- Email: [email protected]
Intergenerational Solidarity
Intergenerational Solidarity Valeria Bordone, Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital (IIASA, VID/ÖAW, WU), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract Intergenerational solidarity refers to any form of mutual support exchanged between generations. Focusing on the relationships between (adult) family members, Bengtson’s paradigm of intergenerational solidarity distinguishes affectual, consensual, associational, structural, functional, and normative solidarity dimensions. The concept of intergenerational ambivalence additionally accounts for the coexistence of harmony and conflict in close relationships. In an attempt to understand individuals’ motivation for intergenerational solidarity, several explanations are proposed and discussed in this article. Moreover, the theoretical framework introduced by Szydlik is outlined to account for the fact that intergenerational solidarity is principally a dyadic relation of individuals embedded in a family and in a social context. A discussion of the key findings on adult intergenerational solidarity is presented to illustrate patterns of (grand) parent–child exchanges.
Intergenerational Solidarity Intergenerational solidarity refers to any form of mutual support that is exchanged between generations. While the cohort relationship is mainly a concern of social policy (i.e., the ‘generational contract’), the focus of this article is on personal relations between family members of different generations, located in a system of ranked descent. The present-day situation where members of a family belonging to different generations live many years of overlapping lives is unprecedented: in developed countries, most children have at least one parent alive until their sixth decade of life, and the grandparent–grandchild bond may hold up to four decades. Parallel with the verticalization of the age structure in the society, within the family age structure more people are occupying the top generational positions than in the past, and children are now more likely to have more grandparents than siblings or cousins (see Age Structure). What makes intergenerational relationships within the family so important is the fact that each person is involved in a parent–child relationship for most of their own lives. On becoming parents, individuals are likely to be involved in two types of parent–child relationships, being the child in one case and being the parent in the other. Over the past two decades, the outstanding challenges posed by the ageing process with regard to intergenerational relationships in the family shifted the focus of research in this field more and more toward the relationships between elderly parents and adult children. In the later empty-nest life, the size of personal community networks tends to decrease because of the decline in resources, including income and health. A small number of geographically proximate members and long-time relationships dominate the social network of the elderly. For example, a recent study revealed that the average network size among Europeans aged 50 and above is between two and three members (Stoeckel and Litwin, 2013). 85% of them reported having a social network comprising solely (62%) or for the majority (23%) of family members. The partner and children are usually named as primary network members. However, generally having about the same age and lifestyle, the partner may fail to provide instrumental forms of help. Intergenerational relationships become, therefore, the basic opportunity for support.
402
Interest in the study of intergenerational solidarity has risen with the rapid aging of the population, although it dates back to the 1950s and 1960s when scholars were concerned with the weakening vertical family solidarity because of demographic trends, geographic mobility, and socio-cultural changes – the so-called family-in-crisis hypothesis (e.g., Sussman and Burchinal, 1962). Family studies of the time (e.g., Burgess, 1960; Parsons and Bales, 1955) emphasized the centrality of the nuclear family and the weakening of family bonds resulting in isolation of older family members. The sociologist Popenoe (1993) argued that the family has been cut back to its essentials: two generations (i.e., parents and children) and two functions (i.e., childbearing and provision of affection and companionship). Given that “for a growing number of Europeans, living as a family today means living in longer, thinner, more often de-institutionalized (non-marital), non-co-resident families” (Hantrais, 2005, p. 4), adult intergenerational relationships within the family are shaped qualitatively and quantitatively different from the past. Yet, longstanding investigations of solidarity (see Family and Kinship, History of; Welfare State, History of) show that the family may have changed its structure or even its meaning, without losing its focal role of solidarity network for the family members. This article first provides a discussion of the mostly used intergenerational solidarity paradigm; then it lays out the framework to understand family solidarity, by noting alternative theories that have been put forth by economists, sociologists, and demographers to explain the ties between generations. In addition, a discussion of the ‘facts,’ that is, what we know from empirical evidence on intergenerational solidarity, is included. A discussion of three-generation intergenerational solidarity concludes the article, accounting for the role of grandparents.
Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence The wide range of research on intergenerational solidarity from several fields (sociology, demography, anthropology, gerontology, and so forth) worked as an obstacle to the development of a uniform definition. Instead, many definitions were either circular or too narrow. However, “the focus on solidarity [.],
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.34047-8
Intergenerational Solidarity
whatever definition used, [.] has the merit of documenting how intergenerational relations within families also maintain an important solidaristic role in increasingly individualized and welfare-state societies” (Saraceno, 2008, p. 10). The terminology of this article coincides primarily with the six domains of intergenerational solidarity which are key components of Bengtson’s solidarity framework (Bengtson, 2001; Bengtson and Roberts, 1991), additionally touching on alternative schemes. Bengtson’s comprehensive scheme for describing sentiments, attitudes, values, behaviors, and structural arrangements in parent–child relationships distinguishes between affectual, consensual, associational, structural, functional, and normative solidarity. Affectual solidarity includes the sentiments and evaluations family members express about their relationship with other members; consensual solidarity refers to the agreement in opinions, values, and orientations between generations; associational solidarity is the type and frequency of contact between intergenerational family members; structural solidarity is the ‘opportunity structure’ for cross-generational interaction and reflects geographic proximity between family members; functional solidarity reflects the giving and receiving of both instrumental assets and services across generations; normative solidarity takes into account the expectations regarding filial and parental obligations, as well as norms about the importance of familistic values. Solidarity, along a number of dimensions, helps families function as cohesive units to fulfill member needs. Although Bengtson’s solidarity paradigm has been defined as the ‘gold standard’ for assessing intergenerational relationships (Silverstein et al., 2010, p. 1007), other investigators have developed broader or more detailed categories of informal helping behaviors between generations. Weiss (1974), for example, suggests a broad conception of six provisions in social relationships: attachment, social integration, opportunity for nurturance, reassurance of worth, a sense of reliable alliance, and obtaining guidance. First, individuals must experience a feeling of comfort. Next, the network should allow pooling and sharing of ideas and information. Third, individuals must have a sense of being needed by others. Fourth, others should tell or show individuals that they are important to them. Fifth, individuals have to be assured that their physical needs will be met or be supplemented significantly by others. The sixth provision is constituted of advice that individuals receive from teachers, parents, or others in authority during their life. House (1981) adds precision to the definition of the resources that are exchanged in supportive transactions, distinguishing between information and advice, appraisal support (i.e., information relevant to self-evaluation, feedback, or help in decision making), emotional concern, including understanding and esteem available from others, and instrumental aid with needs (i.e., getting groceries, cooking, cleaning, or managing money). Informational, appraisal, and emotional support are frequently difficult to disaggregate. Krause (1987) further defines, within the instrumental dimension, the aid received (tangible assistance) and the support provided (integration). Despite being mainly linked by mutual support, love, and happiness, family members are also likely to experience conflicts (Sprey, 1969). According to classical sociologists, the coexistence of closeness and conflict is inevitable in intimate
403
relationships: parents and children may hold different interests and have power differentials. Continuing efforts to refine the solidarity paradigm, indeed, added ‘conflict’ as a seventh dimension to the family solidarity paradigm, generating what has come to be known as the solidarity–conflict paradigm (Bengtson et al., 1990). However, assuming that affectual solidarity could capture closeness as well as conflict (being the antitheses of each other) would imply considering social interactions as being distributed over a continuum that ranges from positive to negative (i.e., from high solidarity and low conflict to low solidarity and high conflict). Yet, the relationship between parents and children may be characterized by high solidarity and high conflict or low solidarity and low conflict, both at the same time. The positive connotation carried by the term ‘solidarity’ should not hide the contradictions experienced in close social relationships. The concept of intergenerational ambivalence, proposed initially by Lüscher and Pillemer (1998) and then expanded by Connidis and McMullin (2002), accounts for harmony and conflict in a multidimensional way. The ambivalence construct may complement the solidarity models and the conflict model, reflecting the emotional complexities of family life. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence are lenses through which to look at how family members deal with attachment and independence and how they negotiate them. Especially in later life, tensions arise between the desire for autonomy and the likely need to become dependent on the adult children – to whom older parents were formerly providers (Silverstein et al., 2010). By applying the concept of ambivalence to family ties, researchers have moved away from the idea that family members maximize positive relationships and minimize negative interactions (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006).
