Families and the life course
Pearl A. Dykstra
Summer School on
Longitudinal and Life Course Research
August 25th 2014, VU University Amsterdam
1
1
Today’s presentation
•
•
Family ties and life course structuring
Life course transitions and family ties
Note: I adopt a multigenerational view of families
2
2
My research: late life focus
• multiple family generations
• long-term impact of divorce
• historical context
return
Part 1
Family ties and life course structuring (micro)
•
•
•
5
Intergenerational transmission
- downwards / upwards
- material (money, property)
- non-material (norms, identity, status)
go to
Linked lives
- repercussions of events happening to others
- influence others in life choices
Shaping influence
- informal control (self, other)
go to
go to
5
back
6
6
Influence on life course choices; example from
grandparenting research (1)
Another child yes / no?
Greater likelihood another birth 8 to 10 years
later if grandparents were regularly providing
childcare at T1
Kaptijn et al., 2010, using data from NESTORLSN en LASA, 1992 – 2002 (in Human Nature)
7
7
Influence on life course choices; example from
grandparenting research (2)
Early labourforce exit yes / no?
Greater likelihood (particularly among women)
early exit labourforce if grandmother
Van Bavel et al, 2013, using data from ESS (in
European Sociological Review)
back
8
8
Family ties and life course structuring (meso)
•
9
Social integration
- access to resources
- connectedness
9
Family ties and life course structuring (macro)
• Government regulations reflect cultural
understandings of “proper” family relationships
• Policies shape interdependence* in families
(between genders and generations)
- legal rights & obligations
- welfare state entitlements
go to
go to
*Mutual reliance, responsibility (emotional, practical,
financial, moral)
10
10
Legal rights & obligations: mandate
interdependence, e.g.
• In Italy, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Spain:
grandparents, aunts & uncles, siblings are
financially responsible for under-age children
• In Germany and the Netherlands children have the
right to contacts with parents, parents have the
duty to maintain contacts with children
• In selected US states, both sets of grandparents
have a maintenance obligation in case of a
teenage parent
back
11
11
Welfare state entitlements: enable autonomy
Three possible policy patterns for the division of
responsibilities between family and state (Saraceno &
Keck, 2010, in European Societies)
• familialism by default
• supported familialism
• defamilialisation
12
12
Predicted probability of caring for a grandchild of a working daughter
by level of effective leave and services
60
BE
DE
50
SE
Services
40
FR
30
NL
20
IRL
ES
10
AT
GR
DE
CZ
IT
PL
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Effective leave
Courtesy of Arnstein Aassve (Bocconi)
13
13
Wrapping up so far
Family ties and life course structuring
• important to distinguish analytical levels
• avoid a “chopped up” view of families
• structuring is more than timing and duration
(also outcomes)
14
14
Part 2
Life course transitions and family ties
Composition and size of family networks: shaped
by the demographic behaviour of people in
proximate generations (birth, death, partnering,
divorce)
15
15
Mean # of family generations, selected countries
100%
90%
80%
70%
≥4
3
60%
2
1
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Netherlands
France
Germany
Bulgaria
Georgia
Estonia
Source: Dykstra (2010), based on GGS
16
16
Russia
But what about life course transitions and the
quality of family ties?
An example: Schenk & Dykstra, 2012, using data
from NKPS 2003 - 2007 (in Advances in Life
Course Research)
17
17
Background:
Quality = contact frequency, support exchange, and
conflict
Typologies capture the complexity of intergenerational family relationships
We examine shifts in relationship type over
a three-year period
Novelty (1): the consideration of multiple relationship
dimensions (solidaristic acts and conflict topics)
Novelty (2): the consideration of transitions in the
lives of both adult child and parent
18
18
Typology (T1)
Latent Class Analysis
Solidarity
Face to face contact
Contact otherwise
Practical help given
Financial support received
Practical help received
Emotional support
Conflict
Material issues
Personal issues
Type 1: harmonious
Type 2: ambivalent
Type 3: obligatory
Type 4: affective
Type 5: discordant
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5
40%
29%
16%
11%
4%
.97
.89
.66
.16
.49
.99
.95
.89
.87
.31
.57
.94
.96
.49
.52
.09
.19
.55
.03
.79
.20
.18
.07
.92
.02
.09
.09
.04
.01
.10
.01
.07
.25
.21
.07
.11
.04
.10
.05
.18
Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006 (in JMF)
19
19
Theoretical framework:
Opportunity and need structures governing
intergenerational relationships (Szydlik, 2008)
• Opportunity structures: conditions (e.g., time
and energy) that promote or hinder social
interaction
• Need structures: financial, health-related and
emotional requirements that can be fulfilled
through social interaction
• Life transitions are accompanied by changes in
needs and opportunities, including those for
social interactions
• Changes in needs and opportunities prompt
shifts in relationship type
20
20
Hypotheses (partnership transitions)
Parental divorce → discordant (declining
opportunities for contact, reduced emotional needs)
Offspring divorce → affective (parental
responsiveness to greater emotional needs)
Offspring divorce → ambivalent (parents torn
between need for attachment and need to respect
autonomy)
Parental widowhood → harmonious (offspring
responsiveness to greater emotional/ practical
needs)
Parental repartnering → obligatory (fewer needs,
less time for offspring)
Offspring partnering → obligatory (fewer needs,
less time for parents)
21
21
• Data from Netherlands Kinship Panel Study
(Dutch GGS)
• T1: 2003 – 2004, T2: 2006 – 2007
• Reports from adult child (aged 18 – 80 at T1;
M age at T1 = 38)
• N = 3527 randomly selected non-coresident
dyads
• Type shifts: LTA in Mplus
• Predictors of shifts: logistic regression
22
22
Occurrence of partnership transitions predicting
shifts in dyad type
%
Parental divorce
0
Offspring divorce
6
Parental widowhood
7
Parental repartnering
1
Offspring (re)partnering
7
23
23
Distribution of dyad types at t1 and t2
harmonious
ambivalent
t2
t1
obligatory
affective
discordant
0
10
20
30
40
50
24
24
Probabilities of type shifts between T1 and T2
harmonious ambivalent obligatory affective discordant
harmonious
.98
.02
.00
.00
.01
ambivalent
.20
.78
.00
.02
.00
obligatory
.00
.00
.95
.00
.05
affective
.09
.03
.00
.84
.04
discordant
.00
.05
.01
.05
.89
158 (4.5%) dyads shifted between T1 and T2
25
25
Predictors of type shifts (odds-ratios)
To harmonious
To discordant
Parental divorce
-/-
-/-
Offspring divorce
0.97
0.69
Parental widowhood
1.72
1.16
Parental repartnering
1.05
5.48**
Offspring (re)partnering
1.12
1.20
-/- effect inestimable due to empty cells
Controls: gender parent, gender child, health decline parent, birth
grandchild, unemployment child, move nearer, move farther
26
26
Conclusions (1)
• More continuity than change in adult child-parent
relationships
• Few partnership transitions; nevertheless fewer
shifts than frequency of partnership transitions
• Low likelihood of shifts not attributable to
selection
• Offspring divorce, parental widowhood, offspring
(re)partnering: no shifts
• Partnership transitions taken up in the flow of
ongoing interactions?
27
27
Conclusions (2)
• Findings typically Dutch? (Public safety nets)
• No hypothesis: shift to discordant type with
parental (re)partnering
• Usefulness of typology: repartnering does not
only bring a drop in exchanges, but also a rise
in tensions
• Overall: findings suggest persistence of
preexisting interaction patterns (consistent with
attachment perspective)
28
28
Wrapping up
• Exciting time for research!
• Previous investments in datasets (e.g., GGS,
SHARE, EU-SILC, EQLS) enable comparative
research on families and the life course
• Multilinks-database is freely accessible via
http://multilinks-database.wzb.eu
• Always: give consideration to historical and regional
context
29
29
Financial support for my research comes from
• European Research Council Advanced Investigator Grant
(ERC, 324211) “Families in Context”
• EU 7th framework Larges Scale Integrating Project
(EC, 320116) “FamiliesAndSocieties”
• EU 7th framework Collaborative Project (EC, 217523)
“Multilinks”
dykstra@fsw.eur.nl