D. 34 Barber, E. 44 Barni, D. 111 Barometer for Gender 121 Bartholomew, K. 90 ‘beanpole’ family 1 Belgium 154, 210 beliefs 3, 4 Belsky, J. 109 Bengtson,V.L. 1, 27, 104, 140, 182, 196, 209, 215 intergenerational ambivalence 41–2, 49–50, 51 Berger, B. and P.L. 41 bidirectional value transmission process 104, 105f, 106, 110 Biggs, S. 50, 51 Bildung 77n Bildungspakt (‘educational treaty’) 73 Bilz, L. 105 Birditt, K.S. 138, 139 birth control 197 birth rates 157–8, 205 Blekesaune, M. 18, 22n Bleuler, E. 44 Blumer, H. 53 Boehnke, K. 108 Bojczyk, K.E. 132 Bonoli, G. 18, 20, 22n Bourdieu, P. 78n Bowlby, J. 87 Brody, E.M. 195 Broese van Groenou, M.B. 209 Busemeyer, M. 18

C Cameroon 175 capitalist economies 16–17, 19, 28 captivation 43f, 44 Caregiver Satisfaction Scale (CSS) 228 Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) 227 caregiving 8, 46, 50, 73, 153, 191, 209 action possibilities/resources of carers 230–2 adjustment/accommodative processes 232–3, 234, 235 appraisals and emotions 227–30 attachment theory and 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 95 defining 198–9 elements of the caregiving situation 224–6 goals of family carers 226, 234 guilt/shame 51–2 intergenerational solidarity 25, 26, 30–1, 33, 34 ‘invisible work’ 192, 193

246

medical science/social policy perspectives 192 mental/physical health outcomes 227, 233–4 sociological approach to 195–8 specificity of family care for older adults 192–3 standard measures of family care for elderly persons 194–5 Carers’ Assessment of Satisfaction Index (CASI) 228 Center for Urban and Regional Sociology 121 Central and Eastern Europe: family model 119 childcare 32, 33, 121, 152, 193 childlessness 157–8 children 8, 45, 87 economic/emotional value 137, 168, 169–70, 174, 177–8, 183 education 74, 75 multiple children 46, 52 support for ageing parents as adults 46, 69 support from parents 2, 3, 207–8 Children of the Great Depression (Elder) 4 China 159, 175 choice: value transmission 6, 110f, 111 Cicirelli,V.G. 216 civil equality 70 Clarke, E.J. 136 ‘clash of generations’ 15 co-residence 32, 33, 134, 140, 194 intergenerational solidarity 209, 210, 212, 213, 215 cognitive working model 92 Coleman, J. 78n collective action: labour markets 17 collective ambivalence 52 Communism 6, 119–20, 121–2, 123, 127, 128 communities of experience 67–8 community care 192, 194, 197, 198 commutative justice (iustitia commutativa) 70, 71 conflict-oriented approach: labour markets 17–18, 22n conformity 102, 103, 124 congruence: attachment 6 connectedness 7, 68, 131, 132, 133, 134 Connidis, I.A. 47, 49 consensual solidarity 154, 155 contact frequency 21, 27, 30, 33, 139 grandparents/grandchildren 150–1, 152, 156, 158 intergenerational support 215, 226 socio-economic status 209 continuity: value transmission 6, 111–13 contraception 197 Coontz, S. 41 Costa Rica 175 couples 138, 140, 172–3 see also marriage; spouses

Index critical theory 49 cross-cultural perspectives 6, 7, 137, 141–2, 151, 171–80, 181f crowding-in/-out hypothesis 5, 26, 27, 30–4, 152 Curran, S.R. 50 custodial parents 7, 41, 47, 158–9