Theory of Family Solidarity The research on adult intergenerational solidarity has often been defined as ‘atheoretical.’ This vulnerability may be derived from the fact that family studies are mainly problem-driven and applied disciplines. A second criticism to the social science approach to intergenerational solidarity is its increasing ‘microfication,’ that is, giving particular attention to the psychological characteristics of the individuals. Understanding intergenerational ties requires a theory about individuals’ motivation for behavior. Indeed, several attempts have proposed explanations for intergenerational exchange. Moreover, a general theoretical framework has been outlined by Szydlik (2008) to account for the fact that intergenerational solidarity is principally a dyadic relation of individuals, embedded in a family and, beyond that, in a social context. Starting from the individual level, the rational choice argument of the exchange theory regards intergenerational solidarity as a form of support with respective costs and rewards for the giver and for the receiver (i.e., the parent and the child in any of the two roles) (e.g., Emerson, 1976) (see Exchange: Social). Individuals will incur the costs of giving in anticipation of the (direct or delayed) rewards of receiving. In this perspective, intergenerational solidarity is based on self-interest.
404
Intergenerational Solidarity
In agreement with Szydlik’s model (2008), the diverse conditional factors for solidarity can be classified into four groups: opportunity, need, family, and cultural–contextual structures. Costs and benefits of intergenerational solidarity are reflected in opportunity and need structures (see also Bordone, 2012 for a discussion). The first includes resources for solidarity, enabling or preventing it. For example, high levels of a child’s educational attainment increase personal aspirations in the labor market (even at the cost of greater geographical distances from the parents). Education is, therefore, an opportunity that tends to prevent parent–child structural solidarity. Need structures stem for health problems or for emotional support as well as for necessity of financial nature. Solidarity is indeed contingent on the needs of both parents and children (Deutsch, 1975): for example, marital disruption suffered by the adult child might lead to an increase in the contact with the parent because of the child’s need to get emotional comfort. The altruism theory suggests that beneficence may also guide parent–child solidarity (Becker, 1974): parents and children care about each other and, therefore, provide each other various forms of support. Within these broad perspectives there are several related models which help explain the complicated relationships observed among family members. It is plausible to assume that parents and children care about one an other and, therefore, make transfers as required to maintain or enhance the other’s well-being, in concordance with altruism, exchange, and contingency hypotheses. Repeated exchanges within the family may derive from a compromise between emotional aspects and from what rationality dictates. However, the relation between parent and child also depends on family structures: family size, family composition, events that happened during the family life course as well as family roles and norms that reflect the entire history of socialization of the parent and the child. For example, the existence of more siblings (especially daughters) may lower the likelihood of providing functional solidarity to the parents. At the micro-level, theoretical explanations have also been proposed concerning the tension between family members, mainly reflecting the competing pressures to maintain attachment and at the same time establish independence. Fingerman (2001), for example, refers to the competing needs of different generations as developmental schisms: while older parents may ask for more closeness, adult children struggle between multiple roles as partners, parents, children, and workers. Ambivalence in the relationship tends to emerge especially when the available resources do not offer many ‘escape options,’ that is, women, elderly, and poor will encounter more ambivalence than their privileged counterparts (for a detailed review, see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013). Although the ideational approach widely known under the umbrella of the ‘second demographic transition’ (see Second Demographic Transition) emphasizes individual preferences in the decision-making process of individuals, intergenerational solidarity is also a feature of cultural–contextual structures, with roots laying far back in history. Moving upstream beyond the family and returning to a more Durkheimian orientation to social context, cultural–contextual structures should be taken into account by considering socioeconomic conditions, tax system, welfare system, labor and housing markets as well as
social norms, legal duties, and policy arrangements, within which intergenerational solidarity develops. As such, they shape and reinforce intergenerational solidarity within a specific context, providing also a definition of dependence between generations. Saraceno (2010), building on previous conceptual works, distinguishes three patterns in which legal norms and public provisions frame financial and caring obligations in families, both up and down family lines. Familialism by default exists when few publicly provided alternatives to family care and financial support are available. Supported familialism characterizes contexts where policies help families in maintaining their caring and financial responsibilities, usually through financial transfers. De-familialization applies when the individualization of social rights (e.g., minimum income provision, unemployment benefits, and care entitlement) limits family responsibilities and dependencies. This categorization, going beyond the public/private dichotomy of responsibilities, emphasizes that public family provisions may both motivate and lighten private family responsibilities. The literature mainly refers to the crowding-in and crowding-out hypotheses when dealing with the offer of services from the family and the state. The state may indeed displace family services as in the case of family pensions taking over the provision of security in old age (crowding-out) or stimulate family support by relieving family members of timeconsuming support and incentivizing them to provide voluntary services (crowding-in). State and family services may thus work in complementarity, dividing support activities according to the task-specific model (see, e.g., Motel-Klingebiel et al., 2005 for a discussion of these theses and an empirical testing).
Empirical Research: Key Findings The intergenerational solidarity paradigm has been validated with data from many countries around the world. Although the discipline-specific language and methodology make it difficult to draw broad conclusions, empirical patterns found in previous work are discussed here with a focus on Bengtson’s intergenerational solidarity framework.
Affectual and Consensual Solidarity Emotional closeness and consensus of opinions between parents and adult offspring reflect affinity between the generations. The affective bond is central to the parent–child relationships in order to engage in solidarity exchange. Emotional ties with offspring may be of extremely high value for aging parents facing the loss of significant social ties (e.g., spouse and siblings) due to death, and the vanishing of social roles, for example, due to retirement. Indeed, children are identified by most aged parents as close confidants (Connidis and Davies, 1992). This is especially the case for mothers, who are less likely than fathers to name their respective partner as their preferred confidant. Although parent–child relationships tend to be judged positively, also from the perspective of adult offspring, they are reported of higher quality with respect to mothers than to fathers (Silverstein et al., 2010; van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Moreover, adult children report less closeness
Intergenerational Solidarity
to the parents, compared to their parents’ ratings of their relationship (Fingerman, 2001). In the 1960s and 1970s, research began to give much more attention to the ‘generation gap’ in attitudes – i.e., the lack of consensus in values and opinions between generations – as fostered by the socio-political changes of the time. By definition, consensus is a relational variable for which an individual can provide information about the extent to which he or she perceives agreement or disagreement with another individual. Although this clearly implies that reports from a single family member are inadequate, most studies concerned with the similarity of views between generations use ‘generational-level’ analysis. Accordingly, self-reports from one generation have been compared with those from another. Alternatively, maintaining the family as the unit of analysis, measures of agreement provide answers to the question regarding the extent to which reports from parents and their children are similar or different. Pruchno et al. (1994) showed that consensus between mothers and children, and between fathers and children may be best represented as two constructs (mother–child consensus and father–child consensus) rather than as one construct (i.e., parent–child consensus). Moreover, contrasting reports from mothers or fathers and their children indicate significant differences in the reports: mothers reported higher levels of agreement than did their children on how money is spent, religious matters, friends, making major decisions, and dating, while fathers reported higher levels of agreement than did their children on religious matters and dating. Children reported higher levels of agreement than did their parents on aims and goals, household tasks, career decisions, and education.
Associational and Structural Solidarity Frequency of contact and geographic proximity between the parent and the child reflect the opportunity structure of the relationship. The associational dimension of solidarity is highly correlated with other forms of solidarity: parents and children who are more often in contact are more aware of each other’s needs than those with lower frequency of contact and react to them by providing affectual solidarity and instrumental help. In particular, frequent in-person visits strongly predict functional solidarity exchange (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Both studies on American and on European data reported high levels of contact between parents and children: the majority of older parents have weekly contact with at least one child (e.g., Hank, 2007; Lawton et al., 1994). The observed decline in weekly visits to the parents in some countries may be justified by a possible counterbalance between individualistic aspirations and other compositional changes. Consistently, literature has found that parent–child contact is higher when children have own children and lower when parents are divorced (especially with the father). Greater geographical distance also predicts lower frequency of contact, not only face-to-face. The use of new technologies that facilitate communication (e.g., Internet) may increase the level of parent–child contact even when living geographically far from each other. Cross-national variation still exists within Europe, with Mediterranean countries reporting higher levels of contact than Northern European countries (e.g., Bordone, 2009; Hank, 2007).
