University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of developmental events upon the perception of intergenerational family solidarity

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of developmental events upon the perception of intergenerational family solidarity

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTAL EVENTS UPON THE PERCEPTION OF INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILY SOLIDARITY by John Theodore Olson A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Sociology) January 19 76 UMI Numbor: DP31767 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oisseftatiofi WblisMng UMI DP31767 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHO O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LOS A NG ELES, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 K Ï 3 So ' 76 05 2 This dissertation, w ritte n by John Theodore Olson O under the direction of h.?:3... Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............. iii LIST OF T A B L E S ............. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................... v Chapter I. INTRODUCTIONS . ........ 1 II. FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL POSITION, AND DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS AND EVENTS............................... 5 III. THEORETICAL FORMULATION AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ............................ 31 ; IV. PROCEDURES ................... 42 ; V. THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL POSITION TO THE PERCEPTION OF SOLIDARITY . 6 7 VI. THE INFLUENCE OF EVENTS UPON SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION ...................... ..... 98 VII. THE INTERACTION OF SOCIAL POSITION AND EVENTS UPON SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION .... 131 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................... 145 APPENDIX A. ITEMS USED FROM THE FIRST QUESTION NAIRE FOR OFFSPRING AND/OR PARENTS' . 162 APPENDIX B. ITEMS USED FROM THE SECOND QUESTION NAIRE FOR OFFSPRING AND PARENTS . . . 180 REFERENCES .................... ..... 186 1.x LIST OF FIGURES 1. Distribution of Responses to the Indices of Perceived Solidarity ............. 59 2. Relationship of Dyad Sex Configuration with the Solidarity Perceptions of ' both Offspring and Parents . . . . . . . . . 81 3. Relationship of Offspring Age with the Associational Solidarity Perceptions of Offspring and Parents . . . . . . . . . . 84 4. Relationship of Residential Propinquity with the Solidarity Perceptions of both [ Offspring and Parents ............. ..... 87 5. Relationship of Number of Children (Sibship Size) with the Solidarity Perceptions of both Offspring and Parents........... 92 Xll LIST OF TABLES 1. Residential Propinquity as Reported by Parents..................... * . . . . 44 2. Number of Children Reported by Parents .... 44 3. Age, Marital, Ethnic, Religious, and Employment Characteristics of Offspring and their Parents............................. 45 4. Economic Status of Offspring and their Parents ....... ........................ 46 5. Annual Personal Income of Offspring ............ 47 6. Correlations (r) of the Global Association Item with Twelve Specific Activities .... 53 7. Correlations (r) of the Global Affectual Index and Items with the Ten Affectional Items........... 56 8. Intercorrelations (r) among Solidarity Indices and Items . . . . . ............. 60 9. Social Position Variables Contributing to Offspring Solidarity Perception ............. 69 10. Social Position Variables Contributing to Parental Solidarity Perception ............. 76 11. T-Tests of Sex Differences in Solidarity Perception .. . .. . .. . ............. . 80 12. Relationship of Offspring Educational and Vocational Events with Offspring Solidarity Perception ........ .................. 101 13. Relationship of Offspring Heterosexual Events with Offspring Solidarity Perception........................ 104 14. Relationship of Offspring Departure with Offspring Solidarity Perception . ........... 107 15. Relationship of Parental Career Entry with Offspring Solidarity Perception ............. Ill 16. Relationship of Offspring Educational and Vocational Events with Parental Solidarity Perception........... 113 17. Relationship of Offspring Heterosexual Events With Parental Solidarity Perception ......... 115 18. Relationship of Offspring Departure with Parental Solidarity Perception ............. 118 19. Relationship of Parental Career Entry with Parental Solidarity Perception ............. 122 20. Summary of Major Relationships of Events to Perceived Solidarity ...................... 12 7 XV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my deep appreciation for those ; many persons who have had a role in shaping and executing j this study. I In particular, I appreciate the guidance, support, ! and clear thinking of Vern Bengtson over the past five 1 years and for permitting me to use data from his three I generation study of families. James Peterson was my first , contact and advisor at the University of Southern Cali- i fornia, for whom I have much gratitude. During the plan- !ning phase of this study, discussions with Dean Black were I provocative and helpful. The willingness of both Neal Cutler and Alan Acock to be members of my dissertation , committee and their constructive suggestions during the final stages of the study have added to the quality of the study. Much gratitude is felt for Marijo Walsh and Ann : Newman who provided information, suggestions, and direct assistance in preparing the data for analysis. Camarillo State Hospital has made research time available to me over the past nine years, as I pursued my 'doctoral studies. In particular at Camarillo, I am in debt for the long-standing encouragement of my friend, colleague, and supervisor, Henry Marshall, the reassuring V statistical consultations with Charles Wallace, and the ' supportive friendship of Doralyn Ezell. | I wish also to express gratitude to my daughter, | Martha Ann Olson, for her patient tolerance of my doctoral ' 1 : tpreoccupations during the many weekends she has visited ime in the years since her mother and I divorced. ! The National Institutes of Mental Health (Grant I Number MH-18101) provided financial support for the larger ; study "Generational Differences: Correlates and Conse- I 'quences" from which the data of this study was obtained. 1 Again, to all those whom I have named, as well as to ' ; ! the many unknown persons whose willingness to complete the ' 'questionnaires provided the data for the study, I am eter- , nally grateful. John Theodore Olson VI, ! CHAPTER ONE I INTRODUCTION There are three issues which serve as a foundation ' for this research. One is an interest in the relationship between parents and their offspring as a common but partic ularly significant relationship which evolves over the life span of its members. , Relationships may be regarded as continually undergoing change and as rarely static. The family of which an individual is a member may be regarded , ! best as a system of evolving relationships and not as a mere sequence of encounters. Thus, family relationships have histories and anticipate a future. A second issue concerns changes in the offspring- parent relationship brought about by the process of emanci-, pation of youth in which parental control over youth is terminated. With the possible exception of birth and death, youth * s emancipation is perhaps the most dramatic if not the most traumatic, transition during the history I of this relationship. Prior to emancipation, youth was dependent upon the older member for the necessities of j physical survival and for socialization into society. i t Beyond emancipation, economic independence and residential separation usually emerge. What do the members of this 2 I relationship experience during and after this transition? ' The third issue concerns the factors which shape the i I relationship and contribute to its evolution. Many factors| I can be considered in examining social networks of relation- I ships in a family. First are the maturational attainment ( : and developmental tasks of each individual family member and how they influence relationships within the family. I I There are identifiable periods in the life cycle of the I ! family, developmental stages as it were. There are also 'common events in the lives of the members of a relation- I ship, some of which are of particular developmental im- _ portance for one or both members. There is a system of ; positions and roles both within the family and in society, ; which individual members occupy. There are various pres sures, interactions, or bonds which unify the family into ; a cohesive, functional unit. Finally, there is the nature I of the experience of these aspects by individual family members, as well as the objective characteristics of the : relationship as would be observed by third parties. Specifically, the concerns of this study are two- ' fold. First, how do members of the parent-child dyad per- ' ceive the solidarity or cohesiveness between them as their ^ I relationship undergoes the changes inherent in the emanci- : pation of youth from the parent? Second, what is the im- ! pact of developmentally important events, both those in- ■ volved in emancipation and those in the parent's personal , 3 I life, and the social-structural position of the members I upon their perceptions of solidarity with each other? Childhood, emancipation, adulthood, and old age are > all transitional stages in which various events play a part and acquire significance from the tasks and issues unique to that stage. Each developmental stage brings its own physical, psychological, and social changes. Each stage presents its own tasks, concerns, and investments in the members of other generations. Key events in the lives of one or both family members often mark the development of a family relationship. However, events are not the only factors acting upon a family relationship. Certain variables concerned with the social position of the individual are relevant. Age and sex are two basic parameters of social position and roles within the family structure which define many aspects of family interaction. Even the superior age status of parents within the family has its own differentiations; one parent may have considerably greater power or be a pre ferred confident. Moreover, not all parents are the natu ral parents of the offspring or raised the offspring and such differences may color the relationship. As for youth, they may be the only offspring in the family or but one of many and accordingly have different experiences of family life. Not all offspring live with the parent. The lack of geographical proximity may limit opportunity for 4 I j interaction and maintenance of family ties, or it may I reflect newly attained adult status of the offspring. 'Finally, the socio-economic class of the individual gives 'a general indication of their relative status within the broader society. Therefore, the current study examines one basic family relationship— the offspring-parent dyad— as it undergoes a major transition, the offspring's emancipation, and as the relationship is exposed to events of develop mental meaning in the life of the parent. Two basic issues are involved. First, to what extent 'do perceptions of the intergenerational relationship by its members change over time, particularly during youth's emancipation from the parent? Second, what are some of the factors accounting for such changes? Although longitudinal data are preferable with which to examine directly these issues, the data of the current investigation is cross-sectional in nature. Therefore, at best, change can be only inferred through comparison of the perceptions of different age groups. CHAPTER TWO FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL POSITION, AND DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS AND EVENTS Intergenerational Family Solidarity The volume of empirical literature regarding the parent-offspring relationship has grown considerably in recent years. Many individual studies and several reviews of empirical findings indicate that while differences do exist in maturation, behavior, attitudes and perspectives between parent and their adolescent or young adult off spring, there is still substantial solidarity in terms of underlying values, behavior, and psychological similari ties . ^ As a recent example, Jennings and Niemi (19 74) have studied the influence of the family and school in the political socialization of older adolescents. Although attempting to minimize the role of the family in order to ; give a more balanced consideration of other socialization iBrittain, 196 3, 1966, 1967; Bengtson and Kuypers, 19 70; Campbell, 1969:827-833; Douvan and Adelson, 19 66; Douvan and Gold, 1966 ; Flack, 1967 ; Hill and Aldous, 1969 ; Keniston, 1967, 196 8 ; Millsom, 1966; Solomon, 1963; Troll, et al., 1969; Watts, et al., 1969; Westby and Braungart, 1966. 6 j agents, the authors came to several conclusions pertinent | i to this study. The congruence of political attitudes be- I tween parent and adolescent varied greatly according to the' I specific topic or issue involved. Such fluctuations were <explained in terms of the degree of concreteness and specificity of the issue and its long-term saliency and visibility. On the whole, considerable congruence between [ i j parents and children was noted but this was due to several I variables : (1) the degree of likemindedness of both parents, (2) similarity between attitudes of the parent I with those expressed by school, the community, and signifi-' cant other persons, and (3) the adolescent's social- I I structural location in terms of sex, race, and educational I goals and achievement. Studies of three generation families explore the ; stability of intergenerational relationships within fami lies throughout the life span of the members of that relationship. Hill's three generational study (Aldous, 1965, 1967; Aldous and Hill, 1965; Hill, 1965, 1970; major findings summarized by Troll, 19 71) establishes empirically that the "modified extended family" involves at least three generations in extent with respect to high frequency of ishared activities, almost weekly visitation, and a wide network of mutual aid exchanges. "With its nuclear family boundaries contingent to those of the other two generations the parent generation is most often involved both in 7 ;integenerational contacts and in help exchanges" (Hill, I 1970:78). I A second major study of three generation families is that by Bengtson (1969, 1970, 1971, 1972) with the major dependent variable being the perception of various aspects of generational relationships both with and external to the personal family. Regarding the latter, Bengtson (19 71) reports little generational difference in the perception of a "cohort gap" within society generally. Within their own family, respondents of all three cohorts perceived less of a "lineage gap" than they did of a "co hort gap" within the wider society. However, the per ception of a "lineage gap" within one's own family increas ed with descending generation; the grandchild generation perceived the greatest intergenerational differences and their grandparents the"least. Similar findings are re ported regarding the perception of family solidarity, as measured by perceptions of affectional bonds, similarity of life views and frequency of doing things together. Con sistently, the perception of intergenerational solidarity decreased with descending generation ; again, the grand children perceived less family solidarity than did either ,their parents or their grandparents, while the grand- .parents perceived the greatest family solidarity.^ ISee also Gilford and Black (19 72) and Bengtson and Kuypers (19 71). i « ; I i Thus, the literature generally indicates the exis- jtence of bonds of solidarity between family members of I different generations, although the degree to which such ,bonds are perceived by family members may be influenced by their generational membership. Social-Struetural Determinants A source of influence upon family relationships is the particular social-structural location of the indivi dual and the family. Social position may be regarded as establishing the direction and nature of social experience. Several aspects of social position have been shown to be relevant to the issues under investigation in this study. Socio-Economic Differences Family Relationships Bossard and Boll (1966:246-255) describe four aspects of intergenerational relations within families associated with significant class differences: the attitude toward children, the relation between the nuclear and the ex tended families, the sense of family solidarity, and family stability. In the upper class family the child is regarded as the carrier of the family name, traditions, heritage and status; thus, there is possessive pride and hope. The kinship group rather than the immediate nuclear ; family is the focal point and the ultimate consideration 9 in the life of family members. Family solidarity is a product mainly of family self interest in terms of family business, projects, fortunes, name and prestige; families I are highly stable with few divorces and strong intrafamily I influences. In the middle class family the child is re- ; garded as presenting the possibility of fulfilling paren- , tal hopes ; the child is wanted and planned for. More I emphasis is put upon the immediate family to the partial I I I exclusion of the extended family. Family solidarity is ; voluntary, social and selective, like the friendly par- I ticipation of independent persons. Stability is strong I with emphasis upon respectability and self discipline ; and with desires for upward mobility but fears of down ward mobility. In lower class families the main emphasis ; is upon the child being helpful and obedient and not an ' annoyance or nuisance. The focal point is upon the im- . mediate family and its relative lack of permanence. Family solidarity is mainly concerned with crisis ; the ! family is matrilineal and the individual is subordinate I ■ to the family. Economic security is found through family ; solidarity. Controversy exists regarding the relationship of 1 social class to association between family members of i different generations. Aldous (1967) and Sussman and Burchinai (1962) report social class to be inversely ! related to association. However, Bengtson, Olander, and : 10 'Haddad (19 75) suggest that social class is not directly ! related to associational solidarity when residential prop- ( inquity is controlled, in formulating their model of the ! correlates of intergenerational solidarity. Child Rearing Practices Kohn (1963) regards socio-economic status, particu larly occupational status, as determining child rearing values and practices. Working class parents value con formity to external authority, respectability and social acceptability and therefore are concerned with the imme diate consequences of the child's actions. The middle class parent values self reliance, self direction and internalized standards of conduct and therefore responds to the actions of their children in terms of their inter pretation of intent and motive (Besner, 1966; Kohn, 1959, 1963). Others (Bronfenbrenner, 1958; Cavan, 1964 :559-564 ; McKinley, 1964:243; Rosen, 1964 ; Sears, ejt al., 1957) generally characterize middle class parents as warm, permissive, minimally punitive, tolerant of aggression, and emphasizing independence, while working class parents I are depicted as more strict, severe, aggressive, punitive (especially regarding sex, dependency and aggression) and using physical punishment, ridicule and deprivation of privileges. : 11 Residential Propinquity j While it might be assumed that low residential pro pinquity among households in a kinship system diminishes family solidarity, at least in terms of association, such ■ an assumption has not received strong empirical support. Many intergenerationally related households have been shown to live near each other (Sussman, 1959; Shanas, 1969; Troll, 1971). In fact, the extended family and its ; ties may act as barriers to geographical mobility, and some investigators have concluded that residential propin quity is not a necessary condition for extended family relations, particularly regarding mutual aid and support (Litwak , 1959, 1965, Kerckhoff, 1965 ; Sussman and Burchinai, 1962) in an urban industrial society. Several investigators have suggested that the lower the social class, the higher the residential propinquity (Bengtson, Olander, and Haddad, 1975 ; Kerckhoff, 1965 ; Troll, 1971). That geographical separation does not influence the existing affectional ties is concluded by Bengtson, Olander, and Haddad (19 75) from their review, although the authors felt that distance did influence the amount of intergenerational personal contact (see also Sussman and Burchinal, 1962). Thus, direct daily contact may not be practical where there is geographical separation, but the barrier of separation may be overcome by modern communica tion and high speed transportation (Adams, 19 67; Litwak, 12 1960a, 1965). As evidence for the stability of affection- | I al ties regardless of separation is Reiss's (1962) report i that extended family members want kin to live closer, but ' not too close, with most kin reporting the frequency of ! kin interaction was insufficient. ; Sex Differences i i i Family Solidarity i j Generally greater intergenerational solidarity has I been reported in female than in male lineage relationships ' I and in same-sex than in cross-sex lineages (Aldous, 1967; Bengtson, 1972 ; Troll, 1971). Sussman (1965) reports ! male adult offspring are more apt to receive financial aid I and females to receive services from their parents. I ; I Aldous and Hill (196 5) report greater same-sex than cross- • sex norm continuity within three generation families : female triads have greater norm continuity regarding re ligious affiliation and marital role task specialization and male triads greater continuity regarding husband's educational and occupational level. Social class differences are noted. Troll (1971) found greater sex segregation among working class than middle class families to be reported in the literature, with same-sex ties being more commonly reported than cross-sex ties. 13 ' I 1 Sociali zation ' 1 , Such findings as above suggest differences in sex ' role socialization. Komarovsky (1950) comments that boys ! t receive a greater push toward early independence, greater , . privacy, and less demanding filial and kin obligation, than do girls. Bettelheim (1962) suggests that in con- t ' trast to the young American male, the female is socialized ■ in the norm of early marriage and parenthood as her primary ' means of personal fulfillment, while educationally and occupationally she is prepared to be dominant and competi tive rather than to be passive or to complement man. ' Aldous and Hill (1965) conclude that sex differences in norm continuity indicate differential socialization. Events Sex differences in the impact of certain events, as | reported in the literature, merit mention. For example, differences occur in unemployment (the unemployment rate is greater for men after the age of 45 than for women, according to Riley and Foner, 1968) and a wife's employ- , meht outside the home often increases her decision making I power in the family (Blood, 1963; Blood and Hamblin, 1958; I Heer, 1958). Sex differences are also observed in a ; greater postparental adjustment for women than for men ! (Spence and Donner, 1971; Sussman, 1955 ; Axelson, 1960). As for children, preschool boys show a greater 14 negative reaction to their parent's divorce than do girls (McDermott, 196 8). However, boys are more apt to welcome remarriage for their divorced parents (Bernard, 19 56). As for the new parent, stepfathers fare better than step mothers in comparison with real parents among children of remarriage (Bowerman and Irish, 1962). Sex differences associated with the size of the family of orientation are noted. Women from large fami lies are less apt to marry (Bossard and Boll, 1956b). For middle class boys and lower class girls, the larger the family, the greater parental dominance and paternal involvement (Elder and Bowerman, 196 3). Sibship Size The influence of sibship size upon various aspects of family interaction has been demonstrated by Bossard and Boll (1956a, 1956b, 1966) . They note an emphasis upon the group and not the individual in large families, resulting in a lack of closeness with parents and a lack of oppor tunity to develop individual abilities, although there is security and less personal anxiety due to group cohesion (1966:42). Primary emphasis in small families is upon developing the abilities and potentials of the individual, and security is attained through closeness with parents, but anxiety results when the child does not meet parental expectations. Parents are reluctant to let go of children. 15 because much is expected of them and they are few in num ber. Others (Hawkes, Burchinal and Gardner, 1958; Nye, '1952) report that offspring from small families show better I relationships with their parents probably due to greater parent-child closeness; Robins and Tomanec (1962) did not find this relationship. Clausen (1966) concludes that large families were often characterized by greater centralized leadership (parental authoritarianism, reliance on rules, use of physical punishment) and less individual attention by parents, high incidence of Catholicism, and low social class, achievement motivation, and academic performance. Other investigators have shown other relationships between sibship size and various aspects of family interaction (Elder and Bowerman, 1963; Nye, et ^ . , 1970; Rosen, 1964; Smith, 1971). Regarding the influence of sibship size upon an offspring's eventual marriage and family, Bossard and Boll (19 56b) observed that a large family of orientation was associated with reduced probability of marriage (espe cially for women) and with either none or very few off spring themselves, although marital happiness was equiva lent to that of those from small families. The Developmental Perspective A second probable source of influence upon the 16 i perception of intergenerational solidarity within families I I is the particular developmental issues and tasks of indivi dual family members. The physical and social development of the human in dividual has commonly been conceived as progressing through various stages. For example, from a psychological point of view Erickson (1950, 1959) conceived the life cycle as composed of eight stages of psychosexual develop ment, each with its particular psychosocial crisis eventu ating in one of two possible outcomes. Buhler (1967) delineated five phases of the life cycle in terms of the individual's self determination toward meaningfulness of his personal life. From a more sociological perspective Havighurst (1953, 1972) formulated the popular concept of "develop mental task" as referring to certain adjustments charac teristic of each of six stages. He defines developmental task as . . . a task which arises at or about a certain period in the life of the individual, successful achievement of which leads to his happiness and to success with later tasks, while failure leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by the society, and difficulty with later tasks (1972:2). The origins of developmental tasks are found in physical maturation, social pressures and expectations and in the personal values and motives of the individual. Rodgers (cited by Hill and Rodgers, 1964:182) offers a role theory 17 formulation of developmental tasks. . . . a set of norms (role expectations) arising at a particular point in the career of a position in a social system, which, if incorporated by the occupant of the position as a role or part of a role cluster, brings about integration and tem porary equilibrium in the system with regard to a role complex or set of role complexes; failure to incorporate the norms leads to lack of inte gration, application of additional normative pressures in the form sanctions, and difficulty in incorporating later norms into the role cluster of the position. Not all norms are related to the developmental nature of a position and, thus, not all role sequences are develop mental tasks. Developmental Tasks of Adolescence Erickson (1950, 1959, 1962) conceives of "identity" as the primary task of adolescence. Identity is ". . . a sense of sameness, a unity of personality now felt by the individual and recognized by others as having consistency in time— of being, as it were, an irreversible historical fact" (1962). With the biological changes of puberty, adolescents are mainly concerned with what they appear to be to others as compared with what they feel they are, and with how to relate the roles and skills developed earlier with current occupational possibilities. Failure to achieve ego identity results in identity or role dif fusion, manifested in inability to settle on an occupation, overidealization, or intolerance. The importance of identity formation in adolescence 18 is supported by Friedenberg (1959). Adolescence is the period during which a young person learns who he is, and what he really feels. It is the time during which he differentiates himself from his culture, though on the culture's terms. It is the age at which, becoming a person in his own right, he becomes capable of deeply felt relationships to other individual's per ceived clearly as such. The process of identity formation involves a capacity for sensitivity and tenderness, originating in the relation ship with the mother and eventuating in the clear evalua tion of persons and in highly differentiated affectional relationships. It also involves a respect for competence, ■ resulting from more adequate social relationships and dependent upon the accurate appraisal of the particular skills and talents of peers; "competence is the foundation of autonomy." Bettelheim (19 62) formulates two developmental prob lems for adolescents. Self identity and finding a place in society are problems primarily for the male. If he is not assured by the social system of a place then he must compete for it, even with older members of the society. Yet youth also needs self realization in work, and this is increasingly difficult to find in Western societies. Buhler (1967) regards the first fifteen years as a need- satisfying and adaptive period which is preliminary to establishing personal life goals. The late adolescent and early adult years are preliminary steps toward 19 establishing goals, more culturally than personally deter mined. ^ Havinghurst (19 72) delineates the developmental tasks I of adolescence in terms of eight specific adjustments: 1 I achieving mature relationships with age mates of both : sexes, achievement of a masculine or feminine social role, [accepting one's physique and using the body effectively, i achieving emotional independence from parents and other I adults, preparing for marriage and family life, preparing for an economic career, acquiring a set of values and an ethical system, and achieving socially responsible be havior . The developmental concerns of adolescents has been defined by Bengtson and others (Bengtson and Kuypers, 1970, 1971; Bengtson, Olander and Haddad, 1975) as cen tered mainly around establishment of the self in the social system and the attainment of independence from familial ties. These concerns lead to a desire for minimal ex ternal control, to expressions of independence striving, and to engrossment of differences with older age groups. Developmental Tasks of Adulthood Three stages of adulthood are differentiated by Erikson (1950, 1959) each with its specific psychosocial crisis, but only the first two are of direct interest in this study. Early adulthood is concerned with issues of 20 I intimacy with others and readiness to repudiate and, if necessary, to destroy that which is a threat to identity, on the one hand, versus self absorption on the other. In contrast, Buhler's (196 7) emphasis is general; between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five, self determination is finite and specific toward goals. Mid-adulthood concerns, according to Erikson (1950, 1959) are with the issues of generativity, parenting, the establishment and guidance of the next generation, and other forms of altruistic concern and creativity versus issues of stagnation, self indulgence, interpersonal im poverishment, and pseudointimacy. Bettelheim (1962) also regards mid-adulthood as concerned with continuation of its own way of life and therefore with parenting. Bengtson (Bengtson and Kuypers, 1970, 19 71; Bengtson, Olander and Haddad, 19 75) formulates the developmental concern of the parenting generation as one of maintaining their own significance of life, their existing value system and commitments, and to perpetuate their standards and ideals through offspring. Intergenerational Investment Bengtson and Kuypers (1970, 1971) suggest that each , generation has a developmentally determined investment or "developmental stake" in other generations and a "fear of loss" if that investment should be threatened. The developmental stake which the middle generation has in the young, therefore, creates a view of the 1 21 young as social heirs, that is, as (a) extensions I of the self and (b) continuous with the older gen- I eration's personal-social order (1971). I I For the parent generation the fear of loss concerns frus- 'tration or failure of personal validation and continuity 'through the offspring generation. The developmental stake of the young is quite dif ferent. They have high investment in establishing their personal life styles, in forming their atti tudes toward major issues and institutions. As based in their developmental concerns, they are concerned with establishment, as opposed to the validation, of values and strategies (19 71). The fear of loss of the offspring generation "is related to powerlessness, to perceived meaninglessness of the social order into which one is moving, and to the blurring of distinctiveness between oneself and the parenting gen eration" (1971:257). Others have observed such intergenerational invest ments, although in more negative terms. Bettelheim (1962) has concluded that the adolescent and the aged have no mutual need of the other in modern urban industrial so ciety. Pervasive and intense emotional entanglements, strain and frustration results where mutual need no longer exist, although parents may still have an emotional need for youth to "justify them as parents," in order to ful fill their own unsatisfied needs and aspirations, while youth seeks its own economic and emotional independence and establishes its own identity. In contrast is the more 22 traditional model of gradual economic ascendancy of youth over his family elders in which both youth and elder find economic and psychological meaning through the continual replacement of the old by the young. Elkind (19 70) sees parent-adolescent conflict in terms of parental "exploi tations" of the adolescent when the parent makes demands on the adolescent inappropriate to the adolescent's actual maturity, motivated by the parent's own needs, and not providing complementary freedom, supports and commitments needed by the adolescent. The Influence of Events It would appear that some events may acquire signifi cance for an individual in terms of that individual's current developmental concerns. For adolescents, obtain ing a job, completing formal education and moving away from the parental home are all events involved in attain ing adult status and independence, while for adults in their middle years, the gain or loss of a child may be particularly significant in light of their concern with parenting and a sense of continuity with the offspring. Generally two approaches appear in the literature regarding the impact of developmental events upon rela tionships with significant others, such as family members. One approach, based on the family life cycle per spective, has regarded events more as landmarks or 23 demarcations of change from one life stage to another. I Often such demarcations have been the age of the parents (Click, 1947, 1955), age changes of certain children (Duvall, 1957; Rodgers, 1962) or a complex of changes in family size, age composition and occupational status of the breadwinner (Hill and Rodgers, 1964). A second approach is seen in family "crisis" studies, which focus on the effect of a variety of specific events upon marital and family relationships. Hansen and Hill (1964) suggest that the relationship of an event to family relationships may not be a simple and direct one, and that it involves discernable stages of readjustment in which the relative strengths of the family, conceived as integration, adaptability and involvement, counterbalance its weak nesses , such as vulnerability to crisis and disorganiza tion. In addition, certain specific events have been ob served to influence family relationships. Among such events are those concerned with occupational, marital, and parental status. Occupational Events Interrelationship of the occupational and family role system has been observed by Rapoport and Rapoport (19 65) who suggest that the relationship between the two role systems is partly dependent upon the stage of the life cycle in which an event occurs. 24 Male Employment Status It is the husband who most often is the principal I source of economic support for the family. Thus, Black ! ■(1971) found that the husband's occupational status and I his outstanding occupational achievement were positively I associated with the self esteem of both himself and his wife, while difficulties with his boss and retirement I negatively influenced self esteem. Outright (1971) for- Imulate8 a model of the determinants of marital stability, in which marital stability is determined by the husband's income level, which in turn is influenced by his occupa- itional attainment, in turn determined by his educational I level, itself influenced by his family background. As regards unemployment, Cavan and Ranck (19 38) I suggest intensification of the particular patterns of family life already in operation due to the husband's un employment; disorganized families become more disorganized and well organized families experience some changes but resumed the former style of life upon reemployment. Angell (19 36) observed that even a moderate degree of ! adaptability would enable families with any degree of in- , tegration to cope constructively with all but the worst crises, while adaptability was generally important for dealing with decreased family income. Komarovsky (1940) , reports that when a husband's authority was based on love. 1 25 • admiration or tradition rather than on utility or fear, 1 the family showed a remarkable stability in coping with his unemployment; his status suffered if he showed emotional instability, lowered morale, irritability, if he began drinking or was sexually unfaithful. The older the child (especially if over fifteen), the greater deterioration in the father-chiId relationship. Since, as Cavan (1964:550) points out, the security of employment varies with social class for both men and women, the effects of unemployment upon the family are more apt to be severe and long lasting among lower class families. Female Employment Status More than 33 million of the 19 72 civilian labor force 16 years or older were women, according to the United States Bureau of the Census (1973:220). Research findings regarding the effects of female employment upon marital power and decision making has not been uniform, but inves tigations by Blood (1963) , Blood and Hamblin (1958) and Heer (1958) indicate a general increase in the wife's decision making power. As regards the effects of maternal employment upon children, Dager (1964:760) has concluded that research has yielded contradictory and inconsistent results, and Clausen (1966) has concluded from his review that with ad equate controls, the effects of maternal employment are 26 modest. Reasons for such effects are suggested by Hoffman (1961) and by Pitts (1964:105). Marital Events Marriage as an event does not necessarily create family harmony and unity. Hill and Aldous (1969) regard marriage as a critical transition in the life careers of I both partners, requiring role changes, role integration I and redefinition of relationships with both sets of kin. I I Peterson (1964) indicates that about half of the divorces I occur within the first five years of marriage and that many couples had not achieved satisfactory adjustments by i the end of the first year. Raush, Goodrich and Campbell ;(196 3) delineate seven areas of adaptation in the early years of marriage; the effectiveness of couples in making i I these adaptations involve negotiating a balance between I individual autonomy and mutuality, mediating each other's 'needs, integrating modes of communication, and, particu larly in early marriage, establishing means for resolving conflicts and making decisions. ■ Events Concerned with Parenting I Birth and Parenthood Birth and tlie resulting parenthood have often been iregarded as crises. Black (19 71) observed that the wife's i participation in child rearing, beginning with the birth 27 I of the first child, tends to decrease her self esteem, j I while the "launching" of the first child from the parental ' j home increased her self esteem. LeMasters (1957) found j that 83 percent of couples who had recently become parents ! for the first time reported extensive or severe crises in ' adjusting to the first child, although they had wanted the I : child; these same couples had romanticized parenthood. i I Dyer's (1963) findings support those of LeMasters; factors ' associated with the birth of the first child as a crisis i were the state of the marriage and family organization, ! the preparation for marriage and parenthood, the couple's marital adjustment after the birth of the child and cer- ■ tain social background and situational factors. I Rossi (196 8) describes the transition to parenthood I as involving cultural pressures to assume the parental role with role inception as abrupt and sometimes involun- :tary yet usually irrevocable; typically parenthood in volves little preliminary role training and preparation, and lacks guidelines for success. Hill and Aldous (1969) characterize the inception of parenthood as a period of 'conflicting role demands, anxiety aroused by parenthood, i perceived as an attainment of greater adult status and ' competence, and increased everyday hassels— fatigue, fi- | nancial problems, disruption of ordinary habits, increased ! tension. 1 28 : Postparental Adjustment i The "empty nest" period typically is a major adjust ment particularly for women. Spence and Lonner (1971) indicate a reorganization of values, attitudes, goals and behavior of women with a lack of preadjustment planning; many women were bound by the old maternal life style al though they may have projected otherwise. Sussman (19 55) found well adjusted parents becoming closer to each other after the child left home ; mothers particularly felt greater need for activity both in and out of the home. AxeIson (19 60) compared parents who no longer had an un married child living at home (true postparental) with those who still had one or more at home under 19 (quasi postparental). Mothers of both groups showed significant decreased concern with the child's welfare and increased concern with their own health and need for outside con tacts ; "true postparental" mothers reported increased loneliness and decreased community activity. Husbands, more than their wives, indicated positive changes regard ing concern for the child's welfare, finances, activities with their spouses, marital adjustment and interest in their jobs. Divorce and Child Readjustment Divorce is an obvious disruption of family cohesion which affects the offspring of the marriage, as well as 29 I i the marriage partners. Psychiatric studies based on se- ^ Ilected clinical samples without control groups typically i ' ’ ■ I report emotional and social pathology or give conservative caution regarding the effects of divorce upon children (Gardner, 1956; McDermott, 1968, 19 70; Westman, et al., 19 70). However, sociological studies based on less selec tive and more representative samples generally indicate that divorce does not necessarily have a damaging influ ence and, in fact, may have a positive effect upon off spring (Bernard, 1956 ; Burchinai, 196 4; Nye, 1957 ; Rein- hard, 1971; Thomes, 1968). Other sociological studies I suggest conditions under which divorce may be traumatic for children (Goode, 1956 ; Landis, 1960). One aspect of readjustment for children is the read- | justment and relationship to a stepparent. Bowerman and Irish (1962) report that for the majority of their sub jects, the stepparent had not been able to attain the same level of affection and closeness as had real parents, al- ^ though children of divorce made a somewhat better adjust ment than those of a parental death; generally stepfathers I fared better in comparison with real fathers than did ; 'stepmothers compared with real mothers. i I ' I I i Summary i I This review has supported the possibility of basic ties of solidarity between family members of different 30 I generations. It has explored a number of factors associat-| I ed with such solidarity bonds; (1) the social-structural ! I I [ ! position of family members in terms of social class, resi- 1 , dential propinquity, sex, and sibship size, (2) the par- I ticular developmental tasks and intergenerational invest- j I ments of parents and adolescents, and (3) the influence ! of occupational, marital, and parental events, Examina- I tion of the relationship between the perception of soli- i Idarity by parents and their offspring and these factors is , ‘ the task of the chapters which follow. CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FORMULATION AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES The current study is concerned with the relationship among three variables. The dependent variable is the per ception of the parent-offspring relationship by either member of that relationship. The particular aspect of the relationship of concern here is the degree of existing solidarity or unity perceived. One set of independent variables consists of certain conditions of social-struc tural location of the members of the relationship. A second set of independent variables consists of certain events, occurring in the lives of one or both members, which are either developmentally significant or not. Family Solidarity A Model of Solidarity Analyses by Haddad (1971), Bengtson, Olander and Haddad (19 75) , Bengtson (19 72) , and Bengtson and Black (19 73) have developed a model of solidarity based on a review of the sociological and social-psychological lit erature. In this model family solidarity refers to the degree of family integration or cohesion between members 31 32 ; of the family. Family solidarity may be horizontal, that iis within the same generation or cohort such as between husband and wife, or it may be vertical or intergenera tional , such as between parent and child. The authors propose that family solidarity is com posed of three covarying components. Associational Soli darity , an interactional component, is the relatively en during pattern of observable interaction which involves communication and common activity, especially being and I doing things with other family members. Operationally, it is simply the frequency with which family members are in : contact with each other and interact in common activities. Affectual Solidarity, a sentiment component, is the ex pression of attitudinal or emotional dispositions toward ! another family member, such as trust, a sense of fairness, understanding, closeness and liking for each other. Consensual Solidarity is the similarity or consensus of orientations— values, beliefs, attitudes— toward common , issues or problems between family members. I Definition of the Situation ; The issue of solidarity may be approached in terms of either its objective ("actual") nature or its subjec tive assessment: how an individual experiences or per ceives the existing relationship. The first approach is more dependent upon situational or objective determinants 33 that can be verified by a third party. However, the emphasis in this study is upon the expe riential or subjective aspect of interpersonal relation ships, an approach which is less concerned with objec tivity or congruence among reports of solidarity (valida tion) and is in accord with the experiential nature of the impact of events presumed in the study. Thus, emphasis is also upon the individual respondent and his or her percep tions, rather than directly upon the dyadic relationship or interaction. The importance of the "definition of the situation" has been shown elsewhere. For example, in examining the impact of events upon physical illness, Hinkle, e^ al. (1958) conclude that "... the actual life situations encountered are less important . . . than the way in which these situations are perceived" as challenging, overde manding, threatening or conflictual such that the indi vidual feels he cannot adapt. Similarly, Hansen and Hill (1964), reviewing family crisis research, conclude that it is the definition of an event by family members which produces the crisis, although the "definition" was pre- cipated by the interaction of the occurrence of an event and the resources of the family to deal with that event. Consequently, the approach of this study is to utilize the definition of the relationship of which the 34 respondent is a member, which is regarded here as deter mined in part by that respondent's past experiences, cur rent needs arid concerns, in addition to the occurrence of certain events. Socia1-Struetural Determinants An individual may be categorized or described in terms of certain characteristics which define that indi vidual's position both within their family and within society. Such characteristics may also be determinants of ! individual opinions, perceptions, and social interactions. I j The characteristics selected for the current study ! include the position of the dyad member in society (social ,class) and in his or her own family (sibship size), social ; location in both systems (chronological age, sex), and in 'terms of their geographical proximity to one another I (residential propinquity). The relevance of each of these to the purposes of the study has been presented in the review of the literature in the second chapter. First Hypothesis I The following general hypothesis relates to the I various aspects of the social-structural location of either I ithe individual or the relationship. I The perception of family solidarity is influenced by the social position of the perceiver within the family and I in society. 