D daughters attachment theory and 46, 48, 92 balance between autonomy and connectedness 132–3 caregiving 191, 196, 197 intergenerational conflict 135, 136, 137, 138, 140 intergenerational support 211, 212, 214, 215, 217 value transmission 106 Deanne, G. 52 decentralisation 29–30, 31 defamilialised welfare regimes 28–9, 32 defence reaction: change 119 dementia 225, 232, 234 demilitarised zone 7, 131, 136 demographic change 39, 65, 74, 241 intergenerational support and 205–6 labour markets and 5, 15–16 Romania 120–1 see also ageing society Denmark 103, 104, 152 destructive behaviour 138, 140 developmental tasks/goals: caregiving 223, 225, 228–31, 234 disability 224–5 disorganised attachment 86, 95 dissolving families 47 distributive justice (iustitia distributiva) 70, 71 divorce 1, 39, 41, 47, 141, 150–1, 158, 208 intergenerational support 213, 214, 215 don contre-don theory 196 dual earner/dual carer model 31 dyad-centred approach: value transmission 107–8 Dykstra, P.A. 141 dynastic altruism 20–1

E early childhood 74, 75, 86 Eastern Europe 28, 29, 34 eco-cultural context 6, 176–7 ecological factors: attachment theory 87, 91, 95 education 73, 74–5, 208 Ekwall, A.K. 228 Elder, G.H. 4 elderly people abuse of 42

defining caregiving 198–9 intergenerational support 217 sociological approach to caregiving 195–8 specificity of family care for 192–3 standard measures of family care for 194–5 see also older adults emancipation 43f, 44 embeddedness values 176, 177 emerging adulthood 3, 208 Emirbayer, M. 49 emotion-theoretical approach: caregiving 8, 228–30 emotional closeness 27, 30, 132, 139, 216, 226 emotional gain: caregiving 228 emotional interdependencies cross-cultural studies 171–8, 179–80, 181–2, 183, 184n value of children 7, 169–70 see also material interdependencies; total interdependence emotional security see attachment empathic-constructive behaviour 138, 139 employment 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 England 137 equal opportunities 30–1 Erikson, Erik 69 Esping-Andersen, G. 28, 192 Estévez-Abe, M. 16–17 Estonia 33–4 Eurobarometer 15, 242 Europe 28, 135, 137, 151–2, 195–6, 205, 241–2 European Union (EU) 29, 157 European Values Survey (EVS) 121, 122, 123 Eurostat 26–7 EVS see European Values Survey expressive family roles 176, 177 extended family 40, 41

F face-to-face contact 27, 160 families 1, 2–3, 5, 6, 7, 25, 34, 101 familism 174–6 family care see caregiving Family change theory (FCT) 7, 182–4 as a cross-cultural heuristic model 170–1 Kagitcibasi and 168–9 modernisation and 167–8 review of cross-cultural studies on 171–80, 181f Value of Children Study (VOC Study) 169–70 ‘family cultures’ 2 family franchise: voting rights 72 Family, Journal of Marriage and the, see Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) family life-cycle 5, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25 family models 167, 168–9 family negotiation 192

247

Intergenerational relations ‘family question’ 25 family sociology 195–8 fathers ambivalence 46, 47 attachment theory and 87, 91 caregiving 197, 213, 215, 217 grandparenting and 159 intergenerational conflict 137, 138, 139, 141 patriarchal ideology 168 value transmission 110f, 111 see also men feminist perspective: caregiving 192 Ferrer, M. 18, 22n Ferring, D. 141 fertility rates 1, 137, 169–70, 174, 177–8, 191, 241 Field, J. 78n filial maturity 216 filial piety 48 filter model: value transmission 105 Fingerman, K. 45, 46, 136, 138, 139 Fischer, R. 102 flexible protection 113 floating 53 formal support: caregiving 230, 231–2, 234 Fraile, M. 18, 22n Fraley, R.C. 90 France 107, 152, 195 Frenkel-Brunswik, E. 49 Friedlmeier, M. 112, 125, 126 Frost, K. M. and C. J. 124 Fruhauf, C.A. 153 functional solidarity 27, 140, 151, 152, 153, 154, 196