405
The dimension of distance, in addition to frequency of contact, is important because close relatives are necessary to provide some other forms of solidarity. Geographical distance, however, may not be exogenous to intergenerational associational and functional solidarity: family members might choose to move closer to one another (or together) because support is required by one or both generations. Coresidence can facilitate intergenerational solidarity in numerous dimensions (e.g., emotional support and instrumental help) and can be an alternative for financial transfers both downward and upward. The person in need is usually most likely to move, and this is also why having a spouse reduces the likelihood that elderly parents reside with one of their children; while a child’s divorce is a driving factor for moving in with the parents (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a more detailed discussion of related empirical evidence). Not only coresidence, but also geographical proximity may benefit both parties: living near each other allows for intergenerational solidarity as well as independence. The literature shows that fertility decisions are positively affected by having local parents, especially in countries where public childcare is limited. Moreover, having parents nearby who can provide grandparental childcare may help women balance work and family duties.
Functional Solidarity Upward and downward exchange in terms of financial and time transfers, including all kinds of care-giving activities and instrumental support, are interrelated dimensions: assistance provided through one form of solidarity may either substitute or complement some other type. A particular form of downward time assistance is grandparenting, which we discuss subsequently. The type, direction, and amount of functional solidarity exchanged depend on three aspects, in addition to geographical distance. First, the needs and opportunities of both givers and receivers: for example, higher-income family members may substitute time-related transfers with financial transfers; second, welfare regimes: in countries where pension levels are high, the oldest old are less likely to receive money from their children and more likely to help them financially; third, the position of individuals in the life course: the oldest old tend to be net recipients and the pivot generation is more likely to engage in giving (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005). In general, cash gifts tend to flow to the younger generations, even after children are grown and are living on their own. Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE website http://www.share-project.org/), Albertini et al. (2007) reported that 21% of older parents noted providing monetary help to an adult child in the last year, with only 3% receiving such help. As shown by Attias-Donfut et al. (2005), rates of making financial transfers are higher for parents in a couple than for singles. In contrast to inter vivos transfers, often targeted to the more needy children or grandchildren, bequests are mostly divided equally among children. Parents are also much more likely to provide time assistance (over a wide spectrum of tasks) to their children (especially to divorced or never married daughters with children) than to receive it, at least until late in life when their growing needs for help change this balance. However, functional solidarity,
406
Intergenerational Solidarity
understood in its informal care component (i.e., personal care, practical household help, and help with paperwork), is usually reported upward, although in modest levels in most families. A substantial minority of older American parents typically have received some routine assistance from their adult children (e.g., Davey and Eggebeen, 1998). In Europe, 16% of elders report to be recipients of instrumental support from their offspring (Albertini et al., 2007). Bonsang (2009) showed that, on average, the 65 year olds and older with at least one child in Europe receive 5.6 h of informal care per month from children not living with them. However, evidence consistently points to a significantly higher likelihood of older parents getting help from their children when needs arise. Country differences exist in the rates and amounts of transfers; however, empirical studies in the field did not easily identify generalizable results to group countries together based on financial and time-assistance patterns (AttiasDonfut et al., 2005). The consequences of these private transfers are important for both individuals and social policies concerning the redistribution of wealth in the society (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005).
Normative Solidarity The belief about family members’ responsibilities to care for and support one another is a core aspect in theories about the family because it largely helps explaining associational and functional solidarity between parents and children. Research linking family obligation to solidarity behavior has produced inconsistent findings, often because norms for intergenerational solidarity are inadequately conceptualized and measured. Several cross-sectional investigations find that providers and receivers of support tend to report higher filial responsibility compared to those who are not involved in intergenerational exchanges. Other research finds no association between the endorsement of filial responsibility and actual support (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a deeper review of these studies). Evidence from longitudinal studies on the effect of normative solidarity on support behavior, although mixed, tends mostly to suggest that filial obligations have a stronger motivational component for sons than for daughters. As Cooney and Dykstra (2013, p. 360) suggest: “females appear less sensitive to social prescriptions, perhaps because they take support provision for granted.” Although strong feelings of family responsibility may predispose individuals to be supportive, whether assistance actually materializes depends on the specific context of need. Inconsistencies across countries have also been found with norms being more powerful determinants of behaviors in countries with limited public support systems (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a detailed review). Compared to the evidence on filial obligations to aging parents, less is known about how people view the responsibilities of parents in middle and late life toward adult children as studies on parental responsibility usually refer to parents’ responsibility for young children. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (see SHARE website http://www. share-project.org/ for a detailed list of references), though, asks about the opinion on whether grandparents’ duty is to help grandchildren’s parents in looking after grandchildren or
whether grandparents’ duty is to contribute toward the economic security of grandchildren and their families. Descriptive evidence on these items shows that Mediterranean countries appear to be characterized by stronger family values than Central and Northern European countries. Mutual support between generations is not always voluntary, but it is sometimes based on normative pressure or legal duties. An example is economic assistance, legally regulated, by parents to children until a certain age and later on in life by adult children to their parents (for further data on this issue, refer to the social policy indicators available on the Multilinks project website http://www.multilinks-project.eu/). National and comparative survey data, as well as qualitative studies on intergenerational support, show that the higher the space of familialism by default, and to some degree also of supported familialism, the higher the impact of gender and social class differences among the potential family carers (see Saraceno, 2010 for a review).
Ambivalence Individuals tend to identify some problems with their adult children and with their parents, often related to communication and lifestyle. However, the majority of adult children define the ties to their parents as solely close, one-third define them as ambivalent, and only about 6% experience the relationship with the parents as solely problematic (Fingerman et al., 2004). The coexistence of high solidarity and high conflict is not a general state, and it is mainly found among young adults (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Evidence (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013) consistently shows that levels of ambivalence not only vary with geographical proximity (i.e., closer parent–child proximity is associated with more mixed feelings in their relationship), but also depend on the gender and marital status of the parent (ambivalent relationships are reported more with fathers than with mothers, and with currently unmarried parents compared to partnered). Empirical results also support the idea that ambivalence may result from issues of balancing attachment and independence. Parents’ health is a significant predictor of ambivalence in reporting from both parents (Pillemer et al., 2007) and children (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Parents report ambivalence in their parent–child relationship also when their adult children have health problems and, especially mothers, when they have issues with the law or have chemical dependency (Pillemer et al., 2007). Literature also shows that parents and children usually express their feelings openly. In turn, unresolved parent–child tensions may detract from affectual solidarity. Which generation is reporting their feelings may also matter: despite providing more assistance to their offspring than receiving, mothers tend to report lower relational ambivalence than adult children. Different relational expectations may explain this evidence.
The Macro-Level The availability of cross-country comparable surveys investigating intergenerational solidarity in its various dimensions has incentivized the proliferation of studies examining
Intergenerational Solidarity
determinants of intergenerational solidarity variation among different individuals as well as among a larger number of countries. The first type of studies, where the micro (individual) level was the focus of the analysis, accounted for context by including country indicators to the regression models. Several comparative studies showed that both needs and opportunities of the recipients and givers exert a comparable influence on the exchange of support in different countries. However, the diversity of intergenerational relationships from country to country remains significant within Europe, highlighting a North–South divide. Therefore, a second type of studies gave attention to cultural–contextual and policy explanations at the macro-level in multilevel analysis. Although the most common discussion at the macro-level is on the distinction between weak versus strong family ties, likely linked to specific welfare systems, the nonstrict correspondence required further investigations. Political economy focused studies took into account the social context of elderly people centering around help and care from a welfare production point of view (e.g., Brandt et al., 2009). Some explorative works on the societal level have shed light on the importance of social norms in relation to family solidarity (e.g., Bordone, 2012). Theoretical and empirical works on family solidarity tend to assume that, as the family is a reliable and nonjudgmental institution that crosses generations, it has both a direct and a mediated effect on health conditions through support between its members. Usually this strand of research shared the assumption that family solidarity (positively) influences physical and mental health status (Berkman et al., 2000). Several conceptual causal frameworks have been proposed to highlight the upstream and downstream factors that are likely to explain a causal link between solidarity and health outcomes, but this is another (although related) story, which is not discussed here.
