Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:40:53.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intergenerational ambivalence: new perspectives on intergenerational relationships in the German welfare state

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2012

KATRIN PRINZEN
KATRIN PRINZEN*
Affiliation:
Institute of Sociology, University of Cologne, Germany.
*
Address for correspondence: Katrin Prinzen, Institute of Sociology, University of Cologne, Greinstr. 2, 50939 Cologne, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper deals with ambivalence in the working generation's attitudes towards the elder generation in the German welfare state. Whereas most researchers focus on either norms or self-interest in intergenerational relationships, ambivalence is widely neglected. Ambivalence denotes a simultaneous positive and negative evaluation of the elder generation. The theoretical framework is developed by combining two common perspectives on intergenerational relationships in the welfare state. The first is age-based self-interest that is often discussed in the context of ageing societies with scarce welfare state resources. The second perspective concerns the norms that individuals internalise when growing up both in society and in the family. Drawing on survey data from the Population Policy Acceptance Study in Germany, the empirical analysis first presents evidence of intergenerational ambivalence and, second, investigates whether the structural contradictions that confront individuals in certain situations cause ambivalent attitudes towards the elder generation. The findings show that the higher the structural contradictions of being young and holding strong societal norms towards the elder generation the higher the ambivalent attitude towards this group in the context of the welfare state.

Keywords

normsself-interestreciprocityjusticeattitudessociological ambivalencepsychological ambivalencePopulation Policy Acceptance Study
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 428 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