G Gavreliuc, A. 123–4 gay/lesbian couples 47 gender 8, 66, 121, 192 ambivalence and 46–7 changing roles 7, 205–6 conflict and 136–7 grandparent/grandchild relations 150, 159 perceptions of social change 125, 126t, 127 role intergenerational support 211–16, 217 generation me 208 generational location 67, 78n generations 77n decrease in size 1 definition of 66–9 family-based lineage concept 51 generational location 67, 78n geographic distances between 1, 33 perceptions of social change 125, 126t, 127 generative socialisation 5, 54, 55n, 155 intergenerational policy 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 76 generativity 69 genetic factors: value transmission 109

248

geographic distances see residential proximity Georgas, J. 86–7, 176, 182 German Ageing Survey 151, 152, 155, 157 Germany attachment theory 93 family change theory 174, 175, 178–80 intergenerational conflict 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138–9, 140 labour markets 17 pension provision 15 value transmission 106, 108 welfare regime 29 Gerontology: Social Sciences, Journal of 52–3 globalisation 167, 184, 241 goal disengagement/re-engagement 232–3 Goerres, A. 21 ‘good care’ 233 Goodnow, J.J. 105, 107, 112 grandchildlessness 157–8 grandchildren ambivalence and 47, 155–7 functions and tasks for grandparents 151–3, 157 impact of socio-demographic changes 149–51, 157–9 meanings of grandparents/grandchildren for each other 154–5 support from older generation 2, 7, 19, 26, 41 grandparents 32, 33, 34, 147–8, 157–60 ambivalence and 47, 155–7 as custodial parents 7, 41, 47, 158–9 functions and tasks for grandchildren 151–3 impact of socio-demographic changes 149–51, 157–9 meanings of grandparents/grandchildren for each other 154–5 support for younger generation 2, 7, 19, 26, 41, 73 types of 148 value transmission 104, 106, 107, 108 Great Britain 210 Greece 33, 134 family change theory (FCT) 171–3, 174, 175, 176, 183 Greenwell, L. 209 Grünheid, E. 157 Grusec, J.E. 105, 107, 112 guilt 51–2

H Hagestad, G. 158 Häikiö, L. 31 Hall, P. 17 Hallberg, I.R. 228 Hantrais, L. 29 Harper, S. 155, 158 Häuserman, S. 18, 20, 22n health

Index caregiving 198–9, 213, 227, 230–1, 233–4 grandparents 151, 152 Herlyn, I. 156 high-income families 26, 104 historical contexts 2, 6, 104 Hoff, A. 153 Hoogenboom, M. 34 Höpflinger, F. 151, 159–60 horizontal value transmission 111 Huber, W. 70–1 human capital investment 20 human development 66, 71, 76 human rights policy: intergenerational policy and 71, 75–6 Humanvermögen (human capacity) 69, 75, 78n Huth-Bocks, A.C. 92 hyperactivation (anxious behaviours) 89

I Iacovou, M. 134 identity 50, 54, 67, 71, 77–8n, 103, 106 identity politics 66, 77n in-laws 157, 217 independent family model cross-cultural studies 170, 172, 174–80, 182 value of children 7, 168–9 independent living: adulthood 133–5, 136 India 93, 175, 179–80 individual age 5 individualistic values 109, 122, 124, 125, 197, 208 individuation theory 131 Indonesia 137 inequality: intergenerational 68, 78n infant attachment 88, 92 informal care/support 8, 28, 33, 230, 231, 232 family sociology 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 200 intergenerational solidarity 28, 30, 31, 33, 205, 210 Inglehart, R. 122, 124 insecurity 88 Insider-Outsider model (Rueda) 17–18, 22n institutional care 51 instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) 194–5 instrumental family roles 176, 177 interconnectedness 4, 241 interdependencies see emotional interdependencies; material interdependencies; total interdependence intergenerational ambivalence 5, 7, 39–40, 55n dynamic model of 43f grandparent/grandchild relations 155–7 intergenerational conflict 132, 140, 141 international research literature 44–8 recent contributions to systematic analysis of 50–3 reflections on 2002 JMF debate 49–50

sensitising concept 52, 53 solidarity versus 40–2, 44 understanding and definition of 53–4 intergenerational attachment congruence (IGC) 6, 85, 86, 90–3 intergenerational conflict 5, 7, 15, 65, 206 cross-cultural perspective 137, 141–2 gender differences 136–7 intergenerational inequality 68, 78n intergenerational solidarity and 42, 50, 51 intergenerational tensions 136 middle adulthood/elderly parents 135–6 other characteristics of relationships and 139–41 parents and adult children 41, 131, 142 resolution styles 7, 138–9 theoretical perspectives 132–3 young adult children/middle adulthood 133–5 ‘intergenerational contract’ 42 intergenerational dialogues 74, 75 intergenerational exchange 2, 3, 216, 243 intergenerational policy 31, 65–8, 77n, 78n current/future intergenerational relations 76–7 definition of 69–71 educational policy and 74–5 human rights policy and 71, 75–6 political decision making and 71–2 providers, arenas and topics 72–4 temporal policy 75 see also State, The; welfare state intergenerational relations 1, 3 intergenerational rhetoric 39, 55n intergenerational solidarity 5, 7, 8, 25–6, 132, 184, 195, 242–3 ambivalence versus 40–2, 43f, 44, 45, 50, 51 caregiving 195, 196, 197, 198 dimensions of 26–7 grandparent/grandchild relations 149–55 intergenerational conflict and 42, 50, 51, 139–40, 141 intergenerational support and 205–8, 216 welfare regimes and 27–35 Western family model 170 women and 205–6 intergenerational stake hypothesis 47, 133, 134, 137, 153 intergenerational support 2, 3, 8, 205–6, 216–17, 242 role of gender 211–16 role of socio-economic factors 207–10 intergenerational tensions 136 intergenerational transfers 5, 15, 19, 20–1, 21n, 32 ambivalence and 46 geographical differences 29 intergenerational solidarity and 207 Italy 32–3

249

Intergenerational relations socialisation and 68 intergenerational transmission (IGT) 6, 85, 90–3 internal working models (IWMs) 87, 89 internalisation model: value transmission 105, 107 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 15, 18 Israel 91, 134, 137, 178–9, 184n ISSP see International Social Survey Programme Italy 32–3, 105, 107, 108, 111, 112, 134, 210

J Japan 18, 48, 88 Jarrott, S.E. 223 JMF see Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) job creation/destruction dynamics 16 Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 52–3 Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) 40, 42, 43f, 48, 49–50 Junge, M. 44 justice 70, 71 participatory 66, 73, 75–6 social justice 3, 5, 26

K Kmagitcibasi, C. 7, 167, 168–9, 170, 172, 174, 176, 177–8, 182, 184n Kalmijn, M. 33 Kandel, D.B. 103, 104 Kangas, O. 20, 22n Katz, S. 194 Kaufman, G. 214 Keller, H. 172, 174 Kenny, D.A. 108 King,V. 47 Kivnick, H. Q. 154 Klohnen, E.C. 107 Knafo, A. 109 Kohl, J. 15, 28 Konstanz (research group) 43 Korea 137 Korpi, W. 17 Koutrelakos, J. 172, 173, 175, 181, 183 Kretschmer, T. 111 Küneund, H. 26

L labour markets age-based preferences for regulation of 19–21 caregiving and 225 demographic ageing and 5, 15–16, 205 grandparents 152, 156 ‘intergenerational contract’ 42

250

literature on preferences for labour market regulation 18, 21, 191 political economy literature 16–18, 19, 21 role of age in shaping variations in regulation of 18–19 Romania 120–1, 125 women and 1, 31–2, 33, 121, 125, 191, 199, 205–6, 211, 214 Lannegrand-Willems, L. 107 Lawton, L. 215 Lawton, M.P. 195 leaving home 133–4 Leeson, G. 159 Leipold, B. 232 Leitner, S. 32 Lennartsson, C. 210 Lesser, G.S. 103, 104 liberal market economies 17, 32 life expectancy 1, 66, 205, 241 life-course/span perspective 2, 3–4, 8, 132, 160, 215 attachment theory and 86–7 caregiving and 223, 224, 225, 228–30, 235 linked lives 132 local social policy 31 ‘Longitudinal Study of Generations’ (Bengtson) 41–2 Longman, P. 184 low-income families 26 Lowenstein, A. 51–2, 137 Luo, S. 107 Lüscher, K. 41, 42, 43f, 48, 49–50, 132, 160 Luxembourg 152