A Three-Generation Perspective: The Role of Grandparents The new opportunity role of grandparents has enlarged studies of intergenerational solidarity to three family generations: grandparents, parents, and (grand)children. Although in most developed countries there has been a decline in multigenerational households, grandparents still play an active and supportive role within the family, especially by taking care of grandchildren. Indeed, the proportion of elderly giving functional solidarity to offspring increases significantly when childcare is included in support measures. Taking care of grandchildren is a common activity among grandparents in Western societies, especially among women: in the USA, 50% of grandparents provide some type of childcare; similar percentages of grandfathers in Europe say they provide regular or occasional care to their grandchildren and even more grandmothers (58%) are involved in childcare (see Glaser et al., 2010 for a review). As grandparental childcare is traditionally considered an altruistic act, research on this intergenerational exchange has focused on its effects on younger generations. By helping their children (especially daughters) with looking after
407
grandchildren, the (unpaid) grandparents are also likely to produce welfare benefits, especially when the services offered by the market are costly and public provision of care is scarce. In some countries, the important role of grandparents as providers of childcare has already been officially recognized: in the UK, for example, grandparents who give up paid work to provide childcare can claim credits that allow them to qualify for a basic state pension (Glaser et al., 2010). Grandparental childcare can be seen as both a downward and an upward transfer: on the one side, grandparents invest time and resources in their grandchildren; while on the other side, grandchildren are an important (emotional) resource for grandparents. Economic models have indeed hypothesized that inter vivos transfers from grandparents to grandchildren might also have an egoistic component that can help to explain why older generations transfer resources to younger generations. Downward monetary and time transfers may be motivated by the anticipation of future need, and the hope that the younger generations will be more altruistic toward their parents or grandparents in return. According to this strand of literature, grandparental childcare could be considered an investment that is expected to pay off in the future. Focus has also been laid to consensual solidarity between grandparents and grandchildren. Giarrusso et al. (2001) found evidence for a strong relationship between grandparents and their adult grandchildren: “longer life expectancy appears to result in long-term loving relationships” (p. 473). In sum, adult intergenerational relationships between (grand)parents and children remain a relevant aspect of aging and family studies. Reductions in mortality and decreases in fertility in most parts of the world will also reshape intergenerational solidarity patterns in economies currently in transition and in developing countries, affecting large numbers of the global population. Increasing diversity in family forms and norms will also continue to impact on the variability in family bonds, raising new research questions and requiring new theoretical explanations.
See also: Adulthood: Dependency and Autonomy; Dependency Theory; Exchange: Social; Family and Kinship, History of; Life Course: Sociological Aspects; Linked Lives; Retirement and Encore Adulthood: The New Later Life Course; Second Demographic Transition; Welfare State, History of.
Bibliography Albertini, M., Kohli, M., Vogel, C., 2007. Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns – different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy 17, 319–334. Attias-Donfut, D., Ogg, J., Wolff, F., 2005. European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers. European Journal of Ageing 2, 161–173. Becker, G.S., 1974. A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy 82, 1063–1093. Bengtson, V.L., 2001. Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 1–16. Bengtson, V.L., Roberts, R.E.L., 1991. Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, 856–870. Bengtson, V.L., Rosenthal, C.J., Burton, L.M., 1990. Families and aging: diversity and heterogeneity. In: Binstock, R.H., George, L.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, third ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 263–287.
408
Intergenerational Solidarity
Berkman, L.F., Glass, T., Brisette, I., Seeman, T.E., 2000. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine 51, 843–857. Bonsang, E., 2009. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics 28, 143–154. Bordone, V., 2009. Contact and proximity of older people to their adult children: a comparison between Italy and Sweden. Population, Space and Place 15, 359–380. Bordone, V., 2012. Social norms and intergenerational relationships. In: De Santis, G. (Ed.), The Family, the Market or the State? Intergenerational Support under Pressure in Ageing Societies. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 159–178. Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., Szydlik, M., 2009. Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review 25, 585–601. Burgess, E.W., 1960. Aging in western culture. In: Burgess, E.W. (Ed.), Aging in Western Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–28. Connidis, I.A., Davies, L., 1992. Confidants and companions: choices in later life. Journal of Gerontology 47, S115–S122. Connidis, I.A., McMullin, J.A., 2002. Sociological ambivalence and family ties: a critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 64, 558–567. Cooney, T.M., Dykstra, P.A., 2013. Theories and their empirical support in the study of intergenerational family relationships in adulthood. In: Fine, M.A., Fincham, F.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Theories: A Content-Based Approach. Routledge/Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 356–378. Davey, A., Eggebeen, D., 1998. Patterns of intergenerational exchange and mental health. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 53B, P86–P95. Deutsch, M., 1975. Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues 31, 137–149. Emerson, R., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2, 335–362. Fingerman, K.L., 2001. Aging Mothers and Their Adult Daughters: A Study in Mixed Emotions. Springer, New York. Fingerman, K.L., Hay, E.L., Birditt, K.S., 2004. The best of ties, the worst of ties: close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family 66, 792–808. Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., Silverstein, M., Bengtson, V.L., 2001. Grandparent-adult grandchild affection and consensus. Journal of Family Issues 22, 456–477. Glaser, K., Ribé Montserrat, E., Waginger, U., Price, D., Stuchbury, R., Tinker, A., 2010. Grandparenting in Europe. Grandparents Plus, London. van Gaalen, R.I., Dykstra, P.A., 2006. Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: a latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family 68, 947–960. Hank, K., 2007. Proximity and contacts between older parents and their adult children: a European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family 69, 157–173. Hantrais, L., 2005. Living as a family in Europe. In: Hantrais, L., Philipov, D., Billari, F.C. (Eds.), Policy Implications of Changing Family Formation. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasburg, pp. 117–181.
House, J.S., 1981. Work, Stress and Social Support. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Krause, N., 1987. Life stress, social support, and self-esteem in an elderly population. Psychology and Aging 2, 349–356. Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., Bengtson, V.L., 1994. Affection, social contact and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, 57–68. Lüscher, K., Pillemer, K., 1998. Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parentchild relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 413–425. Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C., von Kondratowitz, H.-J., 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing and Society 25, 863–882. Parsons, T., Bales, R., 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. The Free Press, New York. Pillemer, K., Suitor, J.J., Mock, S.E., Sabir, M., Pardo, T.B., Sechrist, J., 2007. Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: exploring ambivalence within later-life families. Journal of Social Issues 63, 775–791. Popenoe, D., 1993. American family decline, 1960–1990: a review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family 55, 527–542. Pruchno, R., Burant, C., Peters, N.D., 1994. Family mental health: marital and parent– child consensus as predictors. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, 747–758. Saraceno, C., 2008. Families, Ageing and Social Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Saraceno, C., 2010. Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: a bi-generational perspective. Journal of European Social Policy 20, 32–44. Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Lowenstein, A., Giarrusso, R., Bengtson, V.L., 2010. Old parent – child relationships in six developed nations: comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family 72, 1006–1021. Sprey, J., 1969. The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family 31, 699–706. Stoeckel, K.J., Litwin, H., 2013. Personal social networks in Europe: do people from different countries have different interpersonal solidarities? In: Börsch-Supan, A., et al. (Eds.), Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations in Europe. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 277–287. Sussman, M.B., Burchinal, L., 1962. Kin-family networks. Marriage and Family Living 24, 231–240. Szydlik, M., 2008. Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 39, 97–114. Weiss, R.S., 1974. The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin, Z. (Ed.), Doing unto Others: Joining, Molding, Conforming, Helping, Loving. Prentice-Hall Spectrum Books, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp. 17–26.
