1 / 30

Families and the life course

Families and the life course. Pearl A. Dykstra Summer School on Longitudinal and Life Course Research August 25 th 2014, VU University Amsterdam. 1. Today’s presentation Family ties and life course structuring Life course transitions and family ties

porter-navarro
Télécharger la présentation

Families and the life course

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

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

  4. 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) go to go to go to 5

  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 NESTOR-LSN 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) • Social integration • - access to resources • - connectedness 9

  9. Family tiesand life course structuring (macro) • Government regulations reflect cultural understandings of “proper” family relationships • Policies shape interdependence* in families (between genders and generations) • - legalrights & obligationsgo to • - welfare state entitlementsgo to • *Mutual reliance, responsibility (emotional, practical, financial, moral) • *Debate: public transfers crowd out private transfers 10

  10. Legal rights & obligations: mandateinterdependence, e.g. • In Italy, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Spain: grandparents, aunts & uncles, siblings are financiallyresponsibleforunder-agechildren • In Germany and the Netherlands children have the right tocontactswithparents, parents have the dutytomaintaincontactswithchildren • In selected US states, both sets of grandparents have a maintenance obligation in case of a teenage parent back 11

  11. Welfare state entitlements: enableautonomy • 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 BE DE FR SE NL IRL AT DE ES CZ GR IT PL Courtesy of Arnstein Aassve (Bocconi) 13

  13. Wrapping up so far • Family tiesand life course structuring • important todistinguishanalytical levels • avoid a “chopped up” view of families • structuring is more than timing andduration (alsooutcomes) 14

  14. Part 2 • Life course transitionsand 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 Source: Dykstra (2010), based on GGS 16

  16. 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 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 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 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: harmonious Type 2: ambivalent Type 3: obligatory Type 4: affective Type 5: discordant Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006 (in JMF) 19

  19. Theoreticalframework: • Opportunity andneedstructuresgoverningintergenerationalrelationships (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 % 0 6 7 1 7 Parental divorce Offspring divorce Parental widowhood Parental repartnering Offspring (re)partnering 23

  23. Distribution of dyad types at t1 and t2 24

  24. Probabilities of type shifts between T1 and T2 harmonious ambivalent obligatoryaffective discordant .98 .20 .00 .09 .00 .02 .78 .00 .03 .05 .00 .00 .95 .00 .01 .01 .00 .05 .04 .89 harmonious ambivalent obligatory affective discordant .00 .02 .00 .84 .05 158 (4.5%) dyadsshiftedbetween T1 and T2 25

  25. Predictors of type shifts (odds-ratios) To discordant -/- 0.69 1.16 5.48** 1.20 Parental divorce Offspring divorce Parental widowhood Parental repartnering Offspring (re)partnering To harmonious -/- 0.97 1.72 1.05 1.12 -/- 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 continuitythan change in adult child-parentrelationships • Few partnership transitions; neverthelessfewershiftsthanfrequency of partnership transitions • Low likelihood of shiftsnotattributabletoselection • Offspring divorce, parentalwidowhood, offspring (re)partnering: no shifts • Partnership transitions taken up in the flow of ongoinginteractions? 27

  27. Conclusions (2) • Findingstypically Dutch? (Public safety nets) • No hypothesis: shift to discordant type withparental (re)partnering • Usefulness of typology: repartnering does notonlybring a drop in exchanges, but also a rise in tensions • Overall: findingssuggestpersistence of preexistinginteractionpatterns (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

More Related