M McMullin, J.A. 47, 49 mainstream families: value transmission 109 Majority World 168, 184n Mann, R. 159 Mannheim, K. 67, 78n, 242 marriage 1, 205, 213, 214, 226 see also couples; spouses Martin, C. 25, 192 Masserat, M. 78–9n material interdependencies 7, 32, 170, 171, 176, 177, 178, 183 see also emotional interdependencies; total interdependence materialism 122–3 maternal reflective functioning 91, 96n matrilineal tilt 150 Mauss, M. 196 Mayer, B. 179–80, 181 Mediterranean countries 32, 33 men caregiving 73 domestic responsibilities 121 grandparenting 155, 159 intergenerational conflict 141

Index intergenerational support 211–12, 215, 217 life expectancy 66 perception of social change 126t, 127 see also fathers mental health: caregiving 233–4 Merton, R.K. 44 Mexico 48, 175 middle adulthood 7, 72, 74, 75, 159 caregiving 225 conflict with own parents 7, 47, 48, 133, 135–6, 137, 138, 139, 157 conflict with young adult children 133–5 intergenerational support 211 residential proximity and 209 ‘sandwich’ generation 160, 198, 205, 206 Mische, A. 49 Mitbestimnung (co-determination) 73 mixed responsibility approach 30, 32 mothers ambivalence and 45, 46, 48, 52 attachment theory 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96n autonomy/connectedness of daughters 132–3 family change theory (FCT) 174–6, 178–80 grandparents and 150–1, 158 intergenerational conflict 136–7, 138, 139 intergenerational support 213, 217 value transmission 104, 106, 107, 110f, 111, 112 see also women motivation: intergenerational support 215–16 motivator dimension: value transmission 102 multigenerational perspectives 6, 26, 34 multiple children 46, 52 municipalities: care services 31 mutual embeddedness 68

N Nauck, B. 137 needs-based justice 70 negative appraisals/emotions 227 negativism 44 Netherlands 26, 29, 108, 110, 152, 171–2, 210 ‘New Politics of the Welfare State’ (Pierson) 22n Noack, P. 126 non-adjacent generations 7, 155 non-care giving 30, 233, 234 non-mainstream families: value transmission 109 non-Western family models 168, 184n Nordic countries 29, 30–1 normative values 3, 4, 5, 52, 66, 152, 197, 207, 209–10, 226 North America 137 Northern Europe 151–2 Norway 18, 137

O OASIS study (Europe) 137 Obegi, J.H. 92 objective burden 199, 200, 227 obligation 25, 26, 29, 152, 213, 214, 215, 216 oblique value transmission 111 older adults 31, 66, 210 critical life circumstances and 223, 224–33, 235 dependency ratio 27, 35n families as care/support provision 2, 3, 8, 33, 69 influence of seniors in political decisionmaking 72, 78–9n intergenerational conflict 135–6, 141 mental/physical health outcomes for carers 233–4 politics of resentment 15, 21n supporting younger generations 2, 19, 32 transition to institutional care 51, 231–2 see also elderly people orientation dimension: value transmission 102 oscillation 52, 54, 68, 156

P Palestine 178–9 parent-child value similarity 6, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111 parenthood behaviour and attachment theory 88, 91 birth of first child 135, 157 ethno-theories 174–6 grandparent/grandchild relations 150–1, 155, 160 multidirectional perspective on value transmission 110f, 111–13 outcomes of value transmission process 106–9 parent-child relationship 45, 46 postponement of 7, 39, 157–8, 205 relationship with adult children 7, 30, 41 support for children 2, 3, 32, 41, 207–8 support in old-age from adult children 33, 45 value transmission 6, 7, 102, 103f, 104, 105f, 106 parent–child value similarity 108–9, 111–13 Parrott, T.M. 140 participatory justice 66, 73, 75–6 patriarchal ideology 168, 184 Pavolini, E. 34 pensions and pensioners 33, 53, 225, 241, 242 ageing society 15, 19, 199 grandparents 147, 159 welfare state 25, 27, 28, 42 Perception of Social Change 126 performative justice 70 permissive parenting 169

