Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:58:57.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-generational relationships at different ages: an attachment perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2008

EVA-MARIA MERZ ,
CARLO SCHUENGEL  and
HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE
EVA-MARIA MERZ*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Child and Family Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
CARLO SCHUENGEL
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Child and Family Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Child and Family Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Eva-Maria Merz, Department of Clinical Child and Family Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BTAmsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the characteristics of parent-child relationships after childhood from a theoretical attachment perspective. It describes how relationships between adult children and their parents vary by age group of the child on three dimensions that were derived from attachment theory: direction, penetration and quality. Data from 4,589 respondents to the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study were analysed to describe relationships between adult-children and their parents. Analyses of covariance were used to specify differences by age group. The results showed that age had notable effects on relationships between adult children and parents, especially their direction and penetration or centrality. The direction was reversed for parents of children in the two oldest age groups. The level of penetration was lower for the older age groups, and quality was higher in the younger age groups, but the effect size was small. The age effects on the dimensions were qualified by the personal circumstances of the adult children. Having one's own children was associated with different patterns of attachment at different ages. Adult children may be an important source of support for their elderly parents and may even become ‘attachment figures’. Given the current increases in longevity, there could be increasing pressure on adult children to support their parents. Attachment theory is a useful framework for studying the characteristics of inter-generational relationships, also after childhood.

Keywords

inter-generational solidarityadult attachmentadult-child parent relationships
Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , July 2008 , pp. 717 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. 1989. Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 4, 709–16.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, M. D. S. 1991. Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J. and Marris, P. (eds), Attachment Across the Life Cycle. Tavistock/Routledge, London, 33–51.Google Scholar
Antonucci, T. C., Akiyama, H. and Takahashi, K. 2004. Attachment and close relationships across the life span. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 4, 353–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Attias-Donfut, C. 2001. The dynamics of elderly support: the transmission of solidarity patterns between generations. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 34, 1, 9–15.Google Scholar
Berger, F. and Fend, H. 2005. Kontinuität und Wandel in der affektiven Beziehung zwischen Eltern und Kindern vom Jugend- bis ins Erwachsenenalter [Continuity and change in affective parent-child relationship from adolescence to adulthood]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 25, 1, 8–31.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. 1982. Attachment. Volume 1 of Attachment and Loss, second edition, Basic, New York.Google Scholar
Cassidy, J. 1999. The nature of the child's ties. In Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P. R. (eds), Hand-book of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford, New York, 3–20.Google Scholar
Brody, E. M. 1985. Parent care as a normative family stress. The Gerontologist, 25, 1, 19–29.Google Scholar
Cavallero, P., Morino-Abbele, F. and Bertocci, B. 2007. The social relations of the elderly. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 44, supplement 1, 97–100.Google Scholar
Cicirelli, V. G. 1993. Attachment and obligation as daughters' motives for caregiving behavior and subsequent effect on subjective burden. Psychology and Aging, 8, 2, 144–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Second edition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Colin, V. 1996. Human Attachment. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
De Wolff, M. S. and Van IJzendoorn, M. H. 1997. Sensitivity and attachment: a meta-analysis of parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 4, 571–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Doherty, N. A. and Feeney, J. A. 2004. The composition of attachment networks throughout the adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 4, 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, A. B., Brendgen, M., Markiewicz, D. and Kamkar, K. 2003. Family relationships as moderators of the association between romantic relationships and adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 3, 316–40.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2004. Codebook of The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A Multi-Actor, Multi-Method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 1. NKPS Working Paper 1, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Grundy, E. and Henretta, J. C. 2006. Between elderly parents and adult children: a new look at the intergenerational care provided by the ‘sandwich generation’. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 707–22.Google Scholar
Hesse, E. 1999. The adult attachment interview. In Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P. R. (eds) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. Guilford, New York, 395–433.Google Scholar
Hill, J., Fonagy, P., Safier, E. and Sargent, J. 2003. The ecology of attachment in the family. Family Process, 42, 2, 205–21.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. 1979. Towards Understanding Relationship. Academic, London.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. 1997. Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. Psychology Press, Hove, Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. and Stevenson-Hinde, J. 1990. Attachment: biological, cultural and individual desiderata. Human Development, 33, 1, 62–72.Google Scholar
Ikkink, K. K., Van Tilburg, T. and Knipscheer, K. C. P. M. 1999. Perceived instrumental support exchanges in relationships between elderly parents and their adult children: normative and structural explanations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 4, 831–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsley, C. H. and Lambert, K. G. 2006. The maternal brain. Scientific American, 294, 1, 58–65.Google Scholar
Kuypers, J. A. and Bengtson, V. L. 1973. Social breakdown and competence: a model of normal aging. Human Development, 16, 3, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, J. R. and Spitze, G. D. 1996. Family Ties: Enduring Relations Between Parents and their Grown Children. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H., Doyle, A. B. and Haggart, N. 2006. Developmental differences in adolescents' and young adults' use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners to fulfil attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 1, 127–40.Google Scholar
Marris, P. 1991. The social construction of uncertainty. In Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J. and Marris, P. (eds), Attachment Across the Life Cycle. Tavistock/Routledge, London, 77–90.Google Scholar
Merz, E.-M., Schuengel, C. and Schulze, H.-J. 2007. Intergenerational solidarity: an attachment perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 2, 175–186.Google Scholar
Routasalo, P. E., Savikko, N., Tilvis, R. S., Strandberg, T. E. and Pitkälä, K. H. 2006. Social contacts and their relationship to loneliness among aged people: a population-based study. Gerontology, 52, 3, 181–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuengel, C. and Van IJzendoorn, M. H. 2001. Attachment in mental health institutions: a critical review of assumptions, clinical implications, and research strategies. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 3, 304–23.Google Scholar
Schulze, H.-J., Tyrell, H. and Künzler, J. 1989. Vom Strukturfunktionalismus zur Systemtheorie der Familie [From structural functionalism to systems theory of the family]. In Nave-Herz, R. and Markefka, M. (eds), Handbuch der Familien- und Jugendforschung, Band I, Familienforschung [Handbook of Research on Family and Youth. Part I, Research on the Family]. Luchterhand, Neuwied/Frankfurt, Germany, 31–43.Google Scholar
Sroufe, L. A. and Waters, E. 1977. Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 4, 1184–99.Google Scholar
Steele, H., Phibbs, E. and Woods, R. T. 2004. Coherence of mind in daughter-caregivers of mothers with dementia: links with their mothers' joy and relatedness on reunion in a strange situation. Attachment and Human Development, 6, 4, 439–50.Google Scholar
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. 1995. Adult attachment representation, parental responsiveness and infant attachment: a meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 3, 387–403.Google Scholar
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C. and Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. 1999. Disorganized attachment in early childhood: meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 2, 225–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Tilburg, T. 1998. Losing and gaining in old age: changes in personal network size and social support in a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53, 6, S313–23.Google Scholar