35 Socio-Economic Status Socio-economic status in this study is considered I primarily in terms of the social class of the respondent, I I defined here as a position in the hierarchical stratifi- I I cation of society. It is expected that the higher the social class, I the greater the perception of solidarity. However, when : residential propinquity is controlled, it is possible that I this relationship between social class and perception of I iAssociational Solidarity may not be observed. I Residential Propinquity i I Residential Propinquity is the geographical closeness or proximity between households in an extended family system. It is a characteristic, not of the particular irespondent, but of the parent-offspring dyad of which the respondent is a member. From current literature it is predicted that the greater the residential propinquity, ,the greater the perception of Associational Solidarity, I with no impact upon either Affectual or Consensual Solidar- ; ity. i Chronological Age i Emancipation— the termination of parental control— I jis an age-linked phenomenon, at least for the offspring. The probability of full emancipation is much less for 15 j year olds and considerable for the 25 year olds of this 36 study. It is possible that the age of the offspring mem ber of the dyad and residential propinquity are interre- :lated. However the studies reviewed previously tend not to I I employ chronological age as a major independent variable, t I although its inclusion here appears to be appropriate. It is anticipated that the younger the offspring 1 1 member, the greater the perception of solidarity by both 'dyad members, since the younger offspring are more likely ! ; to live with their parents and therefore have more fre- Iquent social interaction with the parent. It is also I likely that parental age is not as important a determinant I of perceived solidarity as is offspring age, because of ! the dramatic age-related social changes of youth during I emancipation. i I 'Dyad Sex Composition ■ This variable is concerned with the gender of both dyad members, yielding four different configurations for the respondents of both cohorts. It is expected that I there may be sex differences in the perception of soli- .darity, with greater solidarity perceived by females than i by males and for same-sex than for cross-sex dyads, i Sibship Size Sibship size refers to the number of offspring in an individual's family of orientation. The concept may also : 37 'be used to refer to the number of offspring in an individ- iual's family of procreation. It is anticipated that the larger the sibship in a family, the less the perception of solidarity, as indicated in the review of the litera ture . Developmental Determinants of Solidarity Events! The developmental perspective may be important in understanding the differential effect of events upon the perception of family solidarity. Two primary concepts are involved. As was seen in the preceding review (pages 15 to 22), a developmental concern is a personal adjustment issue characteristic of, or unique to, persons in a par ticular developmental stage. An intergenerational invest ment or "developmental stake" is a need or motivated in volvement, determined primarily by their own developmental concerns, that individuals have in family members of another developmental stage. The fact of developmental stage, by and large, defines for individuals their particular developmental concerns, which in turn influences the investments the ^Change of an individual respondent over time is implied in the developmental perspective. However, it is important (as stated in the introduction) to realize that the data of this study is not longitudinal in nature but cross-sectional. Consequently, at best, change may be inferred by comparing groups of respondents differentiated on the basis of age or experience of certain life events which represent a developmental gradient. 38 individual has in the family members in other stages. The relevance of particular events to an individual's develop- jmental concerns at that point in life defines their devel- I 1opmental significance for an individual. The developmen- Ital meaning or significance of the event plus the particu lar intergenerational investment may influence the percep- Ition of family solidarity. I I Thus, offspring during adolescence and young adult- I hood are concerned with the establishment of themselves in I ------ --------- I society and in their own life styles, and parents in the 1 validation and continuity of their own values and orien- i Itation. i Offspring have as their developmental concerns ■ identity, establishment of self in society, independence I from family and intimacy, which are reflected in their !"stake" in their parents for freedom and independence from . domination and control. Offspring fear loss of indepen dence from their parents and other significant adults and ; loss of their newly developed identity. Developmentally significant events, therefore, include dating for the I first time, becoming economically self-supporting and I I permanently leaving the parental home. Developmentally I nonsignificant events could include beginning church jattendance and retirement. In contrast, parents are developmentally concerned 39 with parenting, self validation and continuity of their I own values and life styles. Their investment or "stake" in their adolescent and young adult offspring is in terms of the offspring as social heirs and as means of continuity and self validation. Parents fear loss of their offspring as agents for such continuity and personal validation. Among developmentally significant events for parents are addition of a child to the family or a child leaving home against the parent's will. Developmentally nonsignificant events include the parent beginning formal schooling for the first time or permanently leaving their own parents' home. Second Hypothesis Accordingly, the second hypothesis may now be stated. The influence of events upon perceived family solidarity is greater for those events of deve1opmental significance for the perceiver than for those events which are not. Three particular aspects of events in their influ ence may be discerned : the developmental significance or nonsignificance of the event, whether or not it occurred in the life of the perceiver, and recency of occurrence. Developmental Events and Social- Structural Position The issue now is the nature of the relationship 40 between these two sets of independent variables: social position and developmental events. It is anticipated that the social position of the individual influences the impact of developmentally significant events upon solidarity perception. Third Hypothesis The influence upon perceived family solidarity by deve1opmenta1ly significant events is dependent upon the I social-structural position of the perceiver. j The Importance of Emancipation I A fourth consideration is the particular role of I I emancipation upon solidarity perception.. As stated ear lier, the emancipation process of youth may be the most I dramatic and drastic change in the parent-offspring rela tionship for both members. Accordingly, the events of that process.may have greater impact than other develop mentally significant events either in the life of the ,parent or at any time in the life of the offspring. I Fourth Hypothesis i The influence upon perceived family solidarity is i greater for those developmentally significant events con cerned with the emancipation of offspring than for those which are not. This hypothesis can be tested only partly by the 41 current set of data. The offsprings* developmentally significant events are limited to the emancipation period 'of their lives and are not relevant to earlier or to later years. CHAPTER FOUR PROCEDURES The Sample The Population and Sample Selection The sample used in this study was selected from a I larger sample of three-generational families drawn from I I 1 the 840,000 members of a Southern California medical ! health plan. The larger sample was utilized in a study of I I"Generational Differences : Correlates and Consequences" undertaken at the University of Southern California. Attempts were made to obtain grandparents who had living : children and grandchildren between the ages of 15 and 25. 'A brief sample survey was sent to members of the health plan who, because of age, were regarded as possible grand- I parents. From the 5 8,32 8 members who were 55 or older, a random sample of 7112 (every eighth case) was selected, after eliminating others for whom there was no address. ; A mailed sample survey revealed that 595 had at least one ; living child who was a parent of a 15 to 25 year old youth i Further procedures (outlined below) resulted in a final basic sample of 1559 persons for whom there was complete data. This included 412 grandparents, 530 42 43 parents, and 617 offspring. The sample of this study selected all dyads composed I I of matched pairs of middle generation parents and their I ; adolescent or young adult offspring, resulting in 225 I parent-offspring dyads. Because of a primary interest in I the uniquely dramatic nature of the emancipation process 'and a desire to examine one relationship with thoroughness i in preference to three dyadic relationships and greater I complexity, the current study was restricted to the par- !ent-offspring sample. : Characteristics of the Sample I The sex composition of the 225 dyads were character- I ized as follows : 49 father-son dyads, 63 father-daughter I ! dyads, 4 8 mother-son dyads and 65 mother-daughter dyads, i This yielded adequate subsamples for examination of dif- ; ferences due to the sex composition of the dyad. Table 1 shows that over half of the offspring mem bers (that is, those 15 to 26 years old) still lived with I the parent member of the dyad, with only an eighth of the dyads characterized by the two members living more than i I 150 miles apart.^ ^Ninety-eight of the offspring were identified by the parent as no longer living with that parent, while 9 3 of the offspring reported they had permanently left their parent's home. This probably reflects developmentally influenced differences in the perception of the situation 44 TABLE 1 RESIDENTIAL PROPINQUITY AS REPORTED BY PARENTS Number of Dyads Percent 0 miles ......... 1 to 20 miles . . 21 to 150 miles . 151 to 6000 miles Not indicated . . Total .... 120 42 27 29 7 53.3 18.7 12.0 12.9 3.2 225 100.0 The families of the sample are predominantly intact families. The offspring respondents reported 9 7 of the 112 fathers of this study (86.6 percent) and the 94 of the 113 mothers (83.2 percent) were the natural parent, living with the other natural parent, who had raised the respon dent since the age of eight. Family size was moderate with an average sibship of 3.44 as indicated in Table 2. TABLE 2 NUMBER OF CHILDREN REPORTED BY PARENTS Number of Dyads Percent Number of Dyads Percent One . . 8 3.6 Seven . . 5 2.2 Two . . 62 27.6 Eight . . 2 0.9 Three . 59 26.2 Nine . . 1 0.4 Four 57 25.3 Ten . . . 0 0.0 Five 20 8.9 Eleven 1 0.4 Six . . 9 4.0 Twelve 1 0.4 Total 225 99.9* *Deviation from 100.0 percent due to rounding of individual entries. Table 3 further describes both the parent and 45 TABLE 3 AGE, MARITAL, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSPRING AND THEIR PARENTS Offspring Parents Number Percent Number Percent Chronological Age 15 through 17 ......... 62 27.6 18 through 20 ......... 107 47.6 21 through 26 ......... 54 24.0 30 through 39 ......... 41 18.2 40 through 49 ......... 144 64.0 50 through 6 7 ......... 40 17. 8 Not indicated ......... 2 0.8 Marital Status Single . . . . . . . . 143 63.6 0 0.0 Engaged . . . . . . . . 27 12.0 0 0.0 Married ................ 34 15.1 207 92.0 Widowed ................ 10 4.4 5 2.2 Divorced or separated . 9 4.0 12 5.3 Not indicated ......... 2 0.9 1 0.4 Reported Ethnicity Caucasian ............. 164 72.9 135 60.0 Mexican-American . . . 1 0.4 2 0.9 Negro............. .. . 1 0.4 2 0.9 Oriental ............. 0 0.0 0 0.0 Jewish . . . ......... 3 1.3 8 3.6 Other........... .. 33 14.7 68 30.2 Not indicated ......... 23 10.2 10 4.4 Religious Preference Protestant ........... 111 49.3 139 61.2 Catholic ............. 39 17. 3 42 18.7 Jewish ................ 26 11.6 26 11.6 Other .................. 15 6.7 6 2.7 No preference/not stated . . ......... 34 15.1 12 5.3 Current Employment Not currently employed 84 37.3 15 6.7 Temporarily employed 12 5.3 3 1.3 Employed parttime . . . 57 25.3 19 8.4 Employed fulltime . . . 58 25.7 140 62.2 Housewives ......... . 11 4.9 47 20.9 Not indicated ......... 3 1.3 1 0.4 46 offspring members of the dyads. The ages of the parents ranged from 30 to 6 7 with a mean age of 44.35 years. The average age of the offspring was 19.2 years, with a range of 15 through 26. As could be expected by the difference in age, the parents were predominantly married and the offspring predominantly single or engaged. Almost a fourth of the offspring were married (or had been). Both dyad members were predominantly Caucasian and Protestant. Age differences and the probability that the offspring were still involved with formal schooling accounts for the dif ferences in current employment status. Only 30.6 percent of the offspring, including housewives, could be con sidered as employed fulltime, as compared with 82.1 per cent of the parents. Table 4 indicates the economic status of both TABLE 4 ECONOMIC STATUS OF OFFSPRING AND THEIR PARENTS Offspring Parent Number Percent Number Percent Annual Household Income $ 3,000 to 6,999 43 19.1 10 4.4 $ 7,000 to 10,999 24 10.7 20 8.9 $11,000 to 14,999 35 15.5 49 21.8 $15,000 to 18,999 35 15.5 46 20.4 $19,000 to 22,999 19 8.4 39 17. 3 $23,000 to 29,999 24 10.6 30 13.3 $30,000 to 39,999 . . ' 9 4.0 10 4.4 $40,000 or more . . . 8 3.6 15 6.7 Not indicated . . . 28 12.4 6 2.7 Mean Income $15 ,200 $18 ,560 47 offspring and parents. Since many offspring probably in cluded their parent's income or the income of unrelated persons with whom they were currently living in reporting total household income, the meaning of the data is ambigu ous. Regardless, a wide range of parental income levels is represented with the mean within the $17,000 to 18,999 level. Table 5 indicates that only 126 offspring reported any personal income, which probably includes the 9 7 off spring who reported economic self sufficiency. TABLE 5 ANNUAL PERSONAL INCOME OF OFFSPRING Number Percent I None .... 1$300 .... $600 .... $1,000 . . . $2,000 . . . ;$4,000 . . . I$6,000 . . . :$8,000 . . . ,$10,000 . . $12,000 . . !$15,000 . . ;$25,000 . . ! Not indicated 14 6.2 10 4.4 10 4.4 18 8.0 23 10.2 21 9.3 16 7.1 11 4.9 9 4.0 4 1.8 3 1.3 1 0.4 85 37.8 NOTE: To nearest amount indicated. Data Collection The data used in this study was obtained from self administered questionnaires mailed to potential respon- 48 dents who had previously indicated a willingness to co- I operate.^ I The items and scales incorporated in the final ques tionnaires were subject to a series of pretests to develop and to determine their adequacy. Black and Bengtson (19 73) have outlined these pretests to include the following: (a) a mail survey to upper-middle class college students and their parents prior to 1970, (b) a series of interviews with youth during the summer of 1970 conducted by a team of anthropologists, (c) four mail surveys using 137 three- generation families from the population defined for the major survey, and (d) an exploration of the cross-cultural validity of some scales in which data from the 137 fami lies was compared with comparable three-generation groups of Christian and Moslem families in Lebanon (Haddad, • 1971). To minimize respondent fatigue two separate ques tionnaires were developed and mailed in sequence. The : first was mailed beginning November, 1971, and consisted of over 200 items regarding opinions and attitudes, the I relationship with specific family members of the other ! generation, personal characteristics and family back- ,ground. Separate questionnaires with parallel items were Ipor selected portions of the questionnaires used in the current study, see Appendices A and B. 49 devised for offspring and for parents. The second and shorter questionnaire was mailed beginning late in 19 72 immediately upon return of the first; it included a "Sched ule of Life Events" to which the respondent indicated the year(s) of occurrence of certain events. Mailings of the first questionnaire began with the offspring. Upon return of that questionnaire, a question naire was mailed first to one parent and on its return to the other. This procedure reduced the possibility of respondents within a family comparing their answers and insured that the parent responded regarding the offspring (from whom data had been obtained. Return rate for the 1 ifirst questionnaire was almost 64 percent, while that of I the second was 75 percent (above information primarily I from Black and Bengtson, 19 7 3). I ! Measurement of the Variables Perception of Solidarity The current study is concerned with the experience or perception of a family relationship by its members and j the impact upon those perceptions of events and social- ! I structural position. Accordingly, the dependent vari ables are self reports indicating perceptions of the i degree of solidarity existing between the members of the dyad. Each theoretical component of solidarity has its , own index of perceived solidarity, although very moderate 50 correlations among the indices are observed (Table 8). Indices of Perceived Solidarity For perceived Associational Solidarity, a single global item was used as the exclusive index: "How often do j you do things together with . . . ?" Responses ranged on ! a six point scale from "seldom" (value of one) to "ex- Itremely often" (value of six). The global nature of this t I item refers to a wide range of possible activities and I interaction and implies a reciprocal rather than a uni- I lateral relationship, I The index of perceived Affectual Solidarity was an * average of the responses to three separate global items : (1) "Taking everything into consideration, how close do , you feel is the relationship between you and . . . ?", i (2) "How is communication between yourself and • , ,:— how : well can you exchange ideas or talk about things that really concern you?", and (3) "Generally, how well do you ' and . . . get along together?" Again, responses to each global item and the average of those responses ranged on ! a six point scale with a value of one indicating low per- I ' ceived Affectual Solidarity and a value of six indicating I j high Affectual Solidarity, As can be noted, the subject ' of each item was the relationship, itself; thus, the items ■ were not focused on the affectual state of the respondent or on the perceived affectual state of the other dyad 51 member. It was for this reason that these three items were selected for use. A single item was used as the global measure of Con- j I sensual Solidarity: "In general, how similar are your I views about life to those of . . . ?" Responses also 'ranged on a six point scale from "different" (value of one) I to "extremely similar" (value of six) . This item reflects I the concern of the study in the perceived similarity, over- j all, rather than in "actual" similarity or degree of con- Igruence of attitudes regarding specific issues. ! I Validity I Use of any measure of social behavior, sentiment, or 'attitude raises a question of the validity of that instru ment. In the assessment of social perception, the issue is particularly complex as it concerns not only the avail- I I ability of appropriate validation criteria but subjectiv- I ity as well. Objectively, such criteria might include the perceptions of other persons, some aspect of observable behavior, or other measures of the same phenomenon. How ever, the global indices of solidarity perception of the ! current study may reflect more that a single, or a set of, I ■ jspecific behaviors, sentiments, or attitudes. I While social perceptions by others may be used as 'validation criteria, it is also possible that a lack of congruence between self reports and the observations by 52 others may reflect the highly individualized, subjective nature of social perception. The separateness of the per ceptual worlds of individual family members is illustrated ! by the factor analytic study of Black and Bengtson (19 73). The authors used the responses of both dyad members to 12 items regarding specific family activities (representing Associational Solidarity), to ten global items concerned with the perception of several aspects of Affectual Soli darity toward, and from, the other dyad member and to the global perceived Consensual Solidarity item cited above. They report that the responses of each member, collec- , tively, constituted separate factors. The first factor was exclusively and highly loaded by all ten affectual items and the single global consensual item. The second and third factors consisted of nine associational items. i i i In the current study, however, the use of externally observable behavior as validation criteria is precluded by the fact that the available data was limited to self reports. However, the responses of the respondents to the global items may be examined in light of their responses to similar and more specific items in the questionnaire. First to be considered is the global index of Associational Solidarity. In the questionnaire, respon dents indicated the frequency of 12 specific shared activ- ; ities with the other dyad member. The zero-order correla tions between the global single-item index and these 53 specific activities are shown in Table 6. TABLE 6 CORRELATIONS (r) OF THE GLOBAL ASSOCIATION ITEM WITH TWELVE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Global Association Perception By Offspring By Parents 1. Recreation outside the home . . . . . 0.61 0.61 2. Brief visits for conversation . . . 0.39 0.52 3. Large family gatherings . . . . 0.09 0.32 4. Small family gatherings .... 0.25 0.40 5. Talking over important things . 0.46 0.54 6. Religious activities 0.34 0.34 7. Writing letters . . 0.09 0.06 8. Telephoning .... 0.23 0.06 9. Dinner together . . 0.31 0.45 10. Gift exchange . . . 0.36 0.24 11. Help . . . with chores or errands 0.37 0.51 12. . . . help you with chores or errands 0.39 0.48 Sum of Raw Data for all 12 Items . . . . . 0.60 0.64 About 40 percent of the variance of the global Associational Solidarity item is explained by the sum of the 12 individual activity items (36 percent for offspring, 4 3 percent for parents), the correlations with the indivi dual items frequently being somewhat lower. Those activities which are most related to global association perception for both offspring and parents 54 appear to be those of a more informal and casual nature (recreation, brief visits, talking over important matters, and, for parents only, having dinner with the offspring I and the offspring helping the parent). Activities not I involving physical proximity (letter writing or tele- 'phoning for both dyad members) or of a ritualistic nature (family gatherings for the offspring) are poorly related i to global perception of association. The low correlations of specific activities may be i idue to the individual items being fairly specific. To- jgether, they do not comprise an all inclusive list of I family activities. For example, not included are casual, 'passing conversations when offspring and parent still ilive together but yet lead separate social lives. Thus, j the overall perception of common activity ("how often do I you do things with . . . ?") may cover more areas of inter- ; action than the reported frequency of occurrence of one . or any number of specific activities. In any case, it is : the perception of solidarity that is the focus of this I study. I Use of the global index of Affectual Solidarity is Î supported by examination of the degree of association be- j tween the global index and three items from which it is derived with the ten individual affectual items of the i Black and Bengtson study (1973). Moderate to fairly high ' zero-order correlations are generally noted in Table 7. 55 For both offspring and parents, about 65 percent of the variance of the global index is accounted for by the sum of tbe ten individual affectual items. As for the three I items on which the global index is based, 45 to 60 percent : of the variance of these items is explained by the sum of 1 f the ten individual items. Because of the lower level of I ; explained variance and by a possibility that particular j styles of affectual bebavior may vary greatly among a set jof respondents, use of the single global index of Affect- Iual Solidarity is indicated. ! I The correlations of 0.81 between the global affect- 1 ual index and the sum of the ten affectual items suggests : that the affectual items measure more the same phenomenon .than the activity items do of Associational Solidarity, I where the correlations of the global associational index i ,with the sum of the 12 activity items were 0.60 for the I offspring and 0,64 for the parents. As regards perceived Consensual Solidarity, Black and Bengtson (19 7 3) have concluded that the global item i was a more appropriate measure of perceived consensus j than a value based on attitudinal items which focus on specific issues. First, there was a likelihood that a I "sense of consensus" is based more on the history of con- jsensus within a few salient areas rather than on the 'degree of agreement over an entire range of issues. Second, there is a difference in operationalization 56 w EH 1 — 1 (0 X! U + pq % o o in o m in o ro V O O V O o m in o in o 00 n o C N V O o 1 — 1 V O o rH 00 O m s tn ro o 1 — 1 V O in C M ro V O in w 4 -3 Ü V O V O V O V O in ro V O in E H o 0 O • • • • • • • • • • • M O rH o o o o o O o o o o o c Q X 1 •H w Ü c 1 — 1 1 — 1 o n o 1 — 1 V O CP CP in r - Q y —s . P 5 o V O in in m V O in m V O S C Q Ë *H • • • • • • • • • • • H 4 - 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ih œ u U < S D W E h E h w U M 1 0 H 0 w o m V O m m 00 rH 00 m 1 — 1 1 — 1 w W c V O in r - in in C N in V O k ^ < o W o • • • # • • • • • • • < O M 0 ÇU o o o o o o o o o o o E h U C m (J U 0 <3 w pci pq k O k tr> < C Ü •r4 S U • • W M ÇU K Eh w E h M H tT > m 44 M M H 1 — 1 Ü k K O •H 0 W 0 O E H 0 TS 5 4 ÇU 44 tr> d 0 13 tp ^ K W w 0 O , *4 W S 3 ÎH E H 13 44 tn •H 44 td 44 •H ^ H Ü 44 fd C O m U u 12 r e s O S h -H o , U 43 o 0 04 W 4 - > 0 w 0 W 44 04 0 S w W 04 44 TS 0 w 44 0 O 44 o w 44 Ü Î4 w 0 44 > M 0 W 44 44 O PÏ 44 •H O O E H TS 0 44 44 43 C Ü W O 0 0 tn tP tn tp î3 44 Id P 3 44 •H 0 0 C S 3 O S 3 44 •H S H •H •H •H •H •H 0 § 44 44 44 U 44 0 5 4 Î4 Î4 Î4 44 u 0 Ü C 0 0 U 04 04 04 04 04 Ü 0 g O 0 0 0 04 44 0 w w W 0 0 04 0 u 5 4 w Ü 44 g 44 44 44 44 44 44 0 tn td 0 Cn 0 0 44 o 44 44 44 44 44 M ÇU C 04 04 C 0 O O O O 0 o •H •r4 (d 44 44 C 1 — 1 ÎH 1 — 1 U 5 h 43 0 , 4 : M 44 ^ Î4 44 43 44 43 0 1 — 1 Q j 1 — 1 •H 04 U U W rH U •H C U î3 U 0 E H 0 W 0 0 w 0 g 0 H 0 0 0 id 0 3) 0 3* rH 2 44 % 44 44 B o e 0 e 44 S 4 S 5 4 g 0 1 — 1 44 44 0 0 0 0 0 1 — 1 O O 44 • s . 