251

Intergenerational relations person-oriented approach 179, 181 personal care provision 230–1 personality: attachment theory 87, 89 Pierson, P. 22n Pike, A. 111 Pillemer, K. 41, 42, 43f, 46, 48, 49–50, 132, 134 Pinquart, M. 127 Poggio, T. 32–3 Poland 159 political decision making: intergenerational policy and 71–2 political economy literature 16–18 politics of resentment: old-age 15 Politik 77n Poortinga,Y.H. 171, 175 Portugal 152 positive appraisals/emotions 228 positive self/positive other attachment model 88 post-materialism 122–3 post-modern lifestyles 39 ‘Postmodern’ Family,The (Lüscher, Schultheis and Wehrspaun) 41 Power-Resources Approach (PRA) 17–18 PRA see Power-Resources Approach Preston, S.H. 15, 78n private sector service provision 29 procedural justice (iustitia legalis) 70 productivity-based wage systems 19 professional home care services 231–2 pronatalist regimes 29, 120–1 psychodynamic approach 50–1 psychological ambivalence 42, 49, 50–1 psychological interdependence see emotional interdependence psychosocial approach 6 Putnam, R.D. 78n

Q Quadagno, J. 18, 22n Quadrello, T. 159

R Ranci, C. 34 Rappoport, A. 51–2 Rawls, J. 70 reciprocity 153, 175, 196, 197, 207, 210, 226 reconstituted families 39, 47 refamilialised welfare regimes 29 relatedness 3, 7, 141, 171, 175, 178 relative value transmission 107 religious values 109, 122, 123 residential care 232 residential proximity 1, 33, 150, 152, 158, 208–9, 214–15 resistant (attachment) 86 responsibility 40, 153, 168, 208, 211, 212 caregiving 192, 193, 216, 226

252

intergenerational policy 69, 71, 75 intergenerational solidarity and 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 self and 133, 173, 208 value transmission 113, 123, 128 retirement 15, 20, 34, 73, 75, 205 Roberto, K.A. 223 Roberts, R. 27, 196 Roest, A.M.C. 108, 110 ‘Role of Government, The’ (Fraile and Ferrer) 18 Romania 6, 112, 128, 159 generational/gender perceptions of social change 125, 126t, 127 materialism/post-materialism 122–3 socio-economic/demographic changes 120–1 value priorities 119–20, 123, 124t, 125, 128 romantic relationships 85, 94f, 106, 135, 207, 208 Rosenmayr, L. 42 Rosnati, R. 111 Rothbaum, F. 88 Rott, L.M. 138, 139 Rueda, D. 17–18, 22n Ruicheva, I. 155, 158

S Sabatier, C. 107 Sagi, A. 91 ‘sandwich’ generation 160, 198, 205, 206 Saraceno, C. 25, 33 Scandinavia 29, 31, 32 Scharein, M.G. 157 Schermer, J.A. 109, 113n Schmitt, D.P. 88 Schönpflug, U. 105 Schultheis, F. 41 Schwartz, S.H. 101, 102, 107, 123 Schwartz Values Survey 123–4 Schweitzer, Albert 241, 243n secure attachment 86 security values 123 self-construal 176–7 self-disclosure 172–3, 183 self-focus 208 self-reporting 89, 90, 92, 138, 242 self-sacrificing 173 Sen, A.K. 78n seniority-based wage systems 19 separation (marital) 1, 39, 41, 151 shame 51–2 SHARE see Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe sibling relationships 111, 211–12, 214 Sigel, I.E. 127 Silverberg, S.B. 133 Silverstein, M. 215 Singapore 47, 48

Index single people 47, 48, 136, 151, 158, 210, 215 Smelser, N.J. 44 Smith, T. 15 social capital 78 social change: perceptions of 125–6, 127 social gerontological approach: solidarity 51 social goods 26 social justice 3, 5, 26 social regulation 70 socialisation adolescence and 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 111, 112 families as primary agent 2, 6, 101 Family Change Theory (FCT) 174–6 generative 5, 54, 55n, 67, 68, 71, 76 ‘Society and Family’ (Konstanz) 43 socio-cultural contexts 2, 3, 6, 25, 74 integration 65, 66, 69, 76, 77n intercultural application of ambivalence 48 intergenerational solidarity 28, 29–30, 206, 210 socialisation and 68 value transmission 101, 108–9, 113 socio-democratic welfare regimes 29, 30–1 socio-demographic changes 1, 25, 26–7, 241 impact on grandparents/grandchildren 7, 149–51, 157–9 intergenerational support 205–6 socio-economic contexts 3, 4, 8, 15, 17, 20, 159, 241–2 caregiving 26, 194, 195 defamilialisation 28–9, 32 Family Change Theory (FCT) 167–8, 184 intergenerational conflict 133–4 role in intergenerational support 207–10, 217 Romania 119, 120–1 status 8, 26 value transmission 104, 106–7 socio-structural contexts 42, 47–8, 49, 50–1, 198 sociological ambivalence 42, 49, 50–1 solidarity see intergenerational solidarity sons 126, 140, 141, 174, 177–8, 197, 212, 214, 215 Soskice, D. 17 South Africa 48 South Korea 140 Southern Europe 29, 134, 135, 151–2 Soviet Union 33, 34 Spain 134, 137, 154 Spitze, G. 52 spouses 172–3, 183, 198, 223, 225, 226, 234 see also couples; marriage state, the 3, 8, 20 complimenting family support 2, 5, 25, 34 human capital investment 20 intergenerational solidarity and 25–6, 29 intergenerational transfers 15, 19, 20, 21n

labour market 5, 17 see also intergenerational policy; welfare state stepchildren 47 Strange Situation procedure 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 subjective burden 199, 200, 225, 227 subjective gains 227, 228, 234 Suitor, J.J. 52, 55n, 134 Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) 30, 35n, 151–2 sustainability: welfare state 3, 16 sustainability dilemma 78–9n, 206 Svalfors, S. 15 Sweden 18, 31, 152, 210 Swedish Welfare State Surveys 15 Switzerland 18, 22n, 138–9, 157 ‘system relevance’ 241–2 Szinovacz, M. 215 Szydlik, M. 27, 132

T technology 7, 27, 40, 155, 159–60, 167, 197, 235 temporality 68, 75, 78n, 208–9, 210 Tepe, M. 21 ties of destiny 68 time allocation theory 195 Titmuss, R. 192 ‘too much care’ 8, 198 total interdependence 168, 169, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182 traditional family 1, 7, 41, 123, 192, 198 transfers see intergenerational transfers transmission gap: attachment theory 91 transversal policy 73–4 Triadó, C. 154 triads 91, 107, 108 Trommsdorff, G. 106, 112, 125, 137 Turkey 174, 177–8, 178–80 Turner, B.S. 15 Twenge, J.M. 208

U Uhlenberg, P. 214 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 75–6 unemployment 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22n, 134, 120, 241 unidirectional value transmission process 103f, 104, 106, 110 United States (US) 15, 17, 18, 48 family change theory (FCT) 172–3, 177–8 intergenerational conflict 133, 134, 135, 140 sociological trends 40, 41 suburbia 40 value orientation 124, 125 value transmission 103, 104, 112

253

Intergenerational relations unity 68 universalism values 123, 124 universalistic welfare regimes 30–1, 32 universality with context-specific-variations 171–2 University of Southern California 41–2 unmarried persons 47, 158, 210

