Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T15:54:27.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The implications of today's family structures for support giving to older parents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2008

MARIA C. STUIFBERGEN ,
JOHANNES J. M. VAN DELDEN  and
PEARL A. DYKSTRA
MARIA C. STUIFBERGEN*
Affiliation:
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
JOHANNES J. M. VAN DELDEN
Affiliation:
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
PEARL A. DYKSTRA
Affiliation:
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Maria C. Stuifbergen, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, postbus 85060, 3508 BA Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is considerable debate about the effects of today's family structures on support arrangements for older people. Using representative data from The Netherlands, the study reported in this paper investigates which socio-demographic characteristics of adult children and their elderly parents, and which motivations of the adult children, correlate with children giving practical and social support to their parents. The findings indicate that the strongest socio-demographic correlates of a higher likelihood of giving support were: having few siblings, having a widowed parent without a new partner and, for practical support, a short geographical distance between the parent's and child's homes. Single mothers were more likely to receive support than mothers with partners, irrespective of whether their situation followed divorce or widowhood. Widowed fathers also received more support, but only with housework. A good parent-child relationship was the most important motivator for giving support, whereas subscribing to filial obligation norms was a much weaker motivator, especially for social support. Insofar as demographic and cultural changes in family structures predict a lower likelihood of support from children to elderly parents, this applies to practical support, and derives mainly from increased geographical separation distances and from the growing trend for parents to take new partners. Social support is unlikely to be affected by these changes if parents and children maintain good relationships.