44 04 ^ 04 2 04 ^ 44 < o o O o o O o O O O K m m w K K w K f f i 44 O • • • • • • • • • • g 1 — 1 (N m TP in VO 00 ov O 1 — 1 m 57 eu P c •H -M C 0 CJ 1 I 3 1 —1 u f dX + o o < y \ 1 —1 o r s 00' = 3 1 1 —1 r- 1 —1 XÎ ( UP Q 00K O UÛ UO in m in TP m m 00 O + • • • • • • • • • • • r4 o O o O o o o o o o o o H 1 —1o o r s uo o " î Po 00 1 —1 m O ' , - Ma eoLD m in m in CN m uo u ( U o • • • • • • • • • « « O tH o O o o o O o O o o o < 1 •H c a LOkC o P ro roP ro 1 —1 00 r- P 3o r-un vo un ' ï T un ro ' = f ro uo p q g •H • • • • • • • « • • • g - p o o o o o o o O o o o O ( d U ü 1 M ( U Q ) 1 —11 —1 ro ' 5 T p 1 —1 in 00 œ œ œ r-in UD un vo inm ' = f m UD r- o œ C • • • « • « • « • • • --- r4 ( U O o o o o o o o o o O o U C CL M ( U Ph - p c ( U p • • f d P L P Cn C w P w œ Q ) 1 —1 •H 1 —1 TJ P C Q 0 P 0 C f d 13 1 —1 0 CL 0 f d CL P 0 p w W p -P f d 0 13 P œ œ 1 5 P p P P 13 p P P O p t d O P ü ) p ( U œ P P 0 P f d p 0 TJ P P p w w ü p 0 G p w 0 0 p p O 0 0 > P P ■H P Pu 0 w p CL CL o 0 13 p W r P ! T > ! T > CL p P p w 0 P f d C P P o P p -H P O •H •H•H P tP-H Cn •H P p p ü P p P P p p P p t 7 > CL CL CL 0 •H ü •H P p p P ü P g œ œ œ CLP 0 P 0 0 0 0 0-H 0 L - l p p e nCLP CL P p p P p P P 4 - 1 p p 0 e np w f dCP f df dGs f d Cnp CL H O O O P p f dp CL P CL CL p CL P f dW p p •H •H •H P P 1 —1■P1 —1p p p:OÆ o 1 —1p rP p P Æ P P! P 0 1 —iC P •H p u ü 1 —1a ü •H CL ü CL ü O EH ( U( U( UP 0 P g P g 0 mP 0 mP W P p ' s p p Ë ü g O S P g P p g P g p p f d f d P p p p P o p CL 1 51 5CL1 5 P 1 5 P 1 5o 1 5o O ^ p < o o O O O O O O O o % œ œ œ œ œ œ œ m p o • • , • • • • • • g 1 —1 CN ro ' ï T m uo r-00 o r s o p en 58 between the global item and 14 items regarding specific issues: the correlation between the global item and the summed 14 difference scores was only -.51 (negative be- I cause difference scores represent dissimilarity) which I suggested to the authors that the two approaches measured I somewhat different phenomenon. Because of limitations in established validity at jthe present time, some caution should be exercised in the I conclusions drawn from the analyses with the indices of j both Associational Solidarity and Consensual Solidarity. I It should be pointed out that all three indices of I this study do demonstrate capability of discriminating I along the entire range of perceived solidarity, as can be I seen in Figure 1. Many respondents reported moderate and I even low solidarity, and most distributions are only i slightly skewed toward high perceived solidarity. An ex- :ception is perceived Affectual Solidarity, particularly for the offspring, which is more skewed toward high solid- ;arity, although there are still many respondents reporting I moderate to low Affectual Solidarity. j Finally, the degree of association among the five I solidarity items and indices are indicated by the zero- I I order correlations cited in Table 8. In general, the highest degree of association, although quite moderate, is seen among the three affectual items with the explained variances ranging from 37 to 53 percent, suggesting that 59 — Offspring perceptions — Parent perceptions 110 100 90 80 70 40 Associational 30 Consensual^ Associational/ 20 Consensual 10 Affectual Degree of Perceived Solidarity Figure 1. Distribution of responses to the indices of perceived solidarity. Values for perceived Affectual Solidarity are rounded to the nearest whole number. 60 00 W i-q 9 EH 03 S O H a Ph o H E h S H o o U ( Ü I —I I —I -H H •H O o o < O ' - ' i H iH O O I —I I —I -P 0 Ü T3 O O o o o rH •H O CN O VO rH O iH C Q H O C O O O IW M - l iH C Q - r - i Ü 0 3 -P O O O •H I —I ■H H ■H M - J ipI —I O Ü o o o o o o VO VO iH O O iH o cn iH O O O 00 O VO iH O o rorH o VO 1 —1o O * * * TT T f (Ti LD in ro o o o O +J 0 -P ! 3 rQ •H M . -P 13 C 0 O -P Ü -H Ü g 0 0 -P U •H t d iH 0 3 t d c B o 13 -H ■H -P > t d *H iH 13 0 M U O 0 Ü COo in -pu in VO in 0 « « « 0 13 o o o Ü u C o •H i m0 M » . 0 0 3N C O 0 (Noo •Hm in ro -P■H • • • t d o o o 1 —1H 0 0 o o •• • ü , , , 0 , 1 —1X • • 0 • O 0 0 g rP13 0 1 —1 • 0 p 1 5P P t d -P o ! •H ■H g H •H P 13 o 1 —1 P UrH Ü'H t drH 1 -10 0 tn 0 0 H 4 - >P t d t d0 Ü 0 P 4 t d0 P P 0 •H O * O iH•H Ü -P -P P « H 1 —1 t dÜ 0 Ü Ü 0 0 C tn O 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 Ü ip ip o g p 0 iH 0 0 ip ip1 —10 0 x i o c o < u u o P 61 these items more than others are measuring the same phe nomenon. Thus, the use of a single index based on the I three items appears appropriate. The correlations among I the three global indices, however, generally are of lower I ; magnitude with the exception of those between Affectual I I and Consensual Solidarity. The phenomenon measured by I the index of Associational Solidarity may be different ! from that measured by the indices for Affectual and Con- ( I sensual Solidarity. This possibility is also supported by I I the factor analytic study of solidarity by Black and I Bengtson (1973), already cited, who suggest that perceived I Consensual Solidarity may be an aspect of solidarity con- I ! tributing to closeness— that is, to Affectual Solidarity. I The factor analysis also supports use of a three ! component solidarity model. The first factor consisted ; entirely of those items representing Affectual Solidarity and the second consisted entirely of items representing Associational Solidarity, while all of the highly loaded items on the third factor (however, only four of the 14 specific consensual items) represented Consensual Soli- ' darity. The authors concluded ". . .if one were to ; attempt to deal with solidarity as a unidimensional con- I struct, certain information might be lost that could be vital to understanding the nature of the inter-genera- , tional bond" (Black and Bengtson, 19 73:28). Accordingly, i the current study examines family solidarity in terms of 62 ; three components, in spite of the possible underlying commonality between Affectual and Consensual Solidarity. j Black and Bengtson (19 73) further state that the im^ portance of each component to intergenerational solidarity varies with the generational composition of the particular family relationship. Thus, the solidarity between parent and adolescent offspring may have a different basis, such as association, than the relationship between that parent and his own elderly parent where the basis more may be affection. Social-Structural Variables^ Six variables were examined in testing the associa tion between perceived solidarity and elements of social position. The sex composition of the dyad and the age of offspring and o^ parents were either directly indicated by the respondent or clearly referenced by the item. A single index of residential propinquity was used, based on the parent's report of the miles distant that the off spring member of the dyad lived from the parent. Income level was taken as the index of socio-economic status. The total annual household income was used for analyses involving parental perception of solidarity, while ! annual personal income, if any (including that of a ISee Appendix A for the specific items. I 63 i spouse, if married), and annual income of the household of which the offspring is a member were used in the analyses I with the offspring solidarity perception. Sibship size i I was assessed by the number of children reported by the 'parent. j 1 I Developmentally Significant Events ! The occurrence of certain events in the life of the j respondent was determined from a "Schedule of Life Events" I which consisted of 38 events to which the respondent indi- I I j cated the year or years in which the event occurred in the .respondent's life, if it had (see Appendix B). This list was then reduced to 11 items most reflective of develop mentally significant events by a panel of judges. ! To reduce individual bias and to increase the valid ity of the identification of events as developmentally significant, ten persons whose professional lives are in volved with family relationships indicated which events were developmentally significant, and which were not, for offspring and parents separately. This was done in refer ence to the defined developmental concerns of the two dyad members. In addition, events of developmental sig- ! Inificance but not congruent with the developmental con- ,cerns were also identified. Use of a criterion of 70 percent agreement among 64 the ten judges and the elimination of some items^ resulted in abbreviated lists of events, as follows, for offspring and parents. Offspring Developmentally Significant Events; 1. Got first full Lime job. 2. Began dating for the first time. 3. Became engaged to be married. 4. Experienced first sexual relationship. 5. Married. 6. Returned to school after having left. 7. Became economically self supporting. 8. Permanently left parental home. 9. Began^working in life career occupation. 10. Ceased formal schooling. 11. Gained a child through birth, adoption or marriage. Offspring Developmentally Nonsignificant Events: 1. Began regular church attendance. Parental Developmentally Significant Events ; Occurrence congruent with parental developmental concern : 1. Oldest child entered first grade. 2. Began working in life career occupation. 3. "Launched" a child into a life of their own. 4. Ceased formal schooling. 5. Gained a child through birth, adoption or marriage. Occurrence counter to parental development con- i cerns: ' 1. Felt like were going to have a nervous break- I down. 2. Death of a child. ! 3. A child left home against parental will. Parental Developmentally Nonsignificant Events : ' 1. Began formal schooling for the first time. ' 2. Permanently left parental home. I Each of these events was coded in terms of the number of years since its occurrence, and if the event had not occurred, it was coded -1.00 to avoid inclusion in ^Events dropped because they either were logically unlikely to occur for respondents, were clearly sex- linked, occurred for one respondent only, or did not occur for any respondent. 65 computations. Statistical Treatment I Data concerned with the relationships between the i I social position variables and the dependent variables were I analyzed mainly by means of separate multiple regression I analyses for the offspring and for the parents, using an I SPSS computer program (Nie, Bent, and Hull, 1970; Nie and I j Hull, 1973). In addition, qualitative dyad sex differ- I Iences were examined by t-tests of differences in mean I I ; solidarity perception among the four dyad sex configura- 1 Itions. T-tests were also calculated to determine differ ences in perceived solidarity between subjects who had experienced occurrence of an event and those who had not and to clarify the relationships between specific social position variables and the measures of perceived solid arity. An F-ratio was calculated as a test of the homo geneity of the variances for the two groups; the .05 level was used to define statistical significance, this being a two-tail test since the variance ratio is nondirectional. 'If the variance ratio was statistically significant at I the .05 level, a t-test based on a separate variance esti- I mate was used. Use of the t-test based on a pooled vari- I ance estimate was customary, occurring for most of the analyses reported in this study. Use of the separate 66 variance estimate is indicated by decimal values in the reported degrees of freedom instead of an integer; for example, see Table 11 where the separate variance estimate is indicated by 20 2.2 8 as the degrees of freedom (Nie and Hull, 19 73; Peatman, 196 3). Generally, one-tail tests of statistical signifi cance were used throughout,this study with the .05 level taken as indicating statistical significance. Two-tail tests were used where either the hypothesis was nondirec tional or the event had been judged to be developmentally nonsignificant. Where two-tail tests were used, they are so indicated. Finally, zero-order correlations were calculated to determine the degree of association between variables, assuming normality of the bivariate distribution. CHAPTER FIVE THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL POSITION TO THE PERCEPTION OF SOLIDARITY This chapter is concerned with the first hypothesis: social position (both within the family and in the broader status system) influences the solidarity perceptions of both offspring and parents. To be determined is the rela tive importance of each aspect of social position (ages of parent and offspring, dyad sex composition, residential propinquity, income, and sibship size) to solidarity per ception. As will be seen, some aspects were minimally related to perceived solidarity and accordingly were ex cluded from subsequent analyses. This will be particularly helpful when considering the impact of developmentally I ! significant events in the following chapters. i ! I Multiple Regression Analyses I Multiple regression analyses were completed sepa rately for offspring, for parents, for each dyad sex configuration, and for each component of solidarity, in order to determine the overall relationship of the six social position variables to the perception of solidarity for both offspring and parents and to determine the 67 68 ; I relative importance of each variable in those relation ships. In order to include dyad sex configuration in these analyses, this variable was transformed into a dummy variable in which the four configurations were, as fol lows: (1) sons and fathers, (2) daughters and fathers, (3) sons and mothers, and (4) daughters and mothers. In each analysis a stepwise procedure was employed in which all independent variables were selected in sequence ac cording to their contribution to the dependent variable. Pairwise deletion of cases when data was missing was used, instead of listwise deletion, for maximum sample size for each analysis. j I Social Position and Offspring I Solidarity Perception I The relative influence of each of the six social I I position variables (excluding parental household income) j upon each component of offspring perceived solidarity was I determined. Those variables which contribute signifi- j ! cantly to perceived solidarity are cited in Table 9. The i I zero-order correlations between the social position vari- I able and a component of solidarity, the normalized regres- I sion coefficient (beta), the F-ratio between beta and the standard error of beta, the significance level of F, and the degrees of freedom are reported in the table. The most significant finding is that the sex com position of the dyad consistently has the greatest impact 69 TABLE 9 SOCIAL POSITION VARIABLES CONTRIBUTING TO OFFSPRING SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION* r beta F P df All Dyads Associational Solidarity Dyad sex configuration . Personal income . . ... 0.24 -0.21 0.24 -0.21 8.01 6.07 .001 .01 2,130 Affectual Solidarity Dyad sex configuration . 0.26 0.27 9.79 .01 1,131 Consensual Solidarity Dyad sex configuration . Household income . . . . 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17 4.06 3.88 .05 .05 2,130 Father-Son Dyads Associational Solidarity Personal income*** . . . Household income*** . . Residential propinquity*** Offspring age ......... Number of sibs . . . . . — 0.48 -0.11 0.04 -0.26 0.11 -1.09 -0.63 0. 30 0.44 0.26 16.81 10.42 2.81 2.87 2.00 .001 .001 .05 .05 ns 5,20 Affectual Solidarity Personal income . . . . Offspring age ......... Household income .... Residential propinquity -0.33 0.07 -0.07 0.09 -1.12 0.75 — 0.44 0.33 18.66 9.95 5.07 3.34 .001 .001 .01 .05 4,21 Consensual Solidarity Personal income ** . . . Offspring age . . . . . -0.37 -0.14 — 0.60 0. 30 4i37 1.13 .05 ns 2,23 70 TABLE 9— Continued r beta F P df Mother-Son Dyads Associational Solidarity Personal income** . . . . Offspring age** . . . . . Household income** . . . Number of sibs ......... -0.34 0.01 0.32 — 0.01 -0.55 0.39 0.28 — 0.06 6.32 3.19 2.77 0.11 .01 .05 .05 ns 4,26 Affectual Solidarity Number of sibs ......... Personal income . . . . . Offspring age ...... — 0.26 -0.13 0.17 -0.27 -0.44 0.43 2.55 3.80 3.68 ns .05 .05 3,27 Consensual Solidarity Household income .... 0.36 0.36 4.20 .05 1.29 Father-Daughter Dyads Associational Solidarity Residential propinquity** Offspring age ...... Household income** . . . Parental age ........... Number of sibs ..... -0.25 -0.24 -0.08 -0.03 -0.07 -0.27 -0.37 -0.30 0.22 -0.19 2.70 3.48 2.77 1.36 1.26 .05 .05 .05 ns ns 5,33 Affectual Solidarity Personal income** .... Offspring age ........... Parental a g e ........... 0.13 -0.12 -0.11 0.40 -0.32 -0.13 3.37 1.94 0.39 .05 ns ns 3,35 Mother-Daughter Dyads Affectual Solidarity Household income** . . . Parental age ...... 0.29 -0.02 0.31 -0.07 3.32 0.18 .05 ns 2,33 *The reduced sample size is due to 85 offspring re- spondents who did not indicate the amount of their personal income, if any. **Reported F-ratio is significant only when other social position variables (with nonsignificant F-ratios) are included in the analysis, as indicated. i I ***F-ratio is significant regardless of other social I position variables included in the analysis. 71 upon offspring perception of solidarity with the parent. Two specific relationships are also indicated as signifi cantly contributing to solidarity perception in the anal yses with all dyads (regardless of sex configuration). Clearly, offspring annual personal income is rela tively important in determining offspring perception of Associational Solidarity. The lower the personal income, the greater the offspring's perception of Associational Solidarity, although personal income accounts for only four percent of the variance in perceived Associational Solidarity. The picture changes with the analysis of Consensual Solidarity. Here, it is the offspring's annual household ! income which has a relatively important impact. The I I higher the household income, the greater the offspring's I perception of Consensual Solidarity with the parent. I I Again, income accounted for very little of the variance I (two percent). ! In this general analysis, social position other than I dyad sex configuration appears to have little impact upon I offspring perceived Affectual Solidarity. Sex Difference s With the sex composition of the dyad being so im portant a determinant of solidarity perception, separate multiple regression analyses were completed for each of 72 the four dyad sex configurations. Sex differences are observed in the influence,of social position (Table 9). j Overall, both offspring personal and household in- I come are still important factors in solidarity perception, i and, in fact, they are often associated with other com- Iponents of solidarity. In a third of these analyses, per- 'sonal income is the variable making the greatest contribua 'tion to perceived solidarity. Household income also often i I contributed to solidarity perception but that contribution usually was of less importance. I In the father-son dyads offspring personal income I consistently has the greatest effect upon all components iof perceived solidarity. The greater the son's personal I income (therefore, the greater his financial independence), 'the less his perceived solidarity with his father. Three other variables, however, also contribute to the son's solidarity perception but to a lesser degree (none ac counted for more than seven percent of the variance). The son's age and residential propinquity were directly re lated, and his household income inversely related, to his i perception of Associational and Affectual Solidarity with ,his father. Thus, the son perceives greater Associational ■ and Affectual Solidarity with his father, when both (1) I his personal income and (2) his household income are low, (3) when he is older, and (4) when he lives distant from his father. 73 In the mother-son dyads, the son's personal and and household incomes and his age are all determinants of his perception of solidarity with his mother. The son's ‘personal income is inversely related to his perception of Associational Solidarity with his mother, followed in im- ; portance by his age and household income, both of which are directly related to Associational Solidarity. However, i for Affectual Solidarity, personal income and age were of ! equal importance, with personal income inversely related, I ; and age directly related, to his perception of Affectual Solidarity. Household income was the only variable in- Ifluencing Consensual Solidarity. Thus, the son's percep- Ition of solidarity with his mother is generally greater ; when (1) his personal income is low but (2) his household income is high and (3) when he is older. Less than 13 I percent of the variance of any component of solidarity was ,accounted for by any of the three aspects of social position. In general, the perception of solidarity by daugh- :ters is less often related to social position, and then it I occurs primarily in her perception of Associational Soli- 'darity with her father. In the father-daughter dyads, three aspects of social position contributed about equally (and inversely) to her perception of Associational Soli darity: residential propinquity, her age, and her house hold income. Thus, the daughter perceived greater 74 I Associational Solidarity with her father, when (1) she I lives with or near him, (2) she is young, and (3) she has i a low household income. Less than six percent of the variance is accounted for by any of the three variables. I As for her perception of Affectual Solidarity with her j father, the greater her, personal income, the greater her ! I perceived Affectual Solidarity (less than two percent of i I the variance is accounted for by income). I Apparently, other aspects of social position gen- ;erally have little to do with a daughter's perception of I solidarity with her mother. In the mother-daughter dyads I I only one relationship is found: the higher the daughter's I 'household income, the greater her perceived Affectual i Solidarity with the mother (less than nine percent of the ; variance is accounted for by income) . ' From the preceding analyses it is apparent that each of the four dyad sex configurations differ with respect to the influence of other aspects of social position upon offspring perception of solidarity with the parents. Moreover, the influence of social position often is not the same for all three components of solidarity. However, the personal income of the offspring is the one aspect of social position which is the major determinant of solid arity perception. Sibship size is the only aspect of social position which, surprisingly, had no relationship to offspring solidarity perception, although the review I I of the literature suggested otherwise.1 I Social Position and Parental j Solidarity Perception I The relative influence of the social position vari- I ables upon parental perception of solidarity with the off- ] spring member is indicated in Table 10. Offspring per- I sonal and household income are excluded from these analy- I ses in favor of parental household income. ! None of the six social position variables had a I general influence upon parental solidarity perception in ' the analyses with all dyads, regardless of dyad six con- ! I figuration. Instead, social position had impact primarily ■ upon one component of solidarity— parental perception of 'Associational Solidarity. Residential propinquity, offspring age, and the , number of children all are inversely related to perceived Associational Solidarity with the offspring dyad member, in that order of importance. Thus, greater Associational ' Solidarity is perceived by parents when (1) parent and offspring live together or near each other, (2) the off- t spring dyad member is relatively young, and (3) there are , few children in the family. Of these, residential propin- ' quity clearly has the greatest effect. As will be shown ^Bossard and Boll (1956a, 1956b, 1966), Clausen (1966), Hawkes, Burchinai and Gardner (1958), Nye (1952). 76 TABLE 10 SOCIAL POSITION VARIABLES CONTRIBUTING TO PARENTAL SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION r beta F P df All Dyads Associational Solidarity Residential propinquity • Offspring age ...... Number of children . . . Dyad sex configuration -0.29 -0.15 -0.12 0.13 — 0.26 -0.14 -0.13 0.11 15.77 4.64 3.99 2.77 .001 .001 .01 .05 4,208 Affectual Solidarity Dyad sex configuration 0.27 0.27 16.84 .001 1,211 Mother—Son Dyads Consensua1 So1i darity Number of children . . . -0.45 -0.45 10.70 .01 1,41 Father-Daughter Dyads Associational Solidarity Residential propinquity . Number of children . . . -0.37 -0.23 -0.37 -0.23 9.50 3.83 .001 .05 2,58 Consensual Solidarity Offspring age* . . . . . Residential propinquity* Household income* .... Number of children . . . 0.16 -0.09 0.12 0.13 0.22 -0.24 0.25 0.18 2.80 2.87 3.11 1.95 .01 .01 .01 ns 4,56 Mother-Daughter Dyads Associational Solidarity Residential propinquity** Number of children* . . . Offspring age ........... -0.35 -0.22 -0.09 -0.34 -0.24 —0.14 7.80 3.73 1.30 .001 .05 ns 3,56 Consensual Solidarity Parental age ........... -0.29 -0.29 5.29 .05 1,58 ^Reported F-ratio is significant only when other social position variables (with nonsignificant F-ratios) are included in the analysis, as indicated. **F-ratio is significant regardless of other social position variables included in the analysis. I 77 ^ later in this chapter, propinquity is also related to off- I spring age. The sex composition of the dyad also influ- ,enced perceived Associational Solidarity, as well as per- I Iceived Affectual Solidarity. Otherwise, social position I I had little bearing upon parental perception of either }Affectual or Consensual Solidarity. Correlations of the above relationships are low with no more than eight per- I cent of the variance accounted for by any aspect of social j position. I i Sex Differences ^ Since the initial analysis indicated an influence of : the sex composition of the dyad, multiple regression i analyses again were completed separately for each dyad sex configuration (Table 10). It is in the dyads with daughters, that social posi tion is often found to be related to parental solidarity perception and then only to Associational and Consensual Solidarity. In both the father-daughter and the mother- ; daughter dyads, two variables have an inverse influence I upon the parent's perception of Associational Solidarity ■with the daughter. They are, in order of importance, I I residential propinquity and the number of children in the : family. Thus, parental perception of Associational Solid arity with the daughter was greater when (1) parent and daughter either live together or nearby and (2) there were 78 few offspring in the family. Five to 12 percent of the I variance is accounted for by these variables. I ' However, the two parent-daughter dyads differ with ’respect to the particular social position variables influ encing parental perception of Consensual Solidarity. In ; the father-daughter dyads, the daughter's age, residential i jpropinquity, and the number of offspring in the family contributed about equally to the father's perception of I ! Consensual Solidarity, although in different directions, iThus, the father's perception of Consensual Solidarity with his father was greater when (1) the daughter is ; older, (2) she lives close to her father, and (3) the ; father had a high level of household income (less than I ! three percent of the variance is accounted for by any of I the variables) . ■ In the mother-daughter dyads, however, only the mother's age made a contribution to her perception of Con sensual Solidarity with her daughter. The older the mother, the less Consensual Solidarity perceived by her (about eight percent of the variance). I Finally, social position appears to have little I bearing upon parental perception of solidarity with a son. A single exception occurs in the mother-son dyads ; the less children in the family, the greater the Consensual Solidarity perceived by the mother with her son. The zero-order correlation was moderate (r = -0.45) with about 79 20 percent of the variance accounted for by the number of children. Sex differences in the impact of social position upon solidarity perception again has been demonstrated— this time upon the perception of the parents. Most promi- Inent is that such influences occur primarily in the parent- I daughter relationship and infrequently in the relationship ! of parent with the son. I I Sex Composition and Solidarity I The multiple regression analyses indicate that the I ! sex composition of the dyad is an important factor in the I degree of perceived relationship between parent and off- ; spring. I I To clarify sex differences in solidarity perception t-tests of differences in solidarity perception were made between dyads.differentiated by sex configuration; these are cited in Table 11. In addition, differences in mean perceived solidarity between the adjacent dyadic sex con figurations of the multiple regression analyses are dis- ; played in Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, the mean perceived solid arity for cross-sex dyads generally lies between those jvalues fur the two same-sex dyads. Only three of the .t-tests were statistically significant, those t-tests 'being congruent with the relationships noted in the 80 preceding regression analyses. TABLE 11 T-TESTS OF SEX DIFFERENCES IN SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION t df p Male Female X n X n S on- D augh ter Differences Associational -3.08 221 .001 2.93 96 3.49 127 Affectual . . -1.87 221 .032 4.18 96 4.46 127 Consensual -1.68 219 .048 3.18 95 3.48 126 Father-Mother Differences Affectual . . -3.53 202.28 .001 4.36 112 4.79 112 As regards the sex of the respondent, it is the female, rather than the male, offspring who perceives greater solidarity. Moreover, it is the female dyad mem ber, be it mother or daughter, who perceives greater Af fectual Solidarity than the male. However, there is little apparent difference in solidarity perception by mothers, in general, between their relationships with sons and those with daughters, although mothers generally perceived greater solidarity with their offspring than did fathers (Figure 2). Both lineage sex differences and the particular importance of Affectual Solidarity in family relationships are noted (Figure 2). In general, males perceive greater 81 >1 -p -H u f O ts ■H I -1 o œ ts ( U > •H Q ) ü U Q) Ç U g S 5.00 4.00 3.00 — Offspring perceptions — Parent perceptions Affectual Affectual Consensual Associational Consensual Associational Father- Father- Mother- Mother- Son Daughter Son Daughter Figure 2. Relationship of dyad sex configuration with the solidarity perceptions of both offspring and parents. Only significant t-tests are indicated by their probability. 82 ' Affectual Solidarity (only) with a female than with a male I I dyad member. Thus, fathers report greater Affectual Solid- I ]arity with daughters than with sons (t = -2.29, p = .013), 1 ^ I and sons report greater Affectual Solidarity with mothers j t than with fathers (t = -1.76, p = .041) . In addition, j the daughters perceived greater solidarity with their I mother than with their father (t = -4.24, p = .000 for 1 I Associational Solidarity; t = -3.26, p = .001 for Affect- j ual Solidarity). It appears that it is the female family I member, more than the male, both who perceives greater ■ Affectual Solidarity in her relationships with other I family members and who is in turn a family member with 'whom male members perceive greater affectual ties. Only , for the mother's reports of Affectual Solidarity were there no statistically significant differences. : Age A major issue concerns chronological age, particu larly that of the offspring.^ Given the age range of the offspring respondents of this study (15 to 26), it can be .expected that the younger the offspring, the greater the probability that the offspring lives with the parent. If this is the case, then the younger the offspring, the ^That parental age is unrelated to perceived solid- 'arity by either offspring or parent has been shown in the multiple regression analyses and very low and non-signi ficant zero-order correlations calculated separately based on the entire sample. 83 i I greater the perceived Associational Solidarity, since j there is greater opportunity for interaction when two per- I sons are members of the same household. A relationship between offspring age and residential propinquity is in dicated by the following cross-tabulation, for which the chi square is 68.72 (p = .001, df = 2). Offspring Age 15-17 18-20 21-26 Living Together 57 54 9 Living Apart 5 53 47 62 107 56 120 105 225 The influence of offspring age is also indicated by t-tests between the mean Associational Solidarity percep tions of the adjacent age groups of the cross-tabulation. Perceived Associational Solidarity by both dyad members decreases significantly with age between the younger and offspring 18 to 20 years of age, when considering all dyads, as is shown in Figure 3.^ This is observed also for offspring perception when the offspring and parent live together. It is not observed when they live apart. ^Although the overall zero-order correlations be tween offspring age and residential propinquity were statistically significant but low, they do not clearly indicate the relationships shown above. The correlation for offspring was -0.16 (p = .00 8) and for parents, r = -0.15 (p = .013). 84 ■H U n J ■H I -1 O U] T) > ■H e u ü U e u eu f c s 4.00 3.50 3.00 Offspring perceptions Parent perceptions Living Together All Dyads Living Together All Dyads Living Apart 15 - 17 18 - 20 21 - 26 Age of Offspring Dyad Member Figure 3. Relationship of offspring age with the Associational Solidarity perceptions of offspring and parents. Only significant, t-tests are indicated by their probability. 85 ' Moreover, it can also be expected that offspring in- , come, particularly offspring personal income, is related i with offspring chronological age; the younger the off spring, the less the economic self sufficiency of the youth. This is supported by a moderate zero-order corre lation of 0.59 (p = .001). The following cross-tabulation illustrates this relationship further, in which the chi square of 29.78 was significant at beyond the .001 level (df = 2) . Offspring Age 15-17 18-20 21-26 $1000- 18 28 6 $2000+ 4 45 39 22 73 45 52 88 140 I I However, offspring household income has little rela- 'tionship with offspring age. Although the low zero-order ; correlation of -0.18 was highly significant (p = .006), a I chi square of 1. 70 (based on the same age groupings as I above) was not (p = 0.43, df = 2). These analyses further indicate youth's chronolog ical age to be an important factor underlying the impact of residential propinquity and offspring personal income upon the solidarity perceptions of the offspring. 86 Residential Propinquity The multiple regression analyses often showed the i perception of Associational Solidarity to be related to I I I the degree of residential propinquity between the parent ; and their offspring (Tables 9 and 10) . However, residen- jtial propinquity needs further examination, in light of ^ the fact that over half of the offspring still live with ; the parent and the fact that residential propinquity, i (itself, is related to the chronological age of the off- I spring. Categories of Residential Propinquity The distribution of residential propinquity is highly skewed; 120 of the 225 offspring were reported by 1 the parent to be living with them. Observations of the mean Associational Solidarity values of both parents and I offspring for each increment of residential propinquity suggest that four subgroups can be clearly differentiated: offspring and parents living together (0), living one to ' 20 miles apart, living 21 to 150 miles apart, and living ; more than 151 miles apart. T-tests of the differences 'between the means of adjacent categories for all six in- 1 dices of solidarity were calculated. An unexpected and consistent pattern emerges in this analysis (shown graphically in Figure 4). Solidarity per ception was greatest when the dyad members either lived 87 & ■rH U 0 3 tj •rH I -I o U] > •H < U u O J PM § Offspring perceptions Parent perceptions 5.00 Affectual Affectual 4.00 Consensual Associational Consensual v Associational 3.00 151+ 21 150 1 0 20 Residential Propinquity (in miles) Figure 4. Relationship of residential propinquity with the solidarity perceptions of both offspring and parents. All t-tests between the means of adjacent cate gories of propinquity are significant, unless indicated by "ns." I 88 I ! together or lived 21 to 150 miles apart. Fifteen of the I 18 t-tests were statistically significant at the .05 level, two t-tests approached significance at the indicated level, i ' and only one failed to attain significance. ! Reasons for the observed pattern (other than when I offspring and parent live together) is a matter of specula- I tion but it is clear that it is a very consistent relation- j ship for all six indices of solidarity, despite the fact I that the multiple regression analyses indicated a relation- I 1 ship primarily between residential propinquity and percep- ■ tion of Associational Solidarity. Probably the greater ! perceptions of solidarity when offspring and parent live ! together is due to greater opportunity for direct contact ! and various modes of interaction. Possibly the decreased ; solidarity of those living one to 20 miles distant may be due to a need of the offspring to maintain independence ' and privacy through less contact. Those offspring living 21 to 150 miles distant from the parent may have a suffi ciently comfortable distance from the parent that their independence is assured and they can enjoy a less self- ' protective relationship with the parent. Both parent and offspring at this distance perceive more Affectual and 1 Consensual Solidarity than those living together, although . they perceived no greater frequency of social contact. As for those offspring living more than 150 miles from the parent, it is likely that geographical distance is an I 89 i I adequate barrier to frequent direct contact and interac- I tion or that the more rebellious offspring move further I 1 i away from the parent than the less rebellious. I As can be seen from Figure 4, correlations assuming ' linear regression are not appropriate statistics for the ; curvilinear relationship between solidarity perception ; and residential propinquity. Consequently, correlational i ratio, eta, was computed for each relationship, but the I , largest of these (eta = 0.15) was not statistically sig- I nificant as determined by an F test (Guilford, 1956; 294). I Offspring Income j The multiple regression analyses (Table 9) showed ' the annual personal income of offspring to be inversely i related with offspring perceived Associational Solidarity. ■ Offspring annual household income was directly related 'with offspring perceived Consensual Solidarity. In order to determine at what point or points, if any, in the range of income that solidarity perception : changes, each income variable was categorized into sub- ,groups based on apparent differences in mean solidarity perception for the various increments of income. When personal income is considered in terms of four subgroups, the decrease in perceived Associational Solid arity is seen to be greatest between the $300 to $1000 subgroup and the $2000 to $6000 subgroup. A t-test of 90 3.9 4 between the means was highly significant at beyond the .000 level. Accordingly, the four subgroups were combined I into two for subsequent analyses, and the t-test of the difference between the means (3.76 for the lower income group, 2.86 for the higher group) was also significant (t = 4.13, p = <.001), as expected. Similarly the perception of Consensual Solidarity increased considerably when considering the higher level of household income. Those offspring reporting $21,000 or more per year perceived greater Consensual Solidarity (mean = 3.70) than those reporting less than $21,000 (mean = 3.18); the t-test of -2.38 was significant at the .01 level. Thus, the higher the personal income, the lower the Associational Solidarity, but the higher the household in- icome, the higher the Consensual Solidarity. Those off- ! spring who are economically self sufficient (as represented I by high personal income) tend to be the older youths (at least 18 years of age) many of whom may no longer live ! 'with the parent and therefore have reduced opportunity for I social contact with that parent. The relationship between household income and perceived Consensual Solidarity is less obvious. It may be that those youths with higher household income are economically able to enjoy a standard of living and life style similar to that of the parent and I I therefore share similar life views. 91 Number of Children The multiple regression analyses (Table 10) indicate a relationship of the number of children in the family to the solidarity perceptions of parents. The more children the parent reported, the less Associational Solidarity the parent perceived with the daughter (but not the son)• Also, the more children, the less Consensual Solidarity perceived by the mother with her son. However, only the correlation with Consensual Solidarity was statistically significant (r = -0.45, p = .01). When families are categorized into three groups ac cording to the number of children, those parents with three to five children are seen to perceive significantly less IAssociational Solidarity than those with fewer children, I I as indicated in Figure 5. They also perceived less Asso- I Iciational Solidarity than those with more children, how- 1 ever this difference only approached statistical signifi- ;cance. I ' In passing, a general curvilinear pattern in the i I relation of number of children (or of sibs) to perceived I solidarity by both offspring and parents is noted in Fig ure 5. Consistently less solidarity was perceived when there were three to five children or sibs, than in either smaller or larger families. However, with the single ex ception already cited, t-tests of differences between means were not significant. In addition, all correlational 92 >i +J ■H U f O T5 •H I —I o œ ( U > •H Q ) Ü ( U Pd c f d < u 5.00 4.00 3.00 Offspring perceptions Parent perceptions Affectual Affectual Consensual Associational Consensual Associational 1 — 2 3 — 5 Number of Children 6+ Figure 5. Relationship of number of children (sibship size) with the solidarity perceptions of both offspring and parents. Only t-tests between the means of adjacent categories of number of children which are statis tically significant are indicated by their probability. 93 ratios, eta, were extremely low and nonsignificant. The reasons for this unexpected curvilinear relation ship are not clear. Possibly those parents who want, and have, large families are also those parents who place an unusually high and primary value upon kin relationships, perhaps even to the exclusion of close relationships with persons outside the family structure. Summary and Conclusions The first hypothesis stated that the perception of family solidarity is influenced by the social-structural location of the perceiver. Predictions were made regarding the relationship of six aspects of social position to solidarity perception: dyad sex composition, the ages of offspring and parent, residential propinquity, income, and sibship size. Dyad Sex Composition As hypothesized, sex differences in solidarity per ception were clearly observed. In fact, the multiple re gression analyses indicated dyad sex composition to be the single most consistent aspect of social position to influ ence solidarity perception. The influence of other aspects of social-structural position varied considerably with the sex composition of the dyad. Greater solidarity was perceived within all-female than within all-male dyads. However, the expectation of 94 greater solidarity perception for same-sex than for cross sex dyads was supported only for the daughters* percep tions of solidarity with their mothers. Instead, another pattern emerged, namely that female family members, rather than the male, both (1) perceived greater Affectual Soli darity with other family members and (2) was the family member with whom male members perceived greater affectual ties. It appears that female family members occupy a special affactional role within the family. Chronological Age The multiple regression analyses partly supported the hypothesis with respect to the ages of the dyad mem bers. Only offspring age influenced solidarity perception, and then the influence was primarily of son * s age to his perceptions of solidarity with either parent. The younger the son, the greater his perceptions of solidarity. Further examination of the data indicated a relation- i i j ship of offspring age with residential propinquity, with I the offspring’s personal income, and with perceived Asso- ciational Solidarity by both dyad members. Thus, the younger the offspring, the greater probability of living with the parent, and consequently the greater Associational Solidarity perceived by offspring and parent. The greatest decline in perceived Associational Solidarity was between the 15 to 17 and the 18 to 20 year old age groups. As for 95 personal income, the younger the offspring, the less per- ' sonal income and therefore little economic self suffici ency . Residential Propinquity The multiple regression analyses also partly sup ported the hypothesis with respect to the impact of resi dential propinquity, and then the influence was clearly dependent upon the sex composition of the dyad. In the father-son dyads, the closer the father and son lived to each other, the less Associational and Affectual Solidarity the son (only) perceived. However, the opposite influence was found in both.parent-daughter dyads; the closer the I parent and daughter lived to each other, the greater Asso- Iciational Solidarity perceived by one or both dyad members. The data was examined further, and a surprising and consistent curvilinear relationship emerged when offspring and parent lived apart. Overall, greater solidarity was perceived by both dyad members when they either lived to gether or lived 21 to 150 miles apart, than when they lived either one to 20 or over 150 miles apart. Income Level The hypothesis received only partial support regard ing socio-economic status. Unexpectedly, parental income was rarely found to be related to parental solidarity per ception. However, the multiple regression analyses re 96 vealed that a son’s (only) perception of solidarity with both parents was inversely related to his personal income, such that the lower the son’s personal income, the greater his perceived solidarity. The impact of offspring house hold income was also dependent upon the dyad sex composi tion, and in addition the direction of that impact varies with the sex of the parent. Number of Children The hypothesis was also partly supported by the finding that, in general, there is an inverse relationship between number of children in the family and the parent’s perception of Associational Solidarity. In addition, a I curvilinear pattern was observed in which less solidarity I was perceived when there were three to five children in ! the family than in either smaller or larger families. I i Conclusion ■ The first hypothesis stated that a family member’s ; perception of solidarity with another family member is I influenced by the perceiver’s social position within the i family and society. This hypothesis is clearly supported by those analyses which revealed that the sex composition of the dyad, itself, greatly influences the solidarity perceptions of both the offspring and the parent. Further more, the influence of the other aspects of social-struc- j tural position upon solidarity perception and the direction 97 and extent of that influence was dependent upon the sex composition of the dyad. Taken separately, the influence of the other social position variables was specific and limited, giving only partial support to the hypothesis. CHAPTER SIX THE INFLUENCE OF EVENTS UPON SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION Having examined the relationship of social position to perceived solidarity, we now consider the impact of developmental concerns upon the relationships among family members of different generations. The purpose of this chapter is to determine the relationship of events to an individual’s perception of solidarity with another family member. The impact of events which are developmentally significant will be compared with those which are not. Relationships will be examined in terms of several hypotheses. Hypothesis Two states that the influence upon solidarity perception is greater for events of develop- I mental significance for the perceiver than for those which i are not developmentally significant. Hypothesis Three j states that the social position of the perceiver influences the impact of developmentally significant events upon per- i ceived solidarity; a more comprehensive consideration of ! this hypothesis is reserved for the following chapter. I Hypothesis Four states that the influence of developmen- I I tally significant events is greater for those events con- I cerned with offspring emancipation. 