V vacillation 53, 54 Value of Children studies (VOC/VOC-IR) (Trommsdorff and Nauck) 137, 169–70, 174, 177–8, 183 value priorities: Romania 123, 124t, 125 value transmission 2, 4, 6, 155, 207 attachment 6, 86, 90–3 definition of values 101–2 Family Change Theory (FCT) 176–7, 179–80 multidirectional perspective 110f, 111–13 outcomes of transmission process 106–9 parent-child value similarity/continuity 104, 111–13 transmission process 102, 103f, 104, 105f, 106 Van den Heuvel, K. 171, 175 Van Gaalen, R.I. 141 Van IJzendoorn, M.H. 91 Van Ranst, N. 154 variable-centred approach: value transmission 106–7 Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) approach 16–17 virtue 70 voting rights 72

W wages 16, 19 Walker, A. 49 Waller, N.G. 90, 109 ‘war between generations’ 77n, 78n, 242, 243n War over the Family,The (Berger and Berger) 41 Ward, R.A. 46, 52 warmth: parenting 103, 104 Way We Never Were,The (Coontz) 41 Wehrspaun, M. 41 Weigert, A.J. 44 welfare municipality 31 welfare state 15, 16–17, 19, 42, 125 crowding-in/-out of family-provided support 30–4 demographic changes 205, 206 intergenerational solidarity and 25–6, 27–35 limits of 73–4 redistribution function 5, 18, 19 sustainability 191, 199, 206, 241–2 see also intergenerational policy; state, the well-being 6, 93, 140, 226, 242 Western family model 6, 95, 119

254

family change theory (FCT) 167, 168, 170, 172, 178, 182, 183, 184 widowhood 213, 214 Wilkoszewski, H. 15, 19, 20 Willson, A.E. 46 withdrawal: from conflict 139, 140 women 40, 66, 121, 168, 205 caregiving 31–2, 33, 73, 191, 192, 194, 197 family change theory (FCT) 174–6, 169 grandparenting 155, 156, 159 intergenerational support 211–16, 217 labour markets and 1, 31–2, 33, 121, 125, 191, 199, 205–6, 211, 214 perception of social change 126t, 127 see also mothers World Values Survey 122 Wrosch, C. 232

Y young adulthood 6 family change theory (FCT) 177–8 grandparents and 153 intergenerational conflict and 131, 133–5, 136, 138, 139 intergenerational support 206, 207–8, 211 see also adulthood; emerging adulthood

Z Zarit Burden Interview 227 Zeitgeist 2, 40

Isabelle Albert is Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Luxembourg in the field of generations and development across the lifespan. Her research interests include the intergenerational transmission of values, and family relations in a cross-cultural perspective. Dieter Ferring is Professor of Developmental Psychology and Geropsychology, and Head of the Integrative Research Unit on Social and Individual Development at the University of Luxembourg. His main research areas and publications cover lifespan development and ageing, including intergenerational relations, informal and formal caregiving for older people, coping and regulation of subjective well-being in old age, as well as technology use and ageing.

AGEING / Social studies

ISBN 978-1-44730-098-4

9 781447 300984

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS • Edited by Albert and Ferring

Population ageing today affects most industrialised countries, and it will have an impact on many facets of the social system. Intergenerational relationships will play a key role in dealing with demographical and societal change. This book provides innovative views in the multidisciplinary research field of intergenerational family relations in society, with a focus on Europe. Different, but complementary, perspectives are integrated in one volume, bringing together international scholars from sociology, psychology and economics. The book’s chapters are grouped into three thematic sections which cover conceptual issues, multigenerational and crosscultural perspectives, as well as applied issues. Implications for research, policy and practice are addressed and suggestions for future directions are discussed. By raising recent discussions on controversial issues, this book will stimulate the current discourse at various levels. Intergenerational relations in society and family will be equally interesting for researchers, advanced-level students and stakeholders in the fields of social policy, population ageing and intergenerational family relationships.

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONS EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES On family and society

Edited by Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

www.policypress.co.uk

Intergenerational relations in society and family_PPC.indd 1

6/3/2013 1:52:33 PM