Abstract Intergenerational solidarity refers to any form of mutual support exchanged between generations. Focusing on the relationships between (adult) family members, Bengtson’s paradigm of intergenerational solidarity distinguishes affectual, consensual, associational, structural, functional, and normative solidarity dimensions. The concept of intergenerational ambivalence additionally accounts for the coexistence of harmony and conflict in close relationships. In an attempt to understand individuals’ motivation for intergenerational solidarity, several explanations are proposed and discussed in this article. Moreover, the theoretical framework introduced by Szydlik is outlined to account for the fact that intergenerational solidarity is principally a dyadic relation of individuals embedded in a family and in a social context. A discussion of the key findings on adult intergenerational solidarity is presented to illustrate patterns of (grand) parent–child exchanges.
Intergenerational Solidarity Intergenerational solidarity refers to any form of mutual support that is exchanged between generations. While the cohort relationship is mainly a concern of social policy (i.e., the ‘generational contract’), the focus of this article is on personal relations between family members of different generations, located in a system of ranked descent. The present-day situation where members of a family belonging to different generations live many years of overlapping lives is unprecedented: in developed countries, most children have at least one parent alive until their sixth decade of life, and the grandparent–grandchild bond may hold up to four decades. Parallel with the verticalization of the age structure in the society, within the family age structure more people are occupying the top generational positions than in the past, and children are now more likely to have more grandparents than siblings or cousins (see Age Structure). What makes intergenerational relationships within the family so important is the fact that each person is involved in a parent–child relationship for most of their own lives. On becoming parents, individuals are likely to be involved in two types of parent–child relationships, being the child in one case and being the parent in the other. Over the past two decades, the outstanding challenges posed by the ageing process with regard to intergenerational relationships in the family shifted the focus of research in this field more and more toward the relationships between elderly parents and adult children. In the later empty-nest life, the size of personal community networks tends to decrease because of the decline in resources, including income and health. A small number of geographically proximate members and long-time relationships dominate the social network of the elderly. For example, a recent study revealed that the average network size among Europeans aged 50 and above is between two and three members (Stoeckel and Litwin, 2013). 85% of them reported having a social network comprising solely (62%) or for the majority (23%) of family members. The partner and children are usually named as primary network members. However, generally having about the same age and lifestyle, the partner may fail to provide instrumental forms of help. Intergenerational relationships become, therefore, the basic opportunity for support.
402
Interest in the study of intergenerational solidarity has risen with the rapid aging of the population, although it dates back to the 1950s and 1960s when scholars were concerned with the weakening vertical family solidarity because of demographic trends, geographic mobility, and socio-cultural changes – the so-called family-in-crisis hypothesis (e.g., Sussman and Burchinal, 1962). Family studies of the time (e.g., Burgess, 1960; Parsons and Bales, 1955) emphasized the centrality of the nuclear family and the weakening of family bonds resulting in isolation of older family members. The sociologist Popenoe (1993) argued that the family has been cut back to its essentials: two generations (i.e., parents and children) and two functions (i.e., childbearing and provision of affection and companionship). Given that “for a growing number of Europeans, living as a family today means living in longer, thinner, more often de-institutionalized (non-marital), non-co-resident families” (Hantrais, 2005, p. 4), adult intergenerational relationships within the family are shaped qualitatively and quantitatively different from the past. Yet, longstanding investigations of solidarity (see Family and Kinship, History of; Welfare State, History of) show that the family may have changed its structure or even its meaning, without losing its focal role of solidarity network for the family members. This article first provides a discussion of the mostly used intergenerational solidarity paradigm; then it lays out the framework to understand family solidarity, by noting alternative theories that have been put forth by economists, sociologists, and demographers to explain the ties between generations. In addition, a discussion of the ‘facts,’ that is, what we know from empirical evidence on intergenerational solidarity, is included. A discussion of three-generation intergenerational solidarity concludes the article, accounting for the role of grandparents.
Solidarity, Conflict, and Ambivalence The wide range of research on intergenerational solidarity from several fields (sociology, demography, anthropology, gerontology, and so forth) worked as an obstacle to the development of a uniform definition. Instead, many definitions were either circular or too narrow. However, “the focus on solidarity [.],
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.34047-8
Intergenerational Solidarity
whatever definition used, [.] has the merit of documenting how intergenerational relations within families also maintain an important solidaristic role in increasingly individualized and welfare-state societies” (Saraceno, 2008, p. 10). The terminology of this article coincides primarily with the six domains of intergenerational solidarity which are key components of Bengtson’s solidarity framework (Bengtson, 2001; Bengtson and Roberts, 1991), additionally touching on alternative schemes. Bengtson’s comprehensive scheme for describing sentiments, attitudes, values, behaviors, and structural arrangements in parent–child relationships distinguishes between affectual, consensual, associational, structural, functional, and normative solidarity. Affectual solidarity includes the sentiments and evaluations family members express about their relationship with other members; consensual solidarity refers to the agreement in opinions, values, and orientations between generations; associational solidarity is the type and frequency of contact between intergenerational family members; structural solidarity is the ‘opportunity structure’ for cross-generational interaction and reflects geographic proximity between family members; functional solidarity reflects the giving and receiving of both instrumental assets and services across generations; normative solidarity takes into account the expectations regarding filial and parental obligations, as well as norms about the importance of familistic values. Solidarity, along a number of dimensions, helps families function as cohesive units to fulfill member needs. Although Bengtson’s solidarity paradigm has been defined as the ‘gold standard’ for assessing intergenerational relationships (Silverstein et al., 2010, p. 1007), other investigators have developed broader or more detailed categories of informal helping behaviors between generations. Weiss (1974), for example, suggests a broad conception of six provisions in social relationships: attachment, social integration, opportunity for nurturance, reassurance of worth, a sense of reliable alliance, and obtaining guidance. First, individuals must experience a feeling of comfort. Next, the network should allow pooling and sharing of ideas and information. Third, individuals must have a sense of being needed by others. Fourth, others should tell or show individuals that they are important to them. Fifth, individuals have to be assured that their physical needs will be met or be supplemented significantly by others. The sixth provision is constituted of advice that individuals receive from teachers, parents, or others in authority during their life. House (1981) adds precision to the definition of the resources that are exchanged in supportive transactions, distinguishing between information and advice, appraisal support (i.e., information relevant to self-evaluation, feedback, or help in decision making), emotional concern, including understanding and esteem available from others, and instrumental aid with needs (i.e., getting groceries, cooking, cleaning, or managing money). Informational, appraisal, and emotional support are frequently difficult to disaggregate. Krause (1987) further defines, within the instrumental dimension, the aid received (tangible assistance) and the support provided (integration). Despite being mainly linked by mutual support, love, and happiness, family members are also likely to experience conflicts (Sprey, 1969). According to classical sociologists, the coexistence of closeness and conflict is inevitable in intimate
403
relationships: parents and children may hold different interests and have power differentials. Continuing efforts to refine the solidarity paradigm, indeed, added ‘conflict’ as a seventh dimension to the family solidarity paradigm, generating what has come to be known as the solidarity–conflict paradigm (Bengtson et al., 1990). However, assuming that affectual solidarity could capture closeness as well as conflict (being the antitheses of each other) would imply considering social interactions as being distributed over a continuum that ranges from positive to negative (i.e., from high solidarity and low conflict to low solidarity and high conflict). Yet, the relationship between parents and children may be characterized by high solidarity and high conflict or low solidarity and low conflict, both at the same time. The positive connotation carried by the term ‘solidarity’ should not hide the contradictions experienced in close social relationships. The concept of intergenerational ambivalence, proposed initially by Lüscher and Pillemer (1998) and then expanded by Connidis and McMullin (2002), accounts for harmony and conflict in a multidimensional way. The ambivalence construct may complement the solidarity models and the conflict model, reflecting the emotional complexities of family life. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence are lenses through which to look at how family members deal with attachment and independence and how they negotiate them. Especially in later life, tensions arise between the desire for autonomy and the likely need to become dependent on the adult children – to whom older parents were formerly providers (Silverstein et al., 2010). By applying the concept of ambivalence to family ties, researchers have moved away from the idea that family members maximize positive relationships and minimize negative interactions (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006).