98 99 In the analyses reported in this chapter, the impact of the occurrence of events is indicated by t-tests of dif ferences between the mean solidarity perceptions of those respondents who reported occurrence of the event and the mean solidarity perception of those who did not. Unless noted otherwise, one-tail tests of statistical significance are used, since directionality of the relationship is specified. In addition, the effect of the recency of an event will be indicated by zero-order correlations for the infrequent occasions where occurrence of the event ac counted for at least five percent of the variance of the component. Offspring Solidarity Perception In the span of years between 15 and 26 years of age, many significant events occur in the lives of the offspring members of this dyad, events which bring long-standing changes in those lives and in their relationships. As will be seen, events of developmental significance for youth, and those concerned with their emancipation from parents, are associated with decreased solidarity perception by the offspring. This section considers the influence of 12 events in the lives of offspring and ten events in the lives of their parents. First to be considered are those events of devel opmental significance for the offspring followed by those 100 which are hot, the latter including certain events in pa rental lives. These relationships will also be examined with respect to the impact of certain aspects of social position reported in Chapter Five as associated with off spring solidarity perception; dyad sex composition, off spring annual income, and residential propinquity. Developmentally Significant Events For convenience and because of the similarity of the results, offspring developmentally significant events will be considered in three categories: (1) those events con cerned with the evolving educational and vocational- economic independence of the offspring, (2) the establish ment of heterosexual relationship outside the family of orientation, and (3) departure from the parental home. Evolution of Independence Five events are of interest here : termination of formal schooling, return to schooling after an earlier termination, obtaining a fulltime job, entry into a life career, and becoming self supporting. The general rela tionship of each event with offspring solidarity perception is shown in Table 12. With the single exception of return to formal school ing, the occurrence of each event is generally related to a significant decline in the offspring’s perception of solidarity with the parent. Return to formal schooling is 101 related only to decreased perception of Consensual Soli darity. The recency of occurrence of these events has no bearing upon solidarity perception. TABLE 12 RELATIONSHIP OF OFFSPRING EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL EVENTS WITH OFFSPRING SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION Nonoccurrence versus Occurrence t df P Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Termination of School Associational Consensual . . 2.21 2.82 220 218 .014 .003 3.40 3.54 136 135 2.99 3.04 86 85 Return to School Consensual . . 2.20 219 .015 3.43 184 2.92 37 First Fulltime Job Associational Affectual . . Consensual . . 2.36 1.68 2.44 221 221 218.68 .01 .047 .008 3.49 4.48 3.58 98 98 98 3.06 4.23 3.16 125 125 123 Career Entry Associational Affectual . . Consensual . . 4.02 2.88 2.79 221 221 219 .001 .002 .003 3.48 4.48 3.51 155 155 153 2.71 4.01 2.99 68 68 68 Self Supporting Associational Consensual 4.39 3.00 221 219 .001 .002 3.59 3.58 126 125 2.80 3.05 97 96 Social Position The general effect of decreased perceived solidarity with occurrence of the four events does not occur for all dyad sex configurations, all income levels, and all 102 degrees of residential propinquity, and then the impact usually is to decrease either Associational or Consensual Solidarity (only). Dyad sex composition. Decreased overall solidarity perception is noted with the sons* termination of school only in the mother-son dyads ; the decline in means averaged a substantial 1.0 8 with t-tests ranging from 2.18 (p = .017) to 5.37 (p = .001). However, in that dyad decreased Consensual Solidarity is also noted with occurrence of the other three events (excluding return to school); the reduc tion of means averaged .79, and the t-tests ranged from 1.74 (p = .045) to 2.50 (p = .008). A reduction in Associational Solidarity is seen in the father-daughter dyads with occurrence of a fulltime job, career entry, and becoming self supporting and in the father-son dyads with only the latter two events. The means decreased an average of .91 with t-tests ranging from 1.75 (p = .043) to 2.94 (p = .003). Offspring income. Only when offspring personal in come exceeded $2000 are school termination, fulltime job, and becoming self supporting associated with decreased Associational and Consensual Solidarity. In addition, career entry is related to decreased solidarity perception, generally. The means declined an average of .54, and the t-tests ranged from 1.74 (p = .042) to 3.37 (p = .001). 103 ; I For offspring with lower household income, school ! I ; termination decreases Consensual Solidarity (the mean de clined .59; t = 2.65, p = .005) and the first fulltime job : decreases Associational Solidarity (the mean decreased .51; . t = 2.31, p = .011). Decreased perception of some compo nents of solidarity is noted with career entry and becoming 1 self supporting, regardless of household income. Residential propinquity. When offspring live either i : with the parent or more than 150 miles distant, occurrence I of the first fulltime job, career entry, or becoming self i 1 supporting reduces their perception of Associational Soli darity. The relationship is also noted with termination of school when the dyad members live more than 150 miles apart. The average decline in means was .75; the t-tests ranged from 1.77 (p = .043) to 2.87 (p = .004). | Establishment of Hetero sexual Relationships Five events have been identified as concerned with the offspring establishing relationships with members of : the opposite sex outside the family of orientation: first date, engagement, first sexual relationship, marriage, and I gaining a child. The significant t-tests are indicated in ! i ' ! Table 13. ' In general, occurrence of each event, except gaining a child, reduces offspring solidarity perception. 104 en W I [/] EH :z > s H O I —I < Ph n H X u H p; W M o P ) Pî M >H E h E h H H w P : Ü Q Z H H t - P P : o p [p œ k O P 2 ° S k P O [p P P P S ° ; g C T i C T i C T i O C O C O C O C O O C O 0 . O ( d s d o s d s d O s d > 1 O o 0 0 C T i C T i ü (d 1 — 1 1 — 1 o kO kO kO p ü C M C M C M I — 1 I— 1 1 — 1 e u ü e u kO * X > en U 1 *x » p p P O O 1 — 1 o o C M I — 1 p • • • « • • • • O 1 o 1 O 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o o e u o o 0 0 C T i C T i C T i ü ( d I — 1I — 1 o K O kO K O p ( d ( N C M C M I — 1 1 — 1 I — 1 e u u e u u O I — 1 O r - r - p l> ü r d ( N en P C T i C M P 00 00 ( d ü IX « « • • • • « • e u ü en en C M en C M p u o r d e u ü ü en en en T f T f C T i ü ( d ( d r— { I — 1 P U 1 i T) P *x « o 1 e u I— 1 1 — 1 sd u C O o u r d 1 2 : r d ( N u i I — 1 IT) I — 1 00 C O ü C T i 00 P p kO p p ü Ix « • • • « « • • e u O en en P en > e u ü I — 1 I — 1 I — 1 I — 1 I— 1 I — 1 C en P O P o O P e u 0 . o O o o O o o o u « « • • « « • « u r d ü p 1 — 1 I— 1 I — 1 I — 1 C T \ 1 — 1 I— 1 ü t (N C M I — 1 C M C M P C M C M o C N C M C M C M C M C M C M C M (d o 2 in 1 — 1 1 — 1 O en 00 en vo p P en p • • • • • • • • P P C M L O C M p en C M • • • • • • fd n o •H I—I fd -P f d r d p ) •H -p U U ( U o ( ü C O W M - l c M ip O < < U r d C O c r d rd X e u œ P C O u •rH P P •H j £ d C O (d o •H P fd I —I ( U p fd rd rd C O ■ rH P jd u ü ( U o eu C O C O p j d C O p o < C U P (d e u î Î T * f d ÎT* S e u t r * fd •H U U fd S rd î d O ■ rH P fd -rH U o (0 (0 < 105 : Two events in this process of heterosexual adjustment are of particular importance: the offspring's first date and first sexual relationship. The occurrence of either event is related with a significant decrease in the off spring's perception of solidarity with their parent.1 The occurrence of engagement and marriage are limited in their importance. For both, occurrence is related only to decreased perception of Associational Solidarity. Re cency of engagement has a more general impact than recency of marriage; the more recent the engagement, the less the perception of solidarity g e n e r a l l y ,2 but the more recent the marriage, the less the perception of Consensual Soli darity (r = 0.32, p - .01). Gaining a child generally has no influence on solidarity perception and, therefore, will not be considered in further discussions. Social Position Unfortunately, the small size of many social position subsamples eliminates reliable comparison with those sub samples. Consideration of the effect of social position is limited to the influence of the first sexual relationship, engagement, and marriage for only the father-daughter and lit should be noted that the subsample of offspring who never dated is small (n = 13). ^For Associational Solidarity, r =0.26, p = .009; for Affectual Solidarity, r = 0.25, p = .012; for Consen sual Solidarity, r = 0.22, p = .027. 106 , the mother-daughter dyads and for income. Dyad sex composition. For both the father-daughter and the mother-daughter dyads, the first sexual relation ship decreases solidarity perceptions generally (except for Affectual Solidarity in the latter dyad) with an aver age reduction in the means of .82; t-tests ranged from 1.81 (p = .039) to 3.72 (p = .001). Engagement and marriage of the daughter also decreases her perception of Associational Solidarity (except for the daughter's marriage in the mother-daughter dyads). The means declined an average of .64, and the t-tests ranged from 1.77 (p = .041) to 2.04 (p = .023). Offspring income. Although Associational Solidarity declines regardless of offspring income, the general effect of the first sexual relationship is decreased Affectual and Consensual Solidarity when personal income exceeds $2000 or household income was less than $21,000. The average de cline of the means was .74 with t-tests ranging from 2.09 (p = .019) to 4.50 (p = .001). Both engagement or marriage decrease Associational Solidarity when offspring personal income exceeds $2000 ; the means declined an average of .50 with t = 2.78 (p = .00 3) and 1.7 8 (p = .039), respectively. Associational Solidarity declines with engagement, regard less of household income. 107 ; Departure from the Parental Home One offspring and two related parental events are concerned with children leaving the parental home. The impact of these events is shown in Table 14. TABLE 14 RELATIONSHIP OF OFFSPRING DEPARTURE WITH OFFSPRING SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION t df p Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Offspring Departure Associational . . . . Affectual ........... Consensual ...... 3.82 2.08 4.27 221 .001 221 .019 219 .001 3.53 4.47 3.65 132 132 131 2.84 4.15 2.91 91 91 90 Parent "Launched" A Child Associational . . . Consensual .... 2.56 2.84 220 .006 218 .003 3.53 3.63 93 93 3.05 3.13 129 127 A Child Left Home Against Will Consensual .... 1.90 219 .029 3.42 190 . 2.94 31 The offspring's own report of having permanently left their parent's home may be the landmark event of emancipation, signifying a definite physical separation. Offspring reporting this event perceive significantly less solidarity with the parent than those who did not. Two related events are reports from parents of the departure of an offspring from the parental home, not necessarily the departure of the specific offspring member 108 of the dyad. Occurrence of either a parent "launching" a child into a life of their own or having a child leave home against parental will is associated with decreased offspring perceived Consensual Solidarity with the parent. In addition, occurrence of "launching" a child is associ ated with decreased offspring perception of Associational Solidarity with the parent. Recency is noted; the more recent child left against parental wishes, the greater the perception of Consensual Solidarity by the offspring dyad member, the event accounting for ten percent of the variance of the dependent variable (r = -0.32, p = .04). Social Position The influence of all three aspects of social position will be considered only for the departure of the offspring dyad member from the parental home and the parent having "launched" a child into a life of their own. Consideration of the effect of residential propinquity is not possible because of the small subsamples of offspring not living with the parent. Dyad sex composition. The general effect of the off spring respondent leaving home is observed for all but the father-daughter dyads, although there were no changes in perceived Affectual Solidarity in the two same-sex dyads. The means declined an average of .85; t-tests ranged from 1.79 (p = .04) to 4.51 (p = .001). However, Associational 109 Solidarity decreases, regardless of sex composition. The effect of the parent "launching" a child upon Associational and Consensual Solidarity is noted only in the mother-son dyads and upon Consensual Solidarity in the mother-daughter dyads: the means decreased an average of .75 with t = 1.99 (p = .026) and 2.44 (p = .01), respectively. Offspring income. Decreased solidarity perception with the respondent leaving the parental home generally occurs only in those dyads with high personal or low house hold income. The means declined an average of .59, and the t-tests ranged from 1.66 (p = .05) to 3.79 (p = .001). Consensual Solidarity decreases, regardless of personal in come. Reduced Associational and Consensual Solidarity with the "launching" of a child is seen only when the offspring reported high personal income. The means decreased an an average of .53, and t = 2.40 (p = .009) and 2.6 3 (p = .005), respectively. Developmentally Nonsignificant Events Events both specific to the life of the offspring and specific to the lives of the parents and prejudged as having no developmental significance for the offspring will now be considered. In these analyses, two-tail tests of significance will be used. Offspring Events Offspring beginning to attend church is the only 110 offspring event judged as having no developmental signif icance for offspring. In accord with the developmental perspective, this event has no significant occurrence or recency effect upon offspring solidarity perception. In general, the social position of the respondent has little or random impact. Parental Events Several events in the lives of parents, each having no developmental significance for the offspring dyad mem ber, will be examined for possible influence upon offspring solidarity perception : parent terminated formal schooling, parent sensed an impending nervous breakdown, and parental career entry. With the exception of the latter event, none of these events are related to offspring solidarity percep tion. Parental career entry, the single exception, is re lated to decreased solidarity perception, as indicated in Table 15. The frequency of nonoccurrence is low and pri marily reflects the mothers (n = 14) who probably did not identify their housekeeping, conjugal, and child-rearing roles as a career. The effect of social position cannot be determined because of so few instances of nonoccurrence. Parentai Solidarity Perception The focus now shifts to the influence of events upon the solidarity perceptions of the parents. As was just Ill TABLE 15 RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL CAREER ENTRY WITH OFFSPRING SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION t df P* Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Associational . . 2.49 221 .013 4.06 16 3.18 207 Affectual . . . . 2.13 221 .034 4.92 16 4.29 207 Consensual . . . 5.99 20.89 .001 4.53 15 3.26 206 *Two-tail tests of significance. noted, particularly those events involved in the process of emancipation of youth from the parent are associated with reduced solidarity perceptions. This influence of events will be observed in this section as well. However, events in the lives of the parents generally will show relatively little influence upon parental perceptions. This general I pattern only emphasizes the importance of emancipation to ; the solidarity perceptions of both parent and offspring. ; This section examines the influence of ten events in I the lives of parents and ten in the lives of their off- i spring. As before, events will be considered in terms of jtheir developmental significance, but now for the parents. Three aspects of social position shown in Chapter Five to influence parental solidarity perception will also be con sidered for their impact upon the general relationships now to be reported: dyad sex composition, residential pro pinquity, and number of children. 112 The Emancipation of the Offspring Many immediate events in the lives of offspring are important in the evolution of the parent-offspring rela tionship and therefore may have developmental relevance for the parent as well. This examination of the influence of events upon parental perceptions of this relationship will follow the sequences of the preceding section of the chapter. Offspring Economic Independence Four events in the lives of offspring, each concerned with increasing economic independence, are relevant to the satisfaction of parental developmental concerns : termina tion of formal schooling, achievement of a full-time job, entry into a life career, and achievement of complete eco nomic self support. T-tests indicating the significant relationships of each event to parental solidarity percep tion are indicated in Table 16. For all events except career entry, those parents whose offspring had experienced the event, perceived less Associational Solidarity (only) with that offspring, than those parents whose offspring had not, a finding congruent with the developmental concerns of the parents. Social Position The extent to which social position effects these relationships will be explored with three of the events. 113 TABLE 16 RELATIONSHIP OF OFFSPRING EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL EVENTS WITH PARENTAL SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION Nonoccurrence versus Occurrence t df p Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Termination of School Associational . 2.17 218 .016 3.61 136 3.24 84 First Full-Time Job Associational . 1.79 219 .038 3.64 97 3.34 124 Self Supporting Associational . 3.25 219 .001 3.70 125 3.17 96 The general effect of these events to decrease parental perception of Associational Solidarity is not generally seen among the various conditions of social position. Dyad sex composition. Decreased Associational Soli darity is noted in the father-son dyads with the son's first fulltime job or becoming self supporting and in the father-daughter dyads when the daughters became self sup porting. The decline in means averaged .82; t-tests ranged from 1.89 (p = .033) to 3.14 (p = .002). Residential Propinquity. With the single exception of decreased Associational Solidarity when the offspring became self supporting and the dyad members lived together, the influence of these three events is not noted for the : 114 : I I various degrees of residential propinquity. As for the 1 I ' exception, the mean perceived Associational Solidarity de- ! : ! dined ,50 and t = 1.88 (p = .032). Number of children. The decline in perceived Associ ational Solidarity occurs only when offspring terminate school and come from a large family of three or more children, or when the offspring obtained his first fulltime job and comes from a small family. The means declined an average of .46; t = 1.80 (p = .037) and 1.81 (p = .038), respectively. The decreased Associational Solidarity when offspring become self supporting is noted, regardless of family size. Establishment of Hetero sexual Relationship Five events experienced by an offspring are concernedi with the establishment of that offspring's relations with the opposite sex : the first date, the first sexual rela tionship, engagement, marriage, and gaining a child. T-tests indicating the significant influence of these events on parental perception are shown in Table 17. Developmentally each event may be regarded as potentially disruptive to the satisfaction of parental developmental ' concerns. The first sexual relationship and the first date are : the most influential events of this set. Occurrence of 115 TABLE 17 RELATIONSHIP OF OFFSPRING HETEROSEXUAL EVENTS WITH PARENTAL SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION Nonoccurrence versus Occurrence t df p Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n First Date Associational 2.77 219 .003 4.38 13 ■ 3.14 208 Consensual • 2.80 17.68 .006 4.31 13 3.77 211 First Sexual Relationship Associational . 4.11 219 .001 4.06 54 3.28 167 Affectual . . 2.95 118.46 .002 4.85 54 4.48 170 Consensual • 3.92 115.16 .001 4.26 54 3.65 170 Engagement Associational • 2.96 219 .002 3.65 143 3.14 78 Marriage Associational 3.09 219 .001 3.61 16 8 3.02 53 Affectual . . • 1.95 222 .027 4.64 170 4. 36 54 either event is related to a significant decrease in paren tal perception of solidarity with the offspring.^ Offspring engagement is related to reduced parental perception of Associational Solidarity, and marriage is related to decreases in both Associational and Affectual Solidarity. In contrast, the offspring gaining a child by birth, adoption or marriage has no relationship to parental solidarity perception. Apparently these events form a sequence in the ^As in Table 13, it should be noted that the sub sample of offspring who never dated is small (n = 13). 116 development of nonfamily heterosexual relationships, and the sequence is accompanied by a progressive lessening of parental perception of interaction and shared activity with the offspring. The mean perception of Associational Soli darity with those offspring who had their first date was 3.41, the first sexual relationship was 3.28, engagement was 3.14, and finally marriage was 3.02. Occurrence of the first two events seems to be a major turning point for the parent in their evaluation of the similarity of opin ions with the offspring; with occurrence of the two events, perceived Consensual Solidarity declines. Social Position Only the offspring's first sexual relationship and marriage can be used to examine the effect of social posi tion, because of the small subsamples available for many of the conditions of social position. Dyad sex composition. The impact of dyad sex com position can be seen only in the dyads with daughters, since too few sons reported no sexual experience. The daughter's first sexual experience decreases her father's perception of Consensual Solidarity (mean decreased .71, t = 2.07, p = .022) and the mother's perception of Associa tional and Affectual Solidarity. The average decline in the means for the mothers was .55 with t = 2.44 (p = .009) and 1.67 (p = .05), respectively for the two solidarity 117 components• The reduction in Associational and Affectual Soli darity is noted with offspring marriage only in the mother- daughter dyads. The decline in means averaged .62; t = 2.53 (p = .007) and 2.17 (p = .017), respectively. A decline in Associational and Consensual Solidarity is seen with marriage in the father-daughter dyads : the means decreased an average of .79 with t-tests of 2.83 (p = .00 3) and 2.18 (p = .017), respectively. Residential Propinquity. Decreased parental percep tion of solidarity related to the offspring's first sexual experience is noted when parent and offspring live to gether. The means declined an average of .60, and the t-tests ranged from 2.72 (p = .004) to 3.34 (p = .001). However, because of the low frequency of nonoccurrence with the other degrees of residential propinquity, the general relationship can not be examined further. Number of children. In contrast, family size has little impact. Parental solidarity perception decreases with the offspring's first sexual experience, and Associa tional Solidarity decreases with offspring marriage, regardless of family size. However, when the offspring married and comes from a small family of only one or two children, parental perception of Affectual and Consensual Solidarity also decline. The average decline of the means 118 was .79; t = 2.86 (p = .003) and 3.02 (p = .002) , respec tively. Departures from the Parental Home An offspring's own statement of emancipation from the parental home is perhaps the single most relevant event of geographical independence to parental developmental con cerns. Thus, in clear support of the developmental per spective, the parents of those offspring who reported having permanently left the parental home perceive signif icantly less solidarity with that offspring than the par ents of those offspring still living with them (Table 18). TABLE 18 RELATIONSHIP OF OFFSPRING DEPARTURE WITH PARENTAL SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION t df p Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Offspring Departure Associational 5.02 219 .001 3.80 131 2.99 90 Affectual . . . 2.20 222 .015 4.69 132 4.41 92 Consensual . . 2.31 222 .011 3.95 132 3.59 92 Parent "Launched" A Child Associational . 1.99 218 .024 3.67 91 3.33 129 A Child Left Home Against Will Consensual . . 1.98 222 .025 3.86 19 3 3.42 31 119 Parental reports of offspring departure are less supportive toward the developmental perspective, probably because the parent reported the departure of any of their offspring and not necessarily the departure of the off spring dyad member. "Launching" a child was judged to be congruent with parental developmental concerns, but in conflict with this evaluation, parents who reported having "launched" a child actually perceive less Associational Solidarity with the specific offspring dyad member than do parents who have not launched a child.1 Having a child leave home against parental wishes was judged to be disruptive to parental developmental concerns. In accord with this evaluation, those parents who reported this experience perceive less Consensual Solidarity with the offspring dyad member than do parents who had not. Another form of departure from the family is loss of a child through death, an event also judged as disruptive to parental developmental concerns. However, parents experiencing this loss, as a group, do not differ in their ■ perceptions of solidarity with the surviving offspring dyad member from those not experiencing this loss. Yet, the more recent the death of a child, the less the perceived ^Considering the fairly consistent reduction in parental solidarity perception (one or more components per event) with three of the "departure" events, the evaluation of this event as congruent with the develop mental concerns of parents could be questioned. 120 solidarity with the surviving offspring. The zero-order correlations were more substantial than those cited pre viously; for Associational Solidarity r = 0.67 (p = .002), for Affectual Solidarity r = 0.39 (p = .06), and for Con sensual Solidarity r = 0.50 (p = .02). Apparently, the sense of loss may generalize to other offspring initially, the parent withdraws, but with the passage of time a sense of solidarity with other offspring gradually resumes. Social Position The influence of social position will be examined only of those offspring who reported leaving the parental home and those parents who reported "launching" a child. The low frequency of the other two events eliminates their consideration in further analyses. In addition, sample size was too limited to examine the influence of residen tial propinquity. Dyad sex composition. The sex configuration of the dyad has no effect upon the reduction of Associational Solidarity when the offspring dyad member has left their parental home. However, in the mother-daughter dyad only, parental perception of Affectual and Consensual Solidarity also declines when the daughter leaves home. The means declined an average of .50; t = 1.86 (p = .0 35) and 2.31 (p = .013), respectively. Only in the paternal dyads does parental solidarity 121 perception decline when the parent has launched a child. The father's perception of Associational Solidarity de clines with their son (the mean decreased .68; t =1.81, p = .039), while the father's perception of both Associa tional and Affectual Solidarity decreases with their daughter (the means declined an average of .51; t = 1.80 (p = .039) and 2.09 (p = .021), respectively. Number of children. Associational Solidarity de creases with the offspring's departure from the parental home, regardless of family size. However, only in the small families of one or two children does this event reduce also parental perception of Affectual and Consensual Solidarity. The means declined an average of .69; and the t-tests ranged from 2.54 (p = .007) to 3.03 (p = .002). Parental launching a child decreases Associational Soli darity only in families of three or more children; the mean decreased .37 with t = 1.82, p = .036. Events in the Lives of Parents Several events in the lives of parents concerned with a departure of an offspring from the parental home have been considered. Now, the influence of seven other events in the lives of the parents will be examined. First will be those events whose occurrence was prejudged to be con gruent with, or supportive toward parental developmental concerns, followed by events prejudged either as hindering 122 or disrupting parental concerns or as developmentally non significant for parents. Developmentally Congruent Events Three events are of interest here : parental career entry, gaining a child, and the parent terminated formal schooling. Only parental career entry is seen to be related to parental solidarity perception. As indicated in Table 19, career entry reduces parental perception of Affectual and Consensual Solidarity. TABLE 19 RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL CAREER ENTRY WITH PARENTAL SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION t df p Non- Occurrence Occurrence X n X n Affectual . . . . Consensual . . . 4.57 25.69 .001 4.64 23.94 .001 5.15 16 4.56 16 4.53 208 3.74 208 In spite of this statistical relationship, the frequency of nonoccurrence is low, as previously reported, and probably reflects mothers who did not identify their housekeeping, conjugal, and child-rearing activities as a career* The low frequency of nonoccurrence eliminated deter mination of the effect of the various conditions of social L . _ 123 position. Developmental Significance On the basis of the developmental concerns of the parent, it would be expected that occurrence of these four events would at best increase and not decrease parental solidarity perception, since parents theoretically are j concerned with intergenerational continuity and validation I of self through the offspring. However, this is not I I observed in the data. I I Part of the reason may be the nature of the events, I j themselves. These events lack contemporary relevance. For ; most parents occurrence was not recent but many years ago. 1 I Consequently, the impact upon current family relationships j would be minimal. This clearly appears to be the case I when the data for these events is examined more closely. Career entry occurred one to 51 years previous for the : parents, the median being 23.82 years, with only seven parents reporting this event occurring in the last ten years. Similarly, the parents terminated formal school- Iing two to 47 years previous and only 19 in the last ten 'years; the median was 2 3.42 years. The addition of a ! ,child occurred a median of 14.35 years before, although 51 parents reported gaining a child in the last ten years ; I the range was two to 27 years. More recent and appro- ■priately selected events would provide a better test of 124 j the hypotheses. I IDevelopmentally Disruptive Events One event prejudged to be disruptive to parental developmental concerns was a feeling that a nervous break down was impending by the parent.1 The effect of this event is to decrease parental perception of Associational Solidarity; the mean decreased .30 with t = 1.67, p = .049. When social position is considered, this effect is found only in the mother-daughter dyads; the mean declined .65, and t = 2.32, p = .012. Developmentally, it would be anticipated that such a negative event would have more widespread impact. Perhaps it is simply that such an experience is purely an intra personal, rather than an interpersonal, event accompanied by partial withdrawl from family relationships and there- ' fore not otherwise influencing affectual ties or similarity of attitudes. This event, unlike the four just discussed, . is a relatively recent occurrence for many parents (median ' is 10.75 years) with 22 parents reporting the experience within five years of responding to the questionnaire. Developmentally Non- j significant Events ! Two evenLs in a parent's life were judged to be of no. ^See pages 118 to 122 regarding two other develop mentally disruptive events. I 125 ; ; ! developmental significance for parents and consequently ' ! ' I could not be expected to influence parental perception of I solidarity with an offspring : the parent started formal ' schooling and the parent permanently left their own paren tal home•1 In clear support of the developmental perspective, neither event influences parental solidarity perception. The average decrease of the means was only .21 with the t-tests ranging from .15 to 1.00, none of which attained statistical significance (two-tail tests). ' A low frequency of nonoccurrence prevents examination I of the effect of social position. However, this support to the developmental perspec- ,tive may be questioned, since neither event is generally ' of recent occurrence. The most recent that a parent started formal schooling was 22 years ago. Only two parents had permanently left their own parental (that is, grandparent) home in the last ten years. The issue is again one of the importance of the contemporariness of an event and its developmental significance. Conclusions I The impact of developmentally significant events in | 1a1though the frequency of nonoccurrence was small 'for both events (n = 11 and 13, respectively), both events are cited since they are the only available events of this nature. 126 : ; I ; the lives of parents and their offspring upon the percep- ' 'tion of the parent-offspring relationship has been the ! j major concern of this chapter. The major findings, sum marized in Table 20, are primarily relevant to several . hypotheses of this study. The second hypothesis states that the influence upon perception of solidarity is greater for those events of developmental significance for the perceiver than for those which are not. Essentially, this is what is observed for 'the offspring dyad members. In predictable manner occur rence of those events of developmental significance for ! offspring decreased their perception of solidarity with I their parent (for example, terminating school and becoming self supporting). Furthermore, those events of no develop mental significance generally did not influence offspring ! solidarity perception (for example, beginning church attendance). This influence is also observed upon the solidarity t perceptions of the parents but to a somewhat lesser extent and then primarily upon parental perception of Associa- Itional Solidarity only. While not prejudged as develop mentally significant for the parent, these same "offspring"I i events (for example, offspring terminating school, becoming 'self supporting, offspring's first sexual relationship) ! .had greater influence upon parental solidarity perception I than did those events in the parent's life which had been 127 I o CM : s ‘ § , Eh T5 C >1 r d P • p H P 1 —1 k l 1 — 1 (d r d r d r d p C C t5 Ü c O O -H > 1 O e u ■H ■ p H I — 1 P ■H p n P p o • p H P •H r d r d r d CO k l r d k l Pi « r i •p H r d • p H r d U >i U P nd ü >, rd p! O p O r d • p H 0 P • p H O c / 3 -p H e n 0 p e n -p H p e n n e n e n O e n k l o P < r d < C e n < r d e n U C D T5 Q ) e n -p H e n e n e n e n -p H e n P e n P e n c e n e n P e n P ( U O e u O C D eu O C D P iP CO iP U iP P CO P 4 ( -P c c u > H g S IS H W E h O S M p c i p L , CD h h O O p L , g CD k PI W CD O % M Pi p L , CD k k O PI D k E h œ Pi M k o z M Pi p L , CD k k O Eh S W Pi W u o s M Pi p L , CD k ë p 8 g to O E h O E h O s M Pi p L , CO Ë o H < Q Eh S H k O % M Pi p L , CO k k O R M C O E h C O Pi M PW pL, M « ® CJ C O % % H O Pi M p L , EH C O C k p k W O S I % P O % M Pi p L , CO p p o I M P P o % M P P CO g o Q P H P U < Q M % M g CJ % M P P CO p p o I p E h P 5 O IS M P P CO p p o ^ ^ + + + + + + + + + + + \ / \ / \ / \ / \ [I / \ \ \ \ y >1 \/ \ \ N/ p ! T > y \ \ - r H C p V y V p k l • pH r d ¥ V r d e n r d k l G G e n 13 0 >1 P >1 >1 O C D•H >1 e n ■ pHp P r d P P ■H P p P p P r d ■ pH : d • r H • r H P O •H p r d 0 k l e n k l s k l r d • > CO k l O ■P e n r d C r d p i d •H P r d U P >1 Td e u >1 Td ■ C nd U >1 ü p id C o C DP • pH e nP ■ pH C D■H O P C D r d •H O e n e n■H p C •H 1 —1 ü P e n p ü : d 1 —i e n C k l O O k l 0 C D o e n k l C D e n ( D p < O r d e n U r d e n k l e n < r d k l C e n ü U T5 C D C D e n •H e n e n• pH e n C D e n e n * pH 0 ) e n e n P e n Td P e n e np e n k l e n e n P k l C e n P C D o C D C D O C D O C D C D O 0 0 ( U W. . p. CO_ ... P.. ..0 CO . . P. . _ _s rH.. P w _ u P g g p u s g o % M p p CO P P O 128 tj C ü P p •H P Ü 0 U 1 I o C M S § EH P c 1 — 1 a i p o p p fd 3i O •H 13 p S 3 fd fd 13 P (ü p fd P P 1 — 1 1 — 1 kl p 3 1 P P fd 0 fd fd C O ^ U (d 3 S C O eu p 3i p fd p p u >, C ü > 1 P 13 C 3 >1 u p ü O p C O P C ü P O P C ü (d O C O p 3l P U p C O p p p C O kl O P C ü o C O p p e n p < fd C J (d p C O < C fd < 3: u 13 13 13 C ü C ü C O p C O p C ü C O C O P e n e n p C O P C O p p C O C O 1 — 1 e n ü p C ü 0 C ü o O C ü C ü 0 C ü 0 H p C O p C O S p p C O p u - K P Ü I g •H k l C L . C O p p Q g P ü C ü p p H Q P H K U < 0 1 z: ! E H s f d P O • H I—I p (d (d ■ H u o C O C O C O ü < O U 13 C O -H C O 13 p C ü S 3 o p (d C O 3 1 C O C >1 C ü p •H kl fd o m § Q p H 5 E H Q C C Pk m E h E h C O S S Is Ck <C C ü I — I k l f d o P e C O p C ü C O p ü -H O k l cj f d 13 C O p C O I — I C ü o p C O fd C O (Il kl p (d p C O c C ü C O p o u >1 p p kl (d 13 p p o __^ 1 H - 1 o o + ! S —' K — Q < g p E H P C J H a < p H w o § s H o W p û - -s . o Q o C J « < o K m Q < C J - - - X C J C P p P ffl C O H s p P Q K p p O E h Q Q W U H O S P W S C J P K P H E h H E H s C J P < < C O H Q p < C J % C J W Q H P H Q S e u % E h S E H P W M E H C O S C O O — e u E H C J P O H < + S S w H p E H p C O ' H M p P E h E H E H E H P E H E H E H E H S s S S O s S H W O M M W H § S S O h K s P P P < < < < C J < < c < e u e u e u e u C O p P p P >1 p p n fd 13 P I —I O C O C O C O C ü p C ü P P d ■ H J3 p ■ H p H 0 Xi S X e n e n C ü P P i 3 ! P C ü k l > i (d Xi Oi 13 k l C ü O p p f d ü P 'H p; 13 t P e i •H •H k l e n C ü •H P! ' P P e i O C ü P > C ü 13 3i C ü (d p p tp P p ■H 0 k l eu C ü e n u p e i p f d O ü •H k l P O •H P e l C r > P •H P e n C ü 1 — 1 p f d C ü P P: G p (ü S o CUP 0 p C ü e n > C ü C ü e n Q C ü * P î p k î C ü k l (d a 129 i i I I prejudged as developmentally significant for parents (for i example, the parent gaining a child or the parent’s oldest i I child beginning school.) A probcible reason for this is that many of the events in the lives of the parents are not as contemporary as are the events in the lives of the offspring. Therefore, the , greater recency of the latter events accounts for their greater impact upon parental solidarity perception. An other possibility is that these same "offspring" events have consequences for the parent, as well, since most of them are concerned with youth’s emancipation and emancipa- , tion arouses parental concern with continuity and self validation through their offspring and fear of loss of such validation. Regardless, the findings of this chapter give much support to the second hypothesis, particularly as regards those events involved in the emancipation of youth. As for parental events, however, the results are equivocal, and ■ the issue remains open for further investigation. This, then brings us to another hypothesis under con- ; sidération in this chapter— that the influence upon per- ; ceived solidarity is greater for those events concerned ; with the emancipation of offspring than for those which ' are not. Clearly, this hypothesis is supported, as in dicated in the discussion above. A more comprehensive review of the joint influence : 130 of events and social position, already reported in this I i chapter, now follows in Chapter Seven. CHAPTER SEVEN THE INTERACTION OF SOCIAL POSITION AND EVENTS UPON SOLIDARITY PERCEPTION This chapter attempts to integrate the findings regarding the impact of both sets of independent variables upon the perception of solidarity by offspring and parent. Although in the previous chapter, the impact of the social-structural position of a dyad member upon the gen eral relationships between certain events and solidarity perception was reported, a more comprehensive and system atic consideration of the third hypothesis has been de ferred until now. This hypothesis states that the influ ence upon perceived solidarity by developmentally signif- jleant events is dependent upon the social position of the I individual dyad member. ' The approach is to take each aspect of social posi- Ition and event separately and to look for both general and j specific patterns of influence upon solidarity perception. I Only statistically significant effects of event occurrence I will be considered in this chapter. Most of the relation- ! ships to be cited have already been reported in Chapter I j Six. j I 131 132 Dyad Sex Composition and Events In Chapter Five several general relationships of sex 'composition to solidarity perception were reported. The primary finding was that dyad sex composition was the most consistent aspect of social position to influence solidar ity perception, with greater solidarity perception noted within all-female than within all-male dyads. In addition, males perceived greater Affectual Solidarity with a female than with a male dyad member. It appeared that the female family member tended to be a center for affectual bonds within the family. It is clear from Chapter Six, however, that the impact of an event upon solidarity perception is not always universal, and, in fact, that the sex configuration of the dyad influences the impact of events. For example, reduced offspring perception of Associational Solidarity with an offspring’s career entry or becoming self supporting is noted only in the father-offspring and not the mother- off spring dyads. Similarly, paternal (and not maternal) perception of Associational Solidarity decreased with the offspring becoming self supporting. Each dyadic sex configuration will be examined now to delineate the influence of that configuration upon the observed relationships between events and solidarity per ception. 133 The Father-Son Dyad Events for the father-son dyad generally had less impact on paternal than on the son’s solidarity percep tions, but for both the most common effect of event occur rence was a reduction in perceived Associational Solidarity with infrequent, if any, changes in either Affectual or Consensual Solidarity. For the son, entry into a life career and becoming self supporting are the two events which had the broadest impact— a reduction in the son’s perceived Associational Solidarity with his father.1 It may be that these two events, unlike the first fulltime job, involves greater time and energy by the son and thus less opportunity for interaction with the father. It may also be that they are more meaningful activities for the son, representing greater male adult status and grat ification of the son’s developmental concerns (Aldous and Hill, 1965; Sussman, 1965). From the father’s view, how ever, the son either obtaining his first fulltime job or becoming self supporting also reduced his perceived Associational Solidarity with the son. The effect of the son’s career entry upon parental perception was not determined. iThe means delined substantially an average of .98; t-tests ranged from 1.98 (p = .027) to 4.51 (p = <.001) . : I i The Mother-Son Dyad j I In the mother-son dyad, events also had relatively ■ ' little impact upon parental solidarity perception, although! ' there were many effects upon the son’s perceptions, pri marily by events of the emancipation process. • I The son’s perceptions of the mother-son relationship , are most influenced by the son’s permanently leaving home or terminating his formal schooling. Occurrence of either | ' event reduced his perceptions of solidarity with his , mother, while only maternal perception of Associational Solidarity decreased if he left home or Consensual Soli darity decreased if he terminated school. The means de clined an average of .64; t = 1.71 (p = .047) and 1.9 2 (p = .03), respectively. Having a sib leave home had a similar effect upon the son’s perception of Associational , and Consensual Solidarity. ' The other vocational-economic event also have effect, although limited to a reduction of the son’s per ception of Consensual Solidarity, and Associational Soli- I 1 darity as well (mean declined .60; t = 1.73, p = .046) i when he became self supporting. Since the mother tradi tionally does not have a vocational or economic role out- i : side the family, events concerned with these roles have ' little impact on her perceived relationships with the son, ' his school termination or leaving home being more signif- ; , icant for her. This may be an instance in which sex I 135 : : related roles and norms are not as fully shared in cross- ■ I ■ I sex, as in same-sex, dyads (Aldous, 1967; Aldous and Hill, i i 1965; Bengtson, 1972; Troll, 1971). i The Father-Daughter Dyad , It is the father-daughter dyad in which an off spring’s first sexual experience has such an unique impact ' on solidarity, as seen in a general reduction in the daughter’s dolidarity perception with the parent, a reduc tion not noted for the father’s solidarity perceptions. The loss of virginity for the daughter apparently is a 'turning point in her ties with her father, in which new heterosexual bonds form. That the father’s perceived solidarity does not also generally diminish could mean | that he may not have been aware of the event. However, his perception of Consensual Solidarity with his daughter | did decline with occurrence of this event. That the daughter’s first sexual experience may be a secret shared with the mother, if at all, is partly supported by mater nal solidarity perception which is also reduced by the event in the mother-daughter dyads. Again, this may reflect basic same-sex versus cross-sex differences cited earlier (Aldous, 1967 ; Aldous and Hill, 1965; Bengtson, | : ■ I 1972; Troll, 1971). For the father, however, his daugh ter’s marriage may be the event finalizing his daughter’s emancipation. Her marriage reduced paternal perception 136 of Associational and Consensual Solidarity. The Mother-Daughter Dyad The members of this dyad have been observed to per ceive the greatest solidarity perception between themselves than the members of the other dyads, reflecting previous reports of greater solidarity in female.and same-sex lineages, than in male and cross-sex lineages (Aldous, 1967; Bengtson, 1972; Troll, 1971). This dyad also was the least influenced by the occurrence of those events con cerned with,the offspring’s vocational-economic emancipa tion, possibly reflecting the historical deemphasis of economic roles for women (Bettelheim, 1962; Komarovsky, 1950). The critical events in a daughter’s emancipation appear to be her permanently leaving home and certain events concerned with her heterosexual experiences, all of which tend to decrease solidarity perception by both mother and daughter. The daughter’s first sexual experience reduced the perception of Associational and Consensual Solidarity by the daughter and of Associational and Affec tual Solidarity by the mother. The daughter’s engagement also decreased her perception of Associational and Con sensual Solidarity (the means declined an average of .56; t =2.03, p = .023, and t = 1.85, p = .035, respectively), and the daughter’s marriage decreased her mother’s 137 perception of Associational and Affectual Solidarity. ; Residential Propinquity and Events ‘ As indicated in Chapter Five, residential propinquity influences the perception of solidarity, and, in partic ular, an individual’s perception of Associational Soli darity. The chronological age of the offspring member accounted for much of this impact. Thus, the older the offspring, the less liklihood of living with the parent, and the less perceived Associational Solidarity by both dyad members. In addition, an unexpected pattern emerged for both dyad members; there was greater perceived soli darity when the two family members either lived together or lived twenty-one to 150 miles apart, than when they lived either one to twenty or more than 150 miles apart. This discussion considers the combined influence of events and residential propinquity upon perceived Associa- I ;tional Solidarity only. Unfortunately, small subsamples I when the dyad members lived apart prevents a complete I evaluation of the effect of residential propinquity. The general effect of the occurrence of the events cited is to reduce the perception of Associational Soli darity by both offspring and parent (as concluded by Bengtson, Olander, and Haddad, 19 75). In contrast, the general recency effect when it is observed, is usually to increase perceived Associational Solidarity. However, when 138 residential propinquity is also considered, the reductive effect of event occurrence is noted primarily for events in the offspring’s life and only upon offspring solidarity perception. The reductive effect of events is noted mainly when offspring and parent live together, but it is also seen when they live more than 150 miles apart. It must be stated, however, that this pattern may be a result of the fact that small sample size limited reliable analyses for most of the comparisons involving dyads in which the members live one to twenty and twenty-one to 150 miles apart. Despite this limitation, the pattern is particularly observed in the impact of the offspring vocational- educational events upon offspring perception of Associa tional Solidarity. When offspring and parent either live together or more than 150 miles distant, the offspring obtaining their first fulltime job, entering a career, or becoming self supporting decreased their perception of Associational Solidarity with their parent, as reported in Chapter Six. In addition, when residential propinquity exceeded 150 miles, the offspring’s termination of school ing also decreased their perception of Associational Soli darity (the mean declined .76; t = 2.03, p = .026) . The only effect upon parental perception of Associational Solidarity was a decrease when the offspring became self supporting, as previously cited. 