1. 1 Families and the life course Pearl A. Dykstra Summer School on Longitudinal and Life Course Research August 25 th 2014, VU University Amsterdam 1

2. 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

3. My research: late life focus multiple family generations long-term impact of divorce historical context return

5. 5 Part 1 Family 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

6. 6 6 back

7. 7 7 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)

8. 8 8 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. 9 Family ties and life course structuring (meso) Social integration - access to resources - connectedness 9

10. 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 go to - welfare state entitlements go to go to *Mutual reliance, responsibility (emotional, practical, financial, moral) *Debate: public transfers crowd out private transfers 10

11. 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 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 Predicted probability of caring for a grandchild of a working daughter by level of effective leave and services BE NL PL IT ES GR ATDE IRL SE FR 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 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)

16. 16 Mean # of family generations, selected countries 16 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 support Conflict 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%.02.09.04.01.10.05.18 Type 1: harmonious Type 2: ambivalent Type 3: obligatory Type 4: affective Type 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 predicting shifts in dyad type Parental divorce Offspring divorce Parental widowhood Parental repartnering Offspring (re)partnering %06717 %06717

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.98.20.00.09.00.02.78.00.03.05.00.95.00.01.00.02.00.84.05.01.00.05.04.89 158 (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, birth grandchild, 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

30. Financial support for my research comes from European Research Council Advanced Investigator Grant (ERC, 324211) “Families in Context” EU 7 th framework Larges Scale Integrating Project (EC, 320116) “FamiliesAndSocieties” EU 7th framework Collaborative Project (EC, 217523) “Multilinks” dykstra@fsw.eur.nl