Theory of Family Solidarity The research on adult intergenerational solidarity has often been defined as ‘atheoretical.’ This vulnerability may be derived from the fact that family studies are mainly problem-driven and applied disciplines. A second criticism to the social science approach to intergenerational solidarity is its increasing ‘microfication,’ that is, giving particular attention to the psychological characteristics of the individuals. Understanding intergenerational ties requires a theory about individuals’ motivation for behavior. Indeed, several attempts have proposed explanations for intergenerational exchange. Moreover, a general theoretical framework has been outlined by Szydlik (2008) to account for the fact that intergenerational solidarity is principally a dyadic relation of individuals, embedded in a family and, beyond that, in a social context. Starting from the individual level, the rational choice argument of the exchange theory regards intergenerational solidarity as a form of support with respective costs and rewards for the giver and for the receiver (i.e., the parent and the child in any of the two roles) (e.g., Emerson, 1976) (see Exchange: Social). Individuals will incur the costs of giving in anticipation of the (direct or delayed) rewards of receiving. In this perspective, intergenerational solidarity is based on self-interest.
404
Intergenerational Solidarity
In agreement with Szydlik’s model (2008), the diverse conditional factors for solidarity can be classified into four groups: opportunity, need, family, and cultural–contextual structures. Costs and benefits of intergenerational solidarity are reflected in opportunity and need structures (see also Bordone, 2012 for a discussion). The first includes resources for solidarity, enabling or preventing it. For example, high levels of a child’s educational attainment increase personal aspirations in the labor market (even at the cost of greater geographical distances from the parents). Education is, therefore, an opportunity that tends to prevent parent–child structural solidarity. Need structures stem for health problems or for emotional support as well as for necessity of financial nature. Solidarity is indeed contingent on the needs of both parents and children (Deutsch, 1975): for example, marital disruption suffered by the adult child might lead to an increase in the contact with the parent because of the child’s need to get emotional comfort. The altruism theory suggests that beneficence may also guide parent–child solidarity (Becker, 1974): parents and children care about each other and, therefore, provide each other various forms of support. Within these broad perspectives there are several related models which help explain the complicated relationships observed among family members. It is plausible to assume that parents and children care about one an other and, therefore, make transfers as required to maintain or enhance the other’s well-being, in concordance with altruism, exchange, and contingency hypotheses. Repeated exchanges within the family may derive from a compromise between emotional aspects and from what rationality dictates. However, the relation between parent and child also depends on family structures: family size, family composition, events that happened during the family life course as well as family roles and norms that reflect the entire history of socialization of the parent and the child. For example, the existence of more siblings (especially daughters) may lower the likelihood of providing functional solidarity to the parents. At the micro-level, theoretical explanations have also been proposed concerning the tension between family members, mainly reflecting the competing pressures to maintain attachment and at the same time establish independence. Fingerman (2001), for example, refers to the competing needs of different generations as developmental schisms: while older parents may ask for more closeness, adult children struggle between multiple roles as partners, parents, children, and workers. Ambivalence in the relationship tends to emerge especially when the available resources do not offer many ‘escape options,’ that is, women, elderly, and poor will encounter more ambivalence than their privileged counterparts (for a detailed review, see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013). Although the ideational approach widely known under the umbrella of the ‘second demographic transition’ (see Second Demographic Transition) emphasizes individual preferences in the decision-making process of individuals, intergenerational solidarity is also a feature of cultural–contextual structures, with roots laying far back in history. Moving upstream beyond the family and returning to a more Durkheimian orientation to social context, cultural–contextual structures should be taken into account by considering socioeconomic conditions, tax system, welfare system, labor and housing markets as well as
social norms, legal duties, and policy arrangements, within which intergenerational solidarity develops. As such, they shape and reinforce intergenerational solidarity within a specific context, providing also a definition of dependence between generations. Saraceno (2010), building on previous conceptual works, distinguishes three patterns in which legal norms and public provisions frame financial and caring obligations in families, both up and down family lines. Familialism by default exists when few publicly provided alternatives to family care and financial support are available. Supported familialism characterizes contexts where policies help families in maintaining their caring and financial responsibilities, usually through financial transfers. De-familialization applies when the individualization of social rights (e.g., minimum income provision, unemployment benefits, and care entitlement) limits family responsibilities and dependencies. This categorization, going beyond the public/private dichotomy of responsibilities, emphasizes that public family provisions may both motivate and lighten private family responsibilities. The literature mainly refers to the crowding-in and crowding-out hypotheses when dealing with the offer of services from the family and the state. The state may indeed displace family services as in the case of family pensions taking over the provision of security in old age (crowding-out) or stimulate family support by relieving family members of timeconsuming support and incentivizing them to provide voluntary services (crowding-in). State and family services may thus work in complementarity, dividing support activities according to the task-specific model (see, e.g., Motel-Klingebiel et al., 2005 for a discussion of these theses and an empirical testing).
Empirical Research: Key Findings The intergenerational solidarity paradigm has been validated with data from many countries around the world. Although the discipline-specific language and methodology make it difficult to draw broad conclusions, empirical patterns found in previous work are discussed here with a focus on Bengtson’s intergenerational solidarity framework.
Affectual and Consensual Solidarity Emotional closeness and consensus of opinions between parents and adult offspring reflect affinity between the generations. The affective bond is central to the parent–child relationships in order to engage in solidarity exchange. Emotional ties with offspring may be of extremely high value for aging parents facing the loss of significant social ties (e.g., spouse and siblings) due to death, and the vanishing of social roles, for example, due to retirement. Indeed, children are identified by most aged parents as close confidants (Connidis and Davies, 1992). This is especially the case for mothers, who are less likely than fathers to name their respective partner as their preferred confidant. Although parent–child relationships tend to be judged positively, also from the perspective of adult offspring, they are reported of higher quality with respect to mothers than to fathers (Silverstein et al., 2010; van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Moreover, adult children report less closeness
Intergenerational Solidarity
to the parents, compared to their parents’ ratings of their relationship (Fingerman, 2001). In the 1960s and 1970s, research began to give much more attention to the ‘generation gap’ in attitudes – i.e., the lack of consensus in values and opinions between generations – as fostered by the socio-political changes of the time. By definition, consensus is a relational variable for which an individual can provide information about the extent to which he or she perceives agreement or disagreement with another individual. Although this clearly implies that reports from a single family member are inadequate, most studies concerned with the similarity of views between generations use ‘generational-level’ analysis. Accordingly, self-reports from one generation have been compared with those from another. Alternatively, maintaining the family as the unit of analysis, measures of agreement provide answers to the question regarding the extent to which reports from parents and their children are similar or different. Pruchno et al. (1994) showed that consensus between mothers and children, and between fathers and children may be best represented as two constructs (mother–child consensus and father–child consensus) rather than as one construct (i.e., parent–child consensus). Moreover, contrasting reports from mothers or fathers and their children indicate significant differences in the reports: mothers reported higher levels of agreement than did their children on how money is spent, religious matters, friends, making major decisions, and dating, while fathers reported higher levels of agreement than did their children on religious matters and dating. Children reported higher levels of agreement than did their parents on aims and goals, household tasks, career decisions, and education.
Associational and Structural Solidarity Frequency of contact and geographic proximity between the parent and the child reflect the opportunity structure of the relationship. The associational dimension of solidarity is highly correlated with other forms of solidarity: parents and children who are more often in contact are more aware of each other’s needs than those with lower frequency of contact and react to them by providing affectual solidarity and instrumental help. In particular, frequent in-person visits strongly predict functional solidarity exchange (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Both studies on American and on European data reported high levels of contact between parents and children: the majority of older parents have weekly contact with at least one child (e.g., Hank, 2007; Lawton et al., 1994). The observed decline in weekly visits to the parents in some countries may be justified by a possible counterbalance between individualistic aspirations and other compositional changes. Consistently, literature has found that parent–child contact is higher when children have own children and lower when parents are divorced (especially with the father). Greater geographical distance also predicts lower frequency of contact, not only face-to-face. The use of new technologies that facilitate communication (e.g., Internet) may increase the level of parent–child contact even when living geographically far from each other. Cross-national variation still exists within Europe, with Mediterranean countries reporting higher levels of contact than Northern European countries (e.g., Bordone, 2009; Hank, 2007).
405
The dimension of distance, in addition to frequency of contact, is important because close relatives are necessary to provide some other forms of solidarity. Geographical distance, however, may not be exogenous to intergenerational associational and functional solidarity: family members might choose to move closer to one another (or together) because support is required by one or both generations. Coresidence can facilitate intergenerational solidarity in numerous dimensions (e.g., emotional support and instrumental help) and can be an alternative for financial transfers both downward and upward. The person in need is usually most likely to move, and this is also why having a spouse reduces the likelihood that elderly parents reside with one of their children; while a child’s divorce is a driving factor for moving in with the parents (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a more detailed discussion of related empirical evidence). Not only coresidence, but also geographical proximity may benefit both parties: living near each other allows for intergenerational solidarity as well as independence. The literature shows that fertility decisions are positively affected by having local parents, especially in countries where public childcare is limited. Moreover, having parents nearby who can provide grandparental childcare may help women balance work and family duties.
Functional Solidarity Upward and downward exchange in terms of financial and time transfers, including all kinds of care-giving activities and instrumental support, are interrelated dimensions: assistance provided through one form of solidarity may either substitute or complement some other type. A particular form of downward time assistance is grandparenting, which we discuss subsequently. The type, direction, and amount of functional solidarity exchanged depend on three aspects, in addition to geographical distance. First, the needs and opportunities of both givers and receivers: for example, higher-income family members may substitute time-related transfers with financial transfers; second, welfare regimes: in countries where pension levels are high, the oldest old are less likely to receive money from their children and more likely to help them financially; third, the position of individuals in the life course: the oldest old tend to be net recipients and the pivot generation is more likely to engage in giving (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005). In general, cash gifts tend to flow to the younger generations, even after children are grown and are living on their own. Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE website http://www.share-project.org/), Albertini et al. (2007) reported that 21% of older parents noted providing monetary help to an adult child in the last year, with only 3% receiving such help. As shown by Attias-Donfut et al. (2005), rates of making financial transfers are higher for parents in a couple than for singles. In contrast to inter vivos transfers, often targeted to the more needy children or grandchildren, bequests are mostly divided equally among children. Parents are also much more likely to provide time assistance (over a wide spectrum of tasks) to their children (especially to divorced or never married daughters with children) than to receive it, at least until late in life when their growing needs for help change this balance. However, functional solidarity,
406
Intergenerational Solidarity
understood in its informal care component (i.e., personal care, practical household help, and help with paperwork), is usually reported upward, although in modest levels in most families. A substantial minority of older American parents typically have received some routine assistance from their adult children (e.g., Davey and Eggebeen, 1998). In Europe, 16% of elders report to be recipients of instrumental support from their offspring (Albertini et al., 2007). Bonsang (2009) showed that, on average, the 65 year olds and older with at least one child in Europe receive 5.6 h of informal care per month from children not living with them. However, evidence consistently points to a significantly higher likelihood of older parents getting help from their children when needs arise. Country differences exist in the rates and amounts of transfers; however, empirical studies in the field did not easily identify generalizable results to group countries together based on financial and time-assistance patterns (AttiasDonfut et al., 2005). The consequences of these private transfers are important for both individuals and social policies concerning the redistribution of wealth in the society (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005).
Normative Solidarity The belief about family members’ responsibilities to care for and support one another is a core aspect in theories about the family because it largely helps explaining associational and functional solidarity between parents and children. Research linking family obligation to solidarity behavior has produced inconsistent findings, often because norms for intergenerational solidarity are inadequately conceptualized and measured. Several cross-sectional investigations find that providers and receivers of support tend to report higher filial responsibility compared to those who are not involved in intergenerational exchanges. Other research finds no association between the endorsement of filial responsibility and actual support (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a deeper review of these studies). Evidence from longitudinal studies on the effect of normative solidarity on support behavior, although mixed, tends mostly to suggest that filial obligations have a stronger motivational component for sons than for daughters. As Cooney and Dykstra (2013, p. 360) suggest: “females appear less sensitive to social prescriptions, perhaps because they take support provision for granted.” Although strong feelings of family responsibility may predispose individuals to be supportive, whether assistance actually materializes depends on the specific context of need. Inconsistencies across countries have also been found with norms being more powerful determinants of behaviors in countries with limited public support systems (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013 for a detailed review). Compared to the evidence on filial obligations to aging parents, less is known about how people view the responsibilities of parents in middle and late life toward adult children as studies on parental responsibility usually refer to parents’ responsibility for young children. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (see SHARE website http://www. share-project.org/ for a detailed list of references), though, asks about the opinion on whether grandparents’ duty is to help grandchildren’s parents in looking after grandchildren or
whether grandparents’ duty is to contribute toward the economic security of grandchildren and their families. Descriptive evidence on these items shows that Mediterranean countries appear to be characterized by stronger family values than Central and Northern European countries. Mutual support between generations is not always voluntary, but it is sometimes based on normative pressure or legal duties. An example is economic assistance, legally regulated, by parents to children until a certain age and later on in life by adult children to their parents (for further data on this issue, refer to the social policy indicators available on the Multilinks project website http://www.multilinks-project.eu/). National and comparative survey data, as well as qualitative studies on intergenerational support, show that the higher the space of familialism by default, and to some degree also of supported familialism, the higher the impact of gender and social class differences among the potential family carers (see Saraceno, 2010 for a review).
Ambivalence Individuals tend to identify some problems with their adult children and with their parents, often related to communication and lifestyle. However, the majority of adult children define the ties to their parents as solely close, one-third define them as ambivalent, and only about 6% experience the relationship with the parents as solely problematic (Fingerman et al., 2004). The coexistence of high solidarity and high conflict is not a general state, and it is mainly found among young adults (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Evidence (see Cooney and Dykstra, 2013) consistently shows that levels of ambivalence not only vary with geographical proximity (i.e., closer parent–child proximity is associated with more mixed feelings in their relationship), but also depend on the gender and marital status of the parent (ambivalent relationships are reported more with fathers than with mothers, and with currently unmarried parents compared to partnered). Empirical results also support the idea that ambivalence may result from issues of balancing attachment and independence. Parents’ health is a significant predictor of ambivalence in reporting from both parents (Pillemer et al., 2007) and children (van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Parents report ambivalence in their parent–child relationship also when their adult children have health problems and, especially mothers, when they have issues with the law or have chemical dependency (Pillemer et al., 2007). Literature also shows that parents and children usually express their feelings openly. In turn, unresolved parent–child tensions may detract from affectual solidarity. Which generation is reporting their feelings may also matter: despite providing more assistance to their offspring than receiving, mothers tend to report lower relational ambivalence than adult children. Different relational expectations may explain this evidence.
The Macro-Level The availability of cross-country comparable surveys investigating intergenerational solidarity in its various dimensions has incentivized the proliferation of studies examining
Intergenerational Solidarity
determinants of intergenerational solidarity variation among different individuals as well as among a larger number of countries. The first type of studies, where the micro (individual) level was the focus of the analysis, accounted for context by including country indicators to the regression models. Several comparative studies showed that both needs and opportunities of the recipients and givers exert a comparable influence on the exchange of support in different countries. However, the diversity of intergenerational relationships from country to country remains significant within Europe, highlighting a North–South divide. Therefore, a second type of studies gave attention to cultural–contextual and policy explanations at the macro-level in multilevel analysis. Although the most common discussion at the macro-level is on the distinction between weak versus strong family ties, likely linked to specific welfare systems, the nonstrict correspondence required further investigations. Political economy focused studies took into account the social context of elderly people centering around help and care from a welfare production point of view (e.g., Brandt et al., 2009). Some explorative works on the societal level have shed light on the importance of social norms in relation to family solidarity (e.g., Bordone, 2012). Theoretical and empirical works on family solidarity tend to assume that, as the family is a reliable and nonjudgmental institution that crosses generations, it has both a direct and a mediated effect on health conditions through support between its members. Usually this strand of research shared the assumption that family solidarity (positively) influences physical and mental health status (Berkman et al., 2000). Several conceptual causal frameworks have been proposed to highlight the upstream and downstream factors that are likely to explain a causal link between solidarity and health outcomes, but this is another (although related) story, which is not discussed here.