139 A second set of relationships concerns the off spring’s heterosexual development. When the dyad members lived together, the offspring’s first sexual experience reduced perceived Associational Solidarity by both dyad members, but more for the offspring (the mean declined a substantial 1.38) than for the parent (mean declined .60); the t-tests were 5.82 (p =<.001) and 3.06 (p = .002), respectively. The offspring’s engagement reduced offspring perceived Associational Solidarity, both when living with the parent and when living more than 150 miles distant; the means declined an average of .96 with t = 2.73 (p = .004) and 2.91 (p = .003), respectively. A final relationship is noted when the parent launches a child. When the parent and offspring live together, occurrence of this event was related to decreased offspring perception of Associational Solidarity, with the mean reduced .55 and t = 2.06 (p = .021). Offspring Income and Events The multiple regression analyses revealed two rela tionships between offspring income level and offspring solidarity perception. First, the greater the personal income, the less Associational Solidarity perceived with the parent. Second, the greater the household income, the greater the Consensual Solidarity perceived. In addition, it was observed that personal income was directly related I 140 ! to the chronological age of the offspring; the younger the I offspring, the less their personal income. ' The date clearly suggests that it is the offspring who is economically independent of the parent for whom these events— most of which are concerned with emancipa tion— generally reduce perceived solidarity with the parent. Only when the offspring reported high personal ! income ($2000 or more per year) , does occurrence of vocational-economic events (all but return to school), heterosexual events (except marriage), and "departure" events (excluding a child leaving against parental wishes) decreases the offspring’s perception of Associational Solidarity and usually Consensual Solidarity, as well. The relationship of household income to Consensual Solidarity is noted less consistently with event occur rence. Only when the offspring reported a low annual household income of under $21,000, does school termination, the first sexual relationship, and permanently leaving the parental home reduce offspring perception of Consensual Solidarity with the parent. However, this impact of event upon Consensual Solidarity is noted for several other events as well (becoming self supporting, career entry, engagement, and marriage), regardless of household income level. Number of Children and Events Previous analyses revealed that the number of 141 children reported by a parent was inversely related to parental perception of Associational Solidarity. Thus, the greater the number of children, the lower the parent’s perception of Associational Solidarity with the particular offspring dyad member. For seven offspring events, decreased Associational Solidarity is noted when the t-test comparisons are based on family size. Decreased Associational Solidarity per ception by the parent is seen for four of these events, regardless of family size (offspring becoming self sup porting, offspring’s first sexual relationship, offspring’s marriage, and offspring’s permanent departure from home). Of the remaining events, offspring school termination and parental "launching" a child were related to decreased Associational Solidarity only in the larger families of three or more children. Parental perception of Associational Solidarity decreased only for those offspring obtaining their first fulltime job in the smaller families of only one or two children. In addition, two other and more general rela tionships are noted in small families. Both the off spring's marriage and permanent departure from the parental home were also related to decreased parental perception of solidarity generally.1 ^The means for offsprings’ departure declined an average of .71; t = 2.54 (p = .007) and 3.03 (p = .002), respectively for the two components. 142 In small families there is at best only one other offspring to fill the void created by a departure of an offspring. Consequently, such departures are apt to be of greater importance to parents of small families, in accord with prior studies which characterize small families in terms of parental-offspring closeness, individualized relationships, and parental reluctance to let go of their children (Bossard and Boll, 19 56a, 19 56b, 1966; Hawkes, Burchinal, and Gardner, 1958; Nye, 1952). Conclusions This chapter has integrated the findings regarding the impact of both social position and developmentally significant events upon the perception of family soli darity . The third hypothesis of the study states that the impact of developmentally significant events upon the perception of family solidarity was dependent upon the social position of the perceiver both in society and within their family. Much support for this hypothesis is observed in findings reported in this and the preceding chapter. The sex configuration of the dyad was observed to be a very significant factor in the impact of events on the perception of both dyad members. Each of the four dyads differentiated on the basis of their sex composition of members was seen to have its own unique set of relation- 143 ships of events to the solidarity perceptions of one or both dyad members. For example, only in the father- offspring dyads did offspring career entry or becoming self supporting reduce offspring Associational Solidarity perception, and only in the mother-daughter dyads did the daughter's first sexual relationship decrease soli darity perception by both dyad members. Residential propinquity generally was related (inversely) to perceived Associational Solidarity. How ever, on closer inspection it was noted that only offspring perceived Associational Solidarity was greatest (1) pri marily when offspring and parent either still live together or more than 150 miles apart and (2) then only for events in the lives of the offspring. It was the offspring who reported economic indepen dence through the occurrence of many kinds of offspring emancipation events who perceived less solidarity with the parent. The income correlates of this influence were generally high annual personal income (over $2000 per year) and low household annual income (less than $21,000 per year). Family size influenced the impact of only a few off spring events upon parental solidarity perception. In large families, Associational Solidarity was reduced with occurrence of either offspring school termination and parental "launching" of a child. In small families. 144 Associational Solidarity was reduced by offspring's first fulltime job, and solidarity perception generally was re duced by offspring's marriage or leaving the parental home. CHAPTER EIGHT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A multitude of findings have been reported in the previous three chapters, which now leads to certain con clusions and implications. However, first a general review and summary is in order. Review Two issues were particularly important in the current study. First; to what extent do the perceptions of an intergenerational family relationship by its members differ I I over time? Second, if they differ, what might account for such differences? If the perception of the cohesion or solidarity I between offspring and parent do differ, two probable ■ sources of influence are indicated by the literature. One I source is the social position within the structure of the family or society of both the offspring and the parent, such as sex, social class, or family size. The other is the current individual developmental adjustments and concerns of either member of the relationship. Events may be developmentally significant for a family member in terms of such developmental concerns. Since emancipation is 145 146 commonly regarded as a developmentally dramatic transition : in the parent-offspring relationship, the likelihood may be. that the perception of solidarity in this relationship changes more with occurrence of those events concerned with offspring emancipation than of those which are not. To test these hypotheses, a concept of solidarity was used which considered solidarity between family members as made up of associational, affectual, and consensual compon ents . Operational measurement of each was by means of general questions referring to the specific relationship as seen and evaluated by its members, which yielded one set of responses from the offspring and a second from parents. The validity of these measures was considered as acceptable, although somewhat limited for the measures of the associa tional and consensual components. A sample of 225 matched offspring-parent relation ships was selected from a larger sample of three generation families drawn from 840,000 members of a large medical health plan. The sample included all four sex-lineage configurations and represented various degrees of geo graphical proximity between offspring and parent and a wide range of social classes. Caucasians and Protestants predominated, with the families being mainly intact and of moderate size. The average ages were 19 and 44, respec tively, for offspring and parents. Data was obtained by two sequentially mailed pretested self administered 147 questionnaires; mailing procedures reduced possible col laboration or comparison of responses within families. It should be remembered that the data of this inves tigation is cross-sectional in nature, and therefore changes in perception over time can be only inferred through comparison of the perceptions of different age groups. Summary of the Findings Certain aspects of social position were found to be related to particular components of perceived solidarity, as hypothesized. Multiple regression analyses (using a four-fold categorization as a variable) revealed that the sex composition of the dyad was the single most consistent aspect of social position to influence the perception of solidarity by both offspring and parents. In fact, the influence of both (1) other aspects of social position and (2) events varied considerably with dyad sex composition. Analyses of the data also revealed that greater solidarity was perceived within all-female than within all-male relationships. Apparently female family members occupy a special affectional role in the family; the female family member both (1) perceived greater Affectual Solidarity with other members than the male and (2) was the family member with whom male members perceived greater affectual ties. 148 Other effects of social position upon solidarity perception were observed. As for chronological age, primarily offspring age was influencial and then the extent and event direction of that influence was dependent upon sex composition of the dyad. The direction of the impact of residential propinquity was also dependent upon dyad sex composition in the multiple regression analyses. However, further analysis demonstrated that greater solidarity was perceived by both family members when they either lived together or a moderately close distance apart, than when they lived either nearby or a considerable distance apart. The fact of living together appeared to account for the greater perception of Associational Solidarity by both off spring and parent, when the offspring was 15 to 17 years of age. Offspring income level was related to offspring solidarity perception in two ways: (1) the lower the personal income of the offspring, the greater the off spring's perception of Associational Solidarity, and (2) the higher the household income of the offspring, the greater the offspring's perception of Consensual Solidar ity. Again, the impact of this aspect of social position was dependent upon dyad sex composition. Finally, the smaller the number of children (two or less offspring), the greater the parental perception of Associational Solidarity. That developmentally significant events (such as the offspring's first fulltime job or career entry) do 149 I influence the perception of solidarity between offspring and parent is also supported, but then only for offspring, who reported less solidarity with the occurrence of such events. This impact of events in the lives of offspring also occurs upon the parents' perceptions of solidarity, but only to a minor degree and then primarily for Associa tional Solidarity. In fact, events of developmental sig nificance for the offspring— that is, events concerned with youth's emancipation--have greater effect upon the parent than do events of developmental significance to the parent and occurring primarily in the parent's life. Thus, as hypothesized, events concerned with youth's emancipation have greater impact than those which are not. However, the influence of developmentally significant events upon the perceptions of solidarity with the other family member is dependent upon the social position of the perceiver, as hypothesized. As already mentioned the sex 'composition of the dyadic relationship is a very signif icant factor with each of the four sex configurations noted to have its own unique set of influence of events upon solidarity perception. Only events in the lives of the offspring reduced the offspring's perceptions of Associa tional Solidarity with the parent, but mainly when off spring and parent either live together or at a consider able distance apart. In addition, emancipation events decreased offspring reports of solidarity only for those 150 offspring economically independent either by having an annual personal income exceeding $2000 or by living in a household with an annual income of $21,000 or less. This returns us to what is the most significant finding of this study: the perception of solidarity between parent and offspring by either is consistently dependent upon one particular aspect of social position— the sex composition of the relationship. Not only did sex composi tion influence the impact of events upon solidarity percep tion, as observed in several studies of postparental adjustment (Spence and Donner, 19 71; Sussman, 19 55; Axelson, 1960), but it also determined the bearing of other aspects of social position upon the perception of the relationship by its members. This latter influence has also been revealed by earlier investigations of sibship \ size (Bossard and Boll, 1956b; Elder and Bowerman, 1963) and of social class (Troll, 1971). The special affectional role of female family members and the importance of that role in kinship ties has been reported by others (Aldous, 1967; Bengtson, 1972 ; Troll, 1971), as well as observed in the present study. For example. Hill (19 70) writes of the "kin keeping" function of the female in the family, and Aldous and Hill (1965) found sex differences in norm transmission in three genera tion triads with greater continuity of religious affilia tion and expressive attitudes in the female triads and of 151 , occupational and educational levels among males. i Complementary Approaches to Family Solidarity The interplay of two distinct and complementary sources of influence in shaping the character and the experience of the relationship between youth and their parents has been demonstrated in the current study. The social-structural position and the contemporary develop mental concerns of the individual family member both effect the perceived cohesion in a family relationship. The position an individual has in the social struc ture of the family and society comprises a ne'cessary formal social network, as it were, within which the individual I develops and matures. The sex, age, social class, resi- jdence, and family size all have a bearing upon the nature ! of the experience of significant relationships particularly I I I of those within the family. They define the formal direc- i jtion and limits of that experience, in addition to com- j prising the objective, externally observable character- I istics of that relationship. In contrast, the developmental perspective focuses upon an individual's current stage of physical and social growth and maturation, and the particular tasks, adjust- jments, or concerns characteristic of persons in that stage. I iOn an objective level, the developmental approach is con cerned with changes both in the physical conditions of the I 152 I individual (such as seen in physical maturation or aging) and in the individual's acquisition or loss of competence to function in the social system. Thus, the developmental approach is concerned more with growth and maturity attain ment than with an individual's standing in a social system. Such a process creates powerful pressures shaping the individual's experience of self and others. On a sub jective level, concern is with the experience of the indi vidual both in reference to their own developmental status and their place in the social structure of the family and society. Thus, for example, adolescents have a high physical energy level, a feeling of competence, and conse quently a desire for independence and their own life style, resent external control, and accordingly seek drastic changes in their social position. While the particular position of the individual within their family has implica tions for the nature of their interaction with other family members, each individual also has their own developmental career. Consequently, a social-structural approach alone yields less than a dynamic picture with which to comprehend the complexities of family relationships. The Evolution of Family Relationships; Other Times, Other Relationships Support has been observed for the view that inter generational family relationships are not static but evolve^ throughout the lives of both members, changing as the , 153 : individual members progress through various stages of 'development. Emancipation of the offspring is particularly / an important transition in this process, leading to a more adult relationship between parent and offspring. Other Times, .... The data of this study is limited regarding the 'parent-offspring relationship both prior to and after emancipation. It is restricted by the fact that it has not been a longitudinal study in which individual relation ships are examined at various intervals over the life span of its members. The causal relationship of social position and event upon contemporarily perceived solidarity is in ferred from the responses of two people at a single point in their lives. It does appear that before emancipation parent and offspring both perceived moderate solidarity in their rela tionship, but as emancipation progressed, the solidarity perceived by both decreased. However, this does not indicate much about the future of this relationship. For the respondents, are these new lower levels of solidarity to persist.indefinitely? Some everyday observations suggest that offspring and parent may become similar with the passage of years. As other studies suggest (Bengtson, 1972; Black and Bengtson, 1973),. perhaps as youth matures, their perceived differences 154 decrease. Youth will have achieved its independence, per sonal life style, and adult status and thus having become secure, can then feel less threatened by the parent. Old ,wounds may heal. Adulthood may also bring greater common alty of experience shared with the aging parent; marriage, parenthood, a career, illness, success, and failure. How ever, this is all speculative. There is no direct evidence in this data that the respondents will some day perceive renewed solidarity between themselves. Instead, it is just as probable that age differences just cited may apply only to the parents and offspring of today. They may not apply when the offspring respondents of this study attain mid-adulthood and are then parents themselves. At that time, emancipation will have past by twenty-five or more years. In that interval, each off spring and parent will have experienced significant social and historical events at different points in their indi vidual developmental time. Mannheim (1952) describes a generation in terms of a particular combination of simi larity of location, and of experience, of persons both in a social system and in terms of social-historical time. Finder (1925) characterized the situation as "the non contemporaneity of the contemporaneous" in which different generations living at the same historical time experience events from different perspectives, since each lives in different subjective periods of their life shared only 155 . with those their own age. Thus, such basic cohort social- historical differences in experience may never be overcome, and the perception of solidarity remain little changed. The respondents of this study have all experienced an historical period of rapid social change, but this experience has occurred at different developmental stages for each. The interaction of unique historical experience and individual developmental concerns may create inter generational difference which commonalty of adult experi ence may never surmount, an interaction not considered by this investigation. . . . , Other Relationships Extension of these findings and conclusions to other intergenerational family relationships may also be ques tioned. This is particularly true for the grandparent- grandchild relationship. It is likely that this relation ship differs with respect to the particular social- structural variables, the developmental concerns and events, and the social-historical experience of the indi viduals concerned. While the sex composition of the rela tionship, age, income, and residential propinquity had a bearing upon the effect of emancipation, it is possible that they are less relevant in other relationships. For example, Gilford and Black (19 72) report the opportunity for actual interaction modified a grandchild's feelings for 156 the grandparent, feelings they had learned from their parents. It is also possible that the investments of grandparents and grandchildren in each other may be not as intense. Furthermore, the grandparents have experienced more social and historical change in the course of their longer life span than the grandchildren. Contributions to the Developmental Perspective The contemporary developmental issues and concerns of individuals shape their experience and perception of sig nificant familial relationships. Within the limits of the current study, support is found for Bengtson*s idea that the developmental concerns characteristic of persons during certain periods of life influence their perception of their relationship with a family member of another generation (Bengtson and Kuypers, 1970, 1971; Bengtson, Olander, and Haddad, 19 75). This is clearly true for youth, 15 through 26 years of age, and to a lesser extent for their parents as well during youth's emancipation from the parent. However, the evidence is equivocal for the influence of the develop mental concerns of the parents. Parental Developmental Concerns Developmentally significant events in the life of the parent were expected to have at least equal, if not greater, impact upon parental solidarity perception than 157 events of youth's emancipation. However, this is not found in the data. Occurrence of those events congruent with parental developmental concerns either did not have an impact or reduced solidarity perception, instead of in creasing it. On the other hand, occurrence of events not congruent with parental concerns reduced perceived soli darity, as anticipated, and two of three developmentally nonsignificant events had no effect upon the perception of solidarity with the offspring. At best, parental develop mental concerns may be a restraint tending to minimize the influence of emancipation upon parental solidarity percep tion. As previously indicated, the "parental" events gener ally are not recent occurrences as are the "offspring" events. Their generally weak impact may simply reflect an effect of the passage of time. The data supports this possibility, with the more recent events having a more immediate and potent effect. Future research must consider only contemporary events. It is also possible that the events in the lives of the parents selected for this study do not sufficiently reflect the developmental concerns of the parents. It may be that the "Schedule of Life Events", as general as it is, may not include sufficient contemporary events relevant to parental concerns and that other instruments are needed for further research. 158 Events, Developmental Concerns, and the Process of Emancipation A second contribution to the developmental perspec tive is support to the use of contemporary events to operationalize developmental concerns in research. This is most evident in the use of these events occurring as part of the process of emancipation, for the reasons already cited. Consistently, these events influence offspring and parent by generally decreasing offspring perception of solidarity with the parent and decreasing parental percep tion of Associational Solidarity. Apparently, parents experience only reduced contact and sharing of activities during the evolving independence of youth and little of the loss of affectional ties and similarity of views, as do their offspring. Emancipation is a process, a concern and an experience primarily of youth, not parents, and therefore may be expected to have greater impact upon youth * s perceptions than upon parental perceptions. Parental concern with a sense of continuity and value consensus with their offspring may render them either less sensitive to these changes or more aware of underlying affectional bonds and consensus than are their offspring; which is the case is not evident from the cur rent data. This general pattern is noted for those events con cerned with educational and economic independence. In 159 : addition, for the parent, the more recent the occurrence of! i I ■these events, the greater the perceived affectional bonds and value consensus. Likely, parents value youