1

Families and the life course

Pearl A. Dykstra

Summer School on

Longitudinal and Life Course Research

August 25th 2014, VU University Amsterdam

1

2

Today’s presentation

• Family ties and life course structuring

• Life course transitions and family ties

Note: I adopt a multigenerational view of families

2

My research: late life focus

•multiple family generations

•long-term impact of divorce

•historical context

return

5

Part 1Family ties and life course structuring (micro)

• Intergenerational transmission

- downwards / upwards

- material (money, property)

- non-material (norms, identity, status)

• Linked lives

- repercussions of events happening to others

- influence others in life choices

• Shaping influence

- informal control (self, other)

5

go to

go to

go to

66

back

77

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 NESTOR-LSN en LASA, 1992 – 2002 (in Human Nature)

88

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

9

Family ties and life course structuring (meso)

• Social integration

- access to resources

- connectedness

9

10

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 go to

- welfare state entitlements go to

*Mutual reliance, responsibility (emotional, practical,

financial, moral)

*Debate: public transfers crowd out private transfers

10

11

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

12

12

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

13

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Effective leave

Se

rvic

es

Predicted probability of caring for a grandchild of a working daughterby level of effective leave and services

BE

NL

PLIT

ESGR

AT DEIRL

SEFR

DE

CZ

Courtesy of Arnstein Aassve (Bocconi)

14

14

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)

15

15

Part 2Life 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)

16

Mean # of family generations, selected countries

16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Netherlands France Germany Bulgaria Georgia Estonia Russia

≥4

3

2

1

Source: Dykstra (2010), based on GGS

17

17

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)

18

18

Background:

Quality = contact frequency, support exchange, and

conflict

Typologies capture the complexity of inter-

generational 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

19

19

Typology (T1)Latent Class Analysis

Solidarity Face to face contact Contact otherwise Practical help given Financial support received Practical help received Emotional supportConflict Material issues Personal issues

Type 1 40%

.97 .89 .66 .16 .49 .99 .01 .07

Type 2 29%

.95 .89 .87 .31 .57 .94 .25 .21

Type 3 16%

.96 .49 .52 .09 .19 .55 .07 .11

Type 4 11%

.03 .79 .20 .18 .07 .92 .04 .10

Type 5 4%

.02 .09 .09 .04 .01 .10 .05 .18

Type 1: harmoniousType 2: ambivalentType 3: obligatoryType 4: affectiveType 5: discordant

Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006 (in JMF)

20

20

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

21

21

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)

22

22

• 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

23

23

Occurrence of partnership transitions predictingshifts in dyad type

Parental divorce

Offspring divorce

Parental widowhood

Parental repartnering

Offspring (re)partnering

%

0

6

7

1

7

24

24

Distribution of dyad types at t1 and t2

25

25

Probabilities of type shifts between T1 and T2

harmonious ambivalent obligatory affective discordant

harmonious

ambivalent

obligatory

affective

discordant

.98

.20

.00

.09

.00

.02

.78

.00

.03

.05

.00

.00

.95

.00

.01

.00

.02

.00

.84

.05

.01

.00

.05

.04

.89

158 (4.5%) dyads shifted between T1 and T2

26

26

Predictors of type shifts (odds-ratios)

Parental divorce

Offspring divorce

Parental widowhood

Parental repartnering

Offspring (re)partnering

To harmonious

-/-

0.97

1.72

1.05

1.12

To discordant

-/-

0.69

1.16

5.48**

1.20

-/- effect inestimable due to empty cells

Controls: gender parent, gender child, health decline parent, birthgrandchild, unemployment child, move nearer, move farther

27

27

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?

28

28

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)

29

29

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

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