A Three-Generation Perspective: The Role of Grandparents The new opportunity role of grandparents has enlarged studies of intergenerational solidarity to three family generations: grandparents, parents, and (grand)children. Although in most developed countries there has been a decline in multigenerational households, grandparents still play an active and supportive role within the family, especially by taking care of grandchildren. Indeed, the proportion of elderly giving functional solidarity to offspring increases significantly when childcare is included in support measures. Taking care of grandchildren is a common activity among grandparents in Western societies, especially among women: in the USA, 50% of grandparents provide some type of childcare; similar percentages of grandfathers in Europe say they provide regular or occasional care to their grandchildren and even more grandmothers (58%) are involved in childcare (see Glaser et al., 2010 for a review). As grandparental childcare is traditionally considered an altruistic act, research on this intergenerational exchange has focused on its effects on younger generations. By helping their children (especially daughters) with looking after
407
grandchildren, the (unpaid) grandparents are also likely to produce welfare benefits, especially when the services offered by the market are costly and public provision of care is scarce. In some countries, the important role of grandparents as providers of childcare has already been officially recognized: in the UK, for example, grandparents who give up paid work to provide childcare can claim credits that allow them to qualify for a basic state pension (Glaser et al., 2010). Grandparental childcare can be seen as both a downward and an upward transfer: on the one side, grandparents invest time and resources in their grandchildren; while on the other side, grandchildren are an important (emotional) resource for grandparents. Economic models have indeed hypothesized that inter vivos transfers from grandparents to grandchildren might also have an egoistic component that can help to explain why older generations transfer resources to younger generations. Downward monetary and time transfers may be motivated by the anticipation of future need, and the hope that the younger generations will be more altruistic toward their parents or grandparents in return. According to this strand of literature, grandparental childcare could be considered an investment that is expected to pay off in the future. Focus has also been laid to consensual solidarity between grandparents and grandchildren. Giarrusso et al. (2001) found evidence for a strong relationship between grandparents and their adult grandchildren: “longer life expectancy appears to result in long-term loving relationships” (p. 473). In sum, adult intergenerational relationships between (grand)parents and children remain a relevant aspect of aging and family studies. Reductions in mortality and decreases in fertility in most parts of the world will also reshape intergenerational solidarity patterns in economies currently in transition and in developing countries, affecting large numbers of the global population. Increasing diversity in family forms and norms will also continue to impact on the variability in family bonds, raising new research questions and requiring new theoretical explanations.
See also: Adulthood: Dependency and Autonomy; Dependency Theory; Exchange: Social; Family and Kinship, History of; Life Course: Sociological Aspects; Linked Lives; Retirement and Encore Adulthood: The New Later Life Course; Second Demographic Transition; Welfare State, History of.
Bibliography Albertini, M., Kohli, M., Vogel, C., 2007. Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns – different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy 17, 319–334. Attias-Donfut, D., Ogg, J., Wolff, F., 2005. European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers. European Journal of Ageing 2, 161–173. Becker, G.S., 1974. A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy 82, 1063–1093. Bengtson, V.L., 2001. Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 1–16. Bengtson, V.L., Roberts, R.E.L., 1991. Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, 856–870. Bengtson, V.L., Rosenthal, C.J., Burton, L.M., 1990. Families and aging: diversity and heterogeneity. In: Binstock, R.H., George, L.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, third ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 263–287.
408
Intergenerational Solidarity
Berkman, L.F., Glass, T., Brisette, I., Seeman, T.E., 2000. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine 51, 843–857. Bonsang, E., 2009. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics 28, 143–154. Bordone, V., 2009. Contact and proximity of older people to their adult children: a comparison between Italy and Sweden. Population, Space and Place 15, 359–380. Bordone, V., 2012. Social norms and intergenerational relationships. In: De Santis, G. (Ed.), The Family, the Market or the State? Intergenerational Support under Pressure in Ageing Societies. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 159–178. Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., Szydlik, M., 2009. Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review 25, 585–601. Burgess, E.W., 1960. Aging in western culture. In: Burgess, E.W. (Ed.), Aging in Western Societies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–28. Connidis, I.A., Davies, L., 1992. Confidants and companions: choices in later life. Journal of Gerontology 47, S115–S122. Connidis, I.A., McMullin, J.A., 2002. Sociological ambivalence and family ties: a critical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 64, 558–567. Cooney, T.M., Dykstra, P.A., 2013. Theories and their empirical support in the study of intergenerational family relationships in adulthood. In: Fine, M.A., Fincham, F.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Family Theories: A Content-Based Approach. Routledge/Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 356–378. Davey, A., Eggebeen, D., 1998. Patterns of intergenerational exchange and mental health. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 53B, P86–P95. Deutsch, M., 1975. Equity, equality, and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues 31, 137–149. Emerson, R., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2, 335–362. Fingerman, K.L., 2001. Aging Mothers and Their Adult Daughters: A Study in Mixed Emotions. Springer, New York. Fingerman, K.L., Hay, E.L., Birditt, K.S., 2004. The best of ties, the worst of ties: close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family 66, 792–808. Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., Silverstein, M., Bengtson, V.L., 2001. Grandparent-adult grandchild affection and consensus. Journal of Family Issues 22, 456–477. Glaser, K., Ribé Montserrat, E., Waginger, U., Price, D., Stuchbury, R., Tinker, A., 2010. Grandparenting in Europe. Grandparents Plus, London. van Gaalen, R.I., Dykstra, P.A., 2006. Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: a latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family 68, 947–960. Hank, K., 2007. Proximity and contacts between older parents and their adult children: a European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family 69, 157–173. Hantrais, L., 2005. Living as a family in Europe. In: Hantrais, L., Philipov, D., Billari, F.C. (Eds.), Policy Implications of Changing Family Formation. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasburg, pp. 117–181.
House, J.S., 1981. Work, Stress and Social Support. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Krause, N., 1987. Life stress, social support, and self-esteem in an elderly population. Psychology and Aging 2, 349–356. Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., Bengtson, V.L., 1994. Affection, social contact and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, 57–68. Lüscher, K., Pillemer, K., 1998. Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parentchild relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 413–425. Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C., von Kondratowitz, H.-J., 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing and Society 25, 863–882. Parsons, T., Bales, R., 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. The Free Press, New York. Pillemer, K., Suitor, J.J., Mock, S.E., Sabir, M., Pardo, T.B., Sechrist, J., 2007. Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: exploring ambivalence within later-life families. Journal of Social Issues 63, 775–791. Popenoe, D., 1993. American family decline, 1960–1990: a review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family 55, 527–542. Pruchno, R., Burant, C., Peters, N.D., 1994. Family mental health: marital and parent– child consensus as predictors. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56, 747–758. Saraceno, C., 2008. Families, Ageing and Social Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Saraceno, C., 2010. Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: a bi-generational perspective. Journal of European Social Policy 20, 32–44. Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Lowenstein, A., Giarrusso, R., Bengtson, V.L., 2010. Old parent – child relationships in six developed nations: comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family 72, 1006–1021. Sprey, J., 1969. The family as a system in conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family 31, 699–706. Stoeckel, K.J., Litwin, H., 2013. Personal social networks in Europe: do people from different countries have different interpersonal solidarities? In: Börsch-Supan, A., et al. (Eds.), Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations in Europe. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 277–287. Sussman, M.B., Burchinal, L., 1962. Kin-family networks. Marriage and Family Living 24, 231–240. Szydlik, M., 2008. Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 39, 97–114. Weiss, R.S., 1974. The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin, Z. (Ed.), Doing unto Others: Joining, Molding, Conforming, Helping, Loving. Prentice-Hall Spectrum Books, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, pp. 17–26.