Keywords

support givingfamilyadult childrenageing parentsfilial obligationsThe Netherlands
Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , April 2008 , pp. 413 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Allan, G. 2001. Personal relationships in late modernity. Personal Relationships, 8, 3, 325–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, G., Hawker, S. and Crow, G. 2001. Family diversity and change in Britain and Western Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 7, 819–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F.-C. 2000. Complementarity between private and public transfers. In Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. (eds) The Myth of Generational Conflict. Routledge, London, 47–68.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. 2001. Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broese, van Groenou M. I. and Knipscheer, C. P. M. 1999. Onset of physical impairment of independently living older adults and the support received from sons and daughters in The Netherlands. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 48, 4, 263–78.Google Scholar
Calasanti, T. 2003. Masculinities and care work in old age. In Arber, S., Davidson, K. and Ginn, J. (eds) Gender and Ageing: Changing Roles and Relationships. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire, 15–30.Google Scholar
Cantor, M. H. 1979. Neighbors and friends: an overlooked resource in the informal system. Research on Aging, 1, 4, 434–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) 2006. Statline. Electronic database, CBS, Heerlen/Voorburg, The Netherlands. Available online at www.statline.nl [Accessed 25 May 2006].Google Scholar
Cicirelli, V. G. 1983. A comparison of helping behavior to elderly parents of adult children with intact and disrupted marriages. The Gerontologist, 23, 6, 619–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Clawson, J. and Ganong, L. 2002. Adult step-children's obligations to older step-parents. Journal of Family Nursing, 8, 1, 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, T. M. and Uhlenberg, P. 1990. The role of divorce in men's relations with their adult children after mid-life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 3, 677–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P. A. 1993. The sky is falling, but Popenoe's analysis won't help us do anything about it. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 3, 548–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, Gierveld J. 1998. Intergenerational relationships and solidarity within the family. In Matthijs, K. (ed.) The Family: Contemporary Perspectives and Challenges. Leuven University Press, Leuven, Belgium, 31–49.Google Scholar
De Jong, Gierveld J. and Dykstra, P. 2002. The long-term rewards of parenting: older adults' marital history and the likelihood of receiving support from adult children. Ageing International, 27, 3, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Klerk, M. and de Boer, A. 2005. Veranderingen in de informele zorg [Changes in informal care]. In De Boer, A. (ed.) Kijk op Informele Zorg [Perspectives on Informal Care]. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, The Hague, The Netherlands, 24–33.Google Scholar
Dooghe, G. 1992. Informal care-givers of elderly people: an European overview. Ageing & Society, 12, 3, 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dykstra, P. 1998. The effects of divorce on inter-generational exchanges in families. Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 33, 1, 77–93.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2005 a. Codebook of The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 1. Version 1, NKPS Working Paper 4, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2005 b. Questionnaires of The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 1.Version 1, NKPS Working Paper 5, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hagestad, G. O. 2000. Inter-generational Relationships. Paper presented for the Gender and Generations Programme, United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe/Population Activities Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Hoeymans, N., van Lindert, H. and Westert, G. P. 2005. The health status of the Dutch population as assessed by the EQ-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 3, 655–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katholieke Radio Omroep 2004. Kinderen zorgen voor ouders [Children who Take Care of Parents]. Television broadcast, 19 December. Katholieke Radio Omroep, Hilversum, Netherlands. Available online at http://www.katholieknederland.nl/kruispunt/archief/2004/detail_objectID155.html [Accessed May 2006].Google Scholar
Katz, R., Daatland, S. O., Lowenstein, A., Bazo, M. T., Ancizu, I., Herlofson, K., Mehlhausen-Hassoen, D. and Prilutzky, D. 2003. Family norms and preferences in inter-generational relations: a comparative perspective. In Bengtson, V. L. and Lowenstein, A. (eds) Global Aging and Challenges to Families. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 305–26.Google Scholar
Kaufman, G. and Uhlenberg, P. 1998. Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 4, 924–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ikking C. E. 1999. Do older adults' network members continue to provide instrumental support in unbalanced relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 1, 59–75.Google Scholar
Knipscheer, C. P. M., Dykstra, P., van Tilburg, T. G. and de Jong-Gierveld, J. 1998. Leefvormen en sociale netwerken van ouderen. Een selectie van bevindingen uit een NESTOR studie [Living arrangements and social networks of older people: a selection of findings from a NESTOR study]. Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie, 29, 3, 110–9.Google Scholar
Komter, A. 2003. Solidariteit en het offer [Solidarity and Sacrifice]. Inaugural lecture, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 24 January. Available online at http://ics.uda.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/Articles/2003/KomterA-Solidariteit/KomterA-Solidariteit-Oratie-2003.pdf [Accessed 29 August 2007].Google Scholar
Komter, A. and Vollebergh, W. A. M. 2002. Solidarity in Dutch families: family ties under strain? Journal of Family Issues, 23, 2, 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liefbroer, A. C. 2002. Het gezinsideaal. Van traditioneel naar modern [The ideal family: from traditional to modern]. Demos, 18, 3, 25–8.Google Scholar
Liefbroer, A. and Mulder, C. 2004. Op je familie kun je rekenen. Opvattingen over familiesolidariteit onder autochtonen en allochtonen [You can count on your family. Opinions on family solidarity among the native Dutch and allochtones]. Demos, 20, 10, 87–8.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, A. and Daatland, S. O. 2006. Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context: evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing & Society, 26, 2, 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucassen, S. 2004. Deeltijdwerk afgelopen 10 jaar sterk gestegen [Part-time work Much Increased Over Last 10 Years]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Heerlen/Voorburg, The Netherlands. Available online at http://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/menu/themas/arbeid-inkomen-sociale-zekerheid/ [Accessed 1 June 2006].Google Scholar
Mastekaasa, A. 1992. Marriage and psychological well-being: some evidence on selection into marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 4, 901–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, C. and Kalmijn, M. 2004. Even bij oma langs. NKPS laat zien hoe ver familieleden van elkaar wonen [A short visit to grandma: NKPS shows how far apart family members live]. Demos, 20, 10, 78–80.Google Scholar
Perenboom, R., van Herten, L., van den Bos, G. and Boshuizen, H. 2004. Trends in disability-free life expectancy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 7, 377–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pezzin, L. E. and Steinberg, Schone B. 1999. Parental marital disruption and intergenerational transfers: an analysis of lone elderly parents and their children. Demography, 36, 3, 287–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pommer, E., van Leeuwen, J. and Ras, M. 2003. Inkomen Verdeeld. Trends naar Ongelijkheid, Herverdeling en Dynamiek [Income Divided Up. Trends by Inequality, Redistribution and Dynamics]. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Popenoe, D. 1993. American family decline, 1960–1990: a review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 3, 527–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portegijs, W., Boelens, A. and Olsthoorn, L. 2004. Emancipatiemonitor 2004 [Emancipation Monitor 2004]. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau and CBS, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pyke, K. D. and Bengtson, V. L. 1996. Caring more or less: individualistic and collectivist systems of family eldercare. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 2, 379–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. and Trommsdorff, G. 2005. The relation between attachment and intergenerational support. European Journal of Ageing, 2, 3, 192–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanas, E. 1979. The family as a social support system in old age. The Gerontologist, 19, 2, 169–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverstein, M. and Bengtson, V. L. 1997. Inter-generational solidarity and the structure of adult-child relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 2, 429–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitze, G. and Logan, J. 1991. Sibling structure and inter-generational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 4, 871–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitze, G., Logan, J., Deane, G. and Zerger, S. 1994. Adult children's divorce and intergenerational relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 2, 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, J. 1993. Good riddance to ‘the family’: a response to David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 3, 545–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stata Corporation 2003. Stata Base Reference Manual: Release 8. Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Van der Meulen, A. and de Graaf, A. 2006. Samenwoonrelaties stabieler [Co-habitation relationships more stable]. CBS Bevolkingstrends, 54, 1, 32–6.Google Scholar
Wolf, D. A. and Ballal, S. S. 2006. Family support for older people in an era of demographic change and policy constraints. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyke, S. and Ford, G. 1992. Competing explanations for associations between marital status and health. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 5, 523–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar