Where is the exit? Intergenerational ambivalence and relationship quality in high contact ties

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2008.10.006Get rights and content

Abstract

We challenge the common idea that solidarity has positive, whereas conflict has negative implications, by investigating intergenerational ambivalence – defined as the co-occurrence of solidarity and conflict – and relationship quality. We use representative data on non-coresident adult children and parents with high levels of contact (weekly or more; N = 2,694 dyads). Results show that over half of high contact parent–child ties can be characterized as ambivalent and of high-quality. The likelihood of negative instead of positive ambivalent ties is greater if adult children have few exit options because they are socially isolated or have a small number of siblings. Ties between fathers and sons, and those between caring daughters and aging parents also have a high probability of belonging to the negative ambivalent type.

Introduction

Although family life is programmed for positive interactions – cooperation, love, mutual support, and happiness – the probability of negative interactions is also high (Sprey, 1969). It is surprising, though, that in previous research on intergenerational relationships the focus has been either on solidarity or conflict. Moreover, different features of solidarity (Komter and Vollebergh, 2002, Lawton et al., 1994, Rossi and Rossi, 1990) and conflict (Clarke, Preston, Raksin, & Bengtson, 1999) have mostly been examined in isolation of one another. Recently, a number of researchers have taken on the challenge of simultaneously investigating solidarity and conflict in an attempt to unravel the complexities of adult child–parent bonds (Bengtson et al., 1996, Katz et al., 2004, Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006, Ward, 2008).

In this study, we expand on this work by questioning the notion that solidarity generally has positive, whereas conflict generally has negative implications for relationship quality. Empirical studies have proven otherwise. Solidarity can be “too much” because the provision of support is too burdensome, for example, or because the receiver is insufficiently able to reciprocate (Lincoln et al., 2003, Silverstein et al., 1996). In addition to causing damage, conflict can be a constructive element in close relationships (Coser, 1956, Simmel, 1904). A certain balance between pushes and pulls, between positive and negative interactions, contributes to the highest relationship quality (Rook, 2001). To unravel this “certain balance”, and to understand why some adult child–parent ties are of a poor quality, whereas others represent strong bonds, we propose to combine the solidarity/conflict model with the concept of intergenerational ambivalence (Bengtson et al., 2002, Lowenstein, 2007).

Research on ambivalence has increased the understanding of the co-occurrence of positive and negative interactions in parent–child bonds (Connidis and McMullin, 2002, Lüscher and Pillemer, 1998, Pillemer and Lüscher, 2004). Ambivalence is usually defined as having mixed feelings about the relationship. In our conceptualization of ambivalence, we take into account what parents and children actually do. We consider the co-occurrence of solidarity and conflict as a behavioral manifestation of intergenerational ambivalence (Connidis and McMullin, 2002, Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006). Interestingly, in almost all studies on intergenerational ambivalence, it is assumed but not empirically investigated that ambivalence is associated with problems and poor relationship quality. (Fingerman et al., 2004, Lang, 2004, Willson et al., 2003). We think that some ambivalent ties can be associated with high and others with poor relationship quality.

Studies on ambivalence tend to either focus on specific age groups, such as frail parents (Lang, 2004, Spitze and Gallant, 2004, Willson et al., 2003), specific ties such as those between coresidents (White & Rogers, 1997) or mothers and children (Pillemer & Suitor, 2002), or specific events such as when young adults come out gay or lesbian (Cohler, 2004). Moreover, sample sizes tend to be small. In our view, the focus on small, specific samples hampers the development of a general understanding of the association between ambivalence and relationship quality. Therefore, we use a large, representative sample.

Our research question is: which conditions increase the likelihood that intergenerational ambivalence is associated with high, rather than poor relationship quality? We consider negative ambivalent relationships as ties in which solidarity and conflict are combined with poor relationship quality. Positive ambivalent relationships are ties, in which solidarity and conflict are combined with high relationship quality.

We start from the assumption that ambivalence, the co-occurrence of solidarity and conflict, is associated with a poorer relationship quality, if the interactions between parents and adult children are not so much the result of free decision making, but rather of a lack of exit options (Komter, 2001, Rossi and Rossi, 1990, Smelser, 1998). We will formulate hypotheses about the probability of a negative, instead of a positive ambivalent relationship in connection with the adult child's exit options. We argue that the child's exit options are a function of the (a) the personal ability to see exits, (b) the availability of exits, (c) the normative barriers against exits, and (d) the blockage of exits.

People who lack assertiveness are more likely to feel trapped in a given situation than those who have little difficulty standing up for themselves and making important decisions in their lives (Sincoff, 1990). Less assertive adult children are less able to negotiate intimate connections with others. Such individuals have fewer options to exit, manage or reshape their relationships with others. On the basis of these considerations we arrive at our first hypothesis: a higher probability of a negative ambivalent relationship coincides with a decreasing personal ability to see exits.

Alternative contacts are important determinants for parent–child contact and support (e.g., Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993). If the child is socially isolated, that is, if the child has a less satisfying social network, he or she is more dependent on the bond with the parent, and has fewer exit options from the relationship. This brings us to our second hypothesis: a higher probability of a negative ambivalent relationship coincides with a decreasing availability of exits.

People differ in the extent to which they feel responsible for contributing to the well-being of family members (Finch, 1989, Pyke, 1999). Perceived family obligations reduce the exit options from relationships in which the demands are too much or the interactions insufficiently rewarding. Following this reasoning, we formulate our third hypothesis: a higher probability of a negative ambivalent relationship coincides with stronger normative barriers against exits.

Objective circumstances such as sibship size and geographic distance also structure exit options. Adult children in large families experience fewer parental demands than in smaller ones (Dykstra and Knipscheer, 1995, Spitze and Logan, 1991, Uhlenberg and Cooney, 1990). Firstly, parents must divide their time and energy over a larger number of offspring, and secondly, children can share responsibilities toward their parents with siblings. Therefore, having more siblings means having more exit options. Living nearer to the parents enhances the opportunity to exchange support and reduces potential strains associated with parental care giving (McCulloch, 1995, Tomassini et al., 2003, White and Rogers, 1997). Nevertheless, exit options are limited when the homes of the parent and the child are only separated by a short geographic distance. One can less easily “escape” from one another. Following these considerations we arrive at our fourth hypothesis: a higher probability of a negative ambivalent relationship coincides with a greater blockage of exits.

To test the theoretical arguments distinguishing poor from high quality ambivalent ties, we focus on adult children who report a relatively high face-to-face contact frequency with their parents, i.e., children who see their parents at least on a weekly basis. The focus on face-to-face contact is guided by the consideration that relationships between individuals are maintained and cemented by actual interaction (Dykstra, 1990). Duck (1983, p. 102) argued that “the activities are the relationship, and require the work, time, effort, attention, and skills of the partners”. Both as the provision of support (Mangen, Bengtson, & Landry, 1988) and the occurrence of practical disputes and irritations (Clarke et al., 1999) are strongly dependent on face-to-face encounters. High contact frequency increases the likelihood that relationships between parents and their adult children are characterized by ambivalence (Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006).

High contact intergenerational ties are not necessarily high quality ties (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). Despite having a poor relationship, adult children might visit their parents often because they feel a normative obligation to do so. In our view, the focus on high contact ties will not leave us with insufficient variation to answer our research questions.

Section snippets

Data

The data are from the public release file of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS), a large-scale survey on the nature and strength of family ties in the Netherlands (Dykstra et al., 2005). Between 2002 and 2004 computer assisted personal interviews were held with over 8150 men and women aged 18 to 79 who form a random sample of adults residing in private households in the Netherlands. Approximately five percent of respondents were non-native Dutch, meaning that both parents were born

Descriptive analyses

Descriptive information on the parent–child dyads in the sample (high contact ties) is presented in Table 1. As the table shows, the dyads are unevenly distributed by gender: There are relatively few sons (43%) and fathers (33%). The average number of siblings is 2.58. The mean distance separating children and parents is almost 11 kilometers. The adult children in our sample are on the average 38 years old. More than half of the adult children have parents with an intact marriage.

Table 2

Conclusion

Simultaneously investigating solidarity and conflict has become an important research challenge in studying the complexities of adult child–parent bonds (Bengtson et al., 1996, Katz et al., 2004, Van Gaalen and Dykstra, 2006, Ward, 2008). Our study combines the solidarity/conflict model with the concept of intergenerational ambivalence and classic sociological ideas on cohesion in close ties (Simmel, 1904, Coser, 1956). We challenge the common idea that the implications for relationship quality

Discussion

The moderate response rate is a limitation of our study. Analyses of the representativity of the NKPS-sample (Dykstra et al., 2005) revealed an under-representation of men and of young adults, and an over-representation of women with children living at home. Residents of highly urban and highly rural areas are also under-represented in the sample, a pattern often seen in survey research. We do not think that the typology of child–parent relationships is seriously affected by the selective

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on data from the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS), which is funded through the “Major Investments Fund” of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Financial and institutional support for the NKPS also comes from The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), the Faculty of Social Sciences (Utrecht University), the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences (University of Amsterdam) and the Faculty of Social Science (Tilburg

References (65)

  • B.J. McCulloch

    The relationship of family proximity and social support to the mental health of older rural adults: the Appalachian context

    Journal of Aging Studies

    (1995)
  • J.B. Sincoff

    The psychological characteristics of ambivalent people

    Clinical psychology review

    (1990)
  • T. Bartus

    Estimation of marginal effects using MARGEFF

    Stata Journal, StataCorp LP

    (2005)
  • V.L. Bengtson et al.

    Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships?

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2002)
  • V.L. Bengtson et al.

    Paradoxes of families and aging

  • F.M. Cancian et al.

    Caring and gender

    (2000)
  • E.J. Clarke et al.

    Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children

    The Gerontologist

    (1999)
  • C.C. Clogg

    Latent class models

  • B.J. Cohler

    The experience of ambivalence within the family: young adults “coming out” gay or lesbian and their parents

  • J.S. Coleman

    Foundations of social theory

    (1990)
  • I.A. Connidis et al.

    Sociological ambivalence and family ties: a critical perspective

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2002)
  • L.A. Coser

    The functions of social conflict

    (1956)
  • J. De Jong-Gierveld et al.

    The development of a Rasch-type loneliness scale

    Applied Psychological Measurement

    (1985)
  • S. Duck

    Friends, for life: The psychology of close relationships

    (1983)
  • P.A. Dykstra

    Next of (non)kin. The importance of primary relationships for older adults' well-being

    (1990)
  • P.A. Dykstra et al.

    Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships. Wave 1 (No. NKPS Working Paper No. 4)

    (2005)
  • P.A. Dykstra et al.

    The availability and intergenerational structure of family relationships

  • J. Finch

    Family obligation and social change

    (1989)
  • K.L. Fingerman et al.

    The best of ties, the worst of ties: close, problematic, and ambivalent social relationships

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2004)
  • Fischer, T.F.C. (2004). Parental divorce, conflict, and resources. The effects on children's behavior problems,...
  • L.K. George

    Caregiver burden: conflict between norms of reciprocity and solidarity

  • A. Giddens

    Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age

    (1991)
  • E.A. Greenfield et al.

    Linked lives: adult children's problems and their parents' psychological and relational well-being

    Journal of Marriage and Family

    (2006)
  • J.A. Hagenaars et al.

    Searching for ideal types: the potentialities of latent class analysis

    European Sociological Review

    (1989)
  • G.O. Hagestad

    Interdependent lives and relationships in changing times: A life-course view of families and aging

  • H. Hansagi et al.

    Parental divorce: psychological well-being, mental health and mortality during youth and young adulthood

    European Journal of Public Health

    (2000)
  • M. Hechter

    A theory of group solidarity

  • D.P. Hogan et al.

    The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1993)
  • G.C. Homans

    Social behavior as exchange

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1958)
  • R. Katz et al.

    Theorizing intergenerational family relations: solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence in cross-national contexts

  • G. Kaufman et al.

    Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents

    Journal of Marriage and the Family

    (1998)
  • A.E. Komter

    The disguised rationality of solidarity: gift giving in informal relations

    Journal of Mathematical Sociology

    (2001)
  • Cited by (58)

    • ‘An elephant cannot fail to carry its own ivory’: Transgenerational ambivalence, infrastructure and sibling support practices in urban Uganda

      2019, Emotion, Space and Society
      Citation Excerpt :

      Despite this resentment and reported ‘suffering’, she expressed both pride and pleasure in being able to independently fund a robust burial for the brother she had funded through school, university and into his adult life. In contrast to existing models of intergenerational ambivalence, such as those of Silverstein et al. (2010) and Van Gaalen et al. (2010), the magnitude of investments made by Catherine and Jackson (and which Joyce hoped to make in the future) in their siblings together with the significant likelihood of their siblings' active ‘exit’ from any reciprocity as they became adults themselves and turned to concentrate on their own immediate families in turn (or indeed were deceased), did not manifest in either conflict or solidarity. Instead sibling support practices generated a diverse range of emotional and structural ambivalences in the simultaneous co-existence of frustration and fatalism, high relationship satisfaction and resentment, family cohesion and isolation, fluctuations in material circumstances, pride and anxiety, and competing ethics of self and familial care.

    • Power and ambivalence in intergenerational communication: Deciding to institutionalize in Shanghai

      2017, Journal of Aging Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      In particular, when older adults' health conditions began to deteriorate, the negative aspect of ambivalence seemed more apparent. Increasing independence triggered their feelings of uselessness and heightened ambivalence (van Gaalen, Dykstra, & Komter, 2010). In addition, multiple children and complicated relationships with children-in-law can create another layer of negative influences on older adults (Widmer, Giudici, Le Goff, & Pollien, 2009).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text