Andreß, H.-J. and Heien, T. 2001. Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 17, 4, 337–56.Google Scholar
Attias-Donfut, C. and Arber, S. 2000. Equity and solidarity across generations. In Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. (eds), The Myth of a Generational Conflict. Routledge, London, 1–21.Google Scholar
Auerbach, A. J., Kotlikoff, L. J. and Leibfritz, W. 1999. Generational Accounting Around the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Avramov, D. and Cliquet, R. 2008. Manual, questionnaire, codebook and database of the International Population Policy Acceptance Study (IPPAS). CD-ROM annex toHöhn, C., Avramov, D. and Kotowska, I. (eds), People, Population Change and Policy. Lessons from the Population Policy Acceptance Study. Vol. 2, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bäcker, G., Naegele, G., Bispinck, R., Hofemann, K. and Neubauer, J. 2008. Sozialpolitik und soziale Lage in Deutschland 1. Grundlagen, Arbeit, Einkommen und Finanzierung [Social Policy and Social Structure in Germany 1. Basics, Work, Income and Financing]. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Basinger, S. J. and Lavine, H. 2005. Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 2, 169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, V. L., Giarrusso, R., Mabry, J. B. and Silverstein, M. 2002. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 3, 568–76.Google Scholar
Bengtson, V. L. and Roberts, R. E. L. 1991. Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 4, 856–70.Google Scholar
Blome, A., Keck, W. and Alber, J. 2008. Generationenbeziehungen im Wohlfahrtsstaat. Lebensbedingungen und Einstellungen von Altersgruppen im internationalen Vergleich [Generational Relationships in the Welfare State. Living Conditions and Attitudes of Age Groups in International Comparison]. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. and Haeusermann, S. 2009. Who wants what from the welfare state? Socio-structural cleavages in distributional politics. Evidence from Swiss referendum votes. European Societies, 11, 2, 211–32.Google Scholar
Börsch-Supan, A., Reil-Held, A. and Schunk, D. 2008. Saving incentives, old-age provision and displacement effects: evidence from the recent German pension reform. Journal of Pension Economics & Finance, 7, 3, 295–319.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 2000. Reciprocity, self-interest, and the welfare state. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26, 33–53.Google Scholar
Busemeyer, M. R., Goerres, A. and Weschle, S. 2009. Attitudes towards redistributive spending in an era of demographic ageing. The rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 19, 3, 195–212.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. and Strokes, D. E. 1976 [1960]. The American Voter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Craig, S. C., Kane, J. G. and Martinez, M. D. 2002. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't: citizens’ ambivalence about abortion. Political Psychology, 23, 2, 285–301.Google Scholar
Daatland, S. O. and Herlofson, K. 2003. ‘Lost solidarity’ or ‘changed solidarity’: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing & Society, 23, 5, 537–60.Google Scholar
Deindl, C. and Brandt, M. 2011. Financial support and practical help between older parents and their middle-aged children in Europe. Ageing & Society, 31, 4, 645–62.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. 1975. Equity, equality, and need – what determines which value will be used as basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 3, 137–49.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. and Zaller, J. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 1, 268–307.Google Scholar
Ferring, D., Michels, T., Boll, T. and Filipp, S.-H. 2009. Emotional relationship quality of adult children with ageing parents: on solidarity, conflict and ambivalence. European Journal of Ageing, 6, 4, 253–65.Google Scholar
Gainous, J. 2008 a. Ambivalence about social welfare: an evaluation of measurement approaches. American Review of Politics, 29, 1, 109–34.Google Scholar
Gainous, J. 2008 b. Who's ambivalent and who's not? Social welfare ambivalence across ideology. American Politics Research, 36, 2, 210–35.Google Scholar
Gainous, J., Martinez, M. D. and Craig, S. C. 2010. The multiple causes of citizen ambivalence: attitudes about social welfare policy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, & Parties, 20, 3, 335–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, K. and Grundy, E. 2002. Class, caring and disability: evidence from the British Retirement Survey. Ageing & Society, 22, 3, 325–42.Google Scholar
Goerres, A. 2008. Reforming the welfare state in times of grey majorities: the myth of an opposition between younger and older voters in Germany. German Policy Studies, 4, 3, 131–56.Google Scholar
Goerres, A. and Tepe, M. 2010. Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: a comparative analysis of older people's attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 6, 818–51.Google Scholar
Goerres, S. and Vanhuysse, P. 2012. Mapping the field. Comparative generational politics and policies in ageing democracies. In Vanhuysse, P. and Goerres, A. (eds), Ageing Populations in Post-industrial Democracies. Comparative Studies of Policies and Politics. Routledge, London, 1–22.Google Scholar
Green, D. P. and Citrin, J. 1994. Measurement error and the structure of attitudes: are positive and negative judgments opposites? American Journal of Political Science, 38, 1, 256–81.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
Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. 2010. State care provision, societal opinion and children's care of older parents in 11 European countries. Ageing & Society, 30, 2, 299–323.Google Scholar
Hank, K. 2007. Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: a European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1, 157–73.Google Scholar
Harbers, M. M. 2008. Old-age Dependency Ratio Projections in Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the EU-27, 1995–2050. EUPHIX, Euphact, RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Available online at http://www.euphix.org/object_document/o5117n27112.html [Accessed 11 October 2010].Google Scholar
Hoff, A. 2007. Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent–grandchild and parent–child relationships in Germany. Ageing & Society, 27, 5, 643–65.Google Scholar
Höhn, C., Avramov, D. and Kotowska, I. 2008. People, Population Change and Policies. Volume 2, Demographic Knowledge, Gender, Ageing. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M. and Osborn, T. 2004. Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: the political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 1, 65–95.Google Scholar
Kaplan, K. J. 1972. On the ambivalence–indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 5, 361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, W. and Blome, A. 2008. Is there a generational cleavage in Europe? Age-specific perceptions of elderly care and of the pension system. In Alber, J., Fahey, T. and Saraceno, C. (eds), Handbook of Quality of Life in Enlargement Europe. Routledge, London, 73–99.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-O. and Ferree, D. G. 1981. Standardization in causal analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 2, 187–210.Google Scholar
Kohli, M. 1987. Retirement and the moral economy: an historical interpretation of the German case. Journal of Aging Studies, 1, 2, 125–44.Google Scholar
Kohli, M. 2006. Aging and justice. In Binstock, R. H. and George, L. K. (eds), Handbook on Aging and the Social Sciences. Academic Press, San Diego, California, 456–78.Google Scholar
Komp, K., Van Tilburg, T. and Van Groenou, M. B. 2009. The influence of the welfare state on the number of young old persons. Ageing & Society, 29, 4, 609–24.Google Scholar
Künemund, H. and Rein, M. 1999. There is more to receiving than needing. Theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing & Society, 19, 1, 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, H. 2001. The electoral consequences of ambivalence toward presidential candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 4, 915–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. 1968 [1944]. The People's Choice. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. C. 2008. Types, meanings and ambivalence in intergenerational exchanges among Cambodian refugee families in the United States. Ageing & Society, 28, 5, 693–715.Google Scholar
Liebig, S. and Scheller, P. 2007. Gerechtigkeit zwischen den Generationen. Ein analytischer Orientierungsrahmen und einige empirische Befunde [Justice between generations. An analytical framework and some empirical findings]. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 17, 3, 301–21.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Luescher, K., Liegle, L., Lange, A., Hoff, A., Stoffel, M., Viry, G. and Widmer, E. 2010. Generations, Intergenerational Relationships, Generational Policy. A Trilingual Compendium. Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bern.Google Scholar
Mayer, K. U. and Schoepflin, U. 1989. The state and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1, 187–209.Google Scholar
Mehlkop, G. and Neumann, R. 2012. Explaining preferences for redistribution: a unified framework to account for institutional approaches and economic self-interest for the case of monetary transfers for families and children. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 3, 350–81.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. and Barber, E. 1963. Sociological ambivalence. In Tiryakian, E. A. (ed.), Sociological Theory, Values, and Sociocultural Change. Essays in Honor of Pitirim A. Sorokin. Free Press of Glencoe, London, 91–120.Google Scholar
Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Roemer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H. J. 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 863–82.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. 2002. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 4, 838–55.Google Scholar
Nüchter, O., Bieräugel, R., Schipperges, F., Glatzer, W. and Schmid, A. 2009. Einstellungen zum Sozialstaat III. Sechs Fragen zur Akzeptanz der sozialen Sicherung in der Bevölkerung [Attitudes Towards the Welfare State III. Six Questions About the Legitimacy of Social Security]. Barbara Budrich, Opladen, Germany.Google Scholar
Ogg, J. and Renaut, S. 2006. The support of parents in old age by those born during 1945–1954: a European perspective. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 723–43.Google Scholar
O'Neill, H. W. 1967. Response style influence in public opinion surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 1, 95–102.Google Scholar
Pierson, C. 2006. Beyond the Welfare State? The New Political Economy of Welfare. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schenk, N., Dykstra, P. and Maas, I. 2010. The role of European welfare states in intergenerational money transfers: a micro-level perspective. Ageing & Society, 30, 8, 1315–42.Google Scholar
Sparks, P., Harris, P. R. and Lockwood, N. 2004. Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 3, 371–83.Google Scholar
Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M. and Pillemer, K. 2011. Conceptualising and measuring intergenerational ambivalence in later life. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66B, 6, 769–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, G., Malmberg, B. and Johansson, L. 2006. Balancing family and state care: neither, either or both? The case of Sweden. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 767–82.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. 1997. Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: a comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13, 3, 283–304.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. 2008. The generational contract in Sweden: age-specific attitudes to age-related policies. Policy & Politics, 36, 3, 381–96.Google Scholar
Szydlik, M. 2000. Lebenslange Solidarität? Generationenbeziehungen zwischen erwachsenen Kindern und Eltern [Lifelong Solidarity? Generational Relationships Between Grown-up Children and Parents]. Leske und Budrich, Opladen, Germany.Google Scholar
Thompson, M., Zanna, M. P. and Griffin, D. W. 1995. Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Petty, R. E. and Krosnick, J. A. (eds), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, 361–86.Google Scholar
Ullrich, C. G. 2008. Die Akzeptanz des Wohlfahrtsstaates: Präferenzen, Konflikte, Deutungsmuster [Acceptance of the Welfare State. Preferences, Conflicts and Interpretative Patterns]. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
United Nations. 2010. World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision. Selected Demographic Indicators: Population Ageing, 2010. Available online at http://esa.un.org/wpp/Sorting-Tables/tab-sorting_ageing.htm [Accessed 20 June 2011].Google Scholar
van Gaalen, R. I. and Dykstra, P. A. 2006. Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: a latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 4, 947–60.Google Scholar
van Gaalen, R. I., Dykstra, P. A. and Komter, A. E. 2010. Where is the exit? Intergenerational ambivalence and relationship quality in high contact ties. Journal of Aging Studies, 24, 2, 105–14.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. 2000. Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28, 1, 33–48.Google Scholar
Velladics, K., Henkens, K. and Van Dalen, H. P. 2006. Do different welfare states engender different policy preferences? Opinions on pension reforms in Eastern and Western Europe. Ageing & Society, 26, 3, 475–95.Google Scholar
Weigert, A. J. 1991. Mixed Emotions. Certain Steps Toward Understanding Ambivalence. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
Wilkoszewski, H. 2009. Age Trajectories of Social Policy Preferences. Support for Intergenerational Transfers from a Demographic Perspective. Working Paper 2009–034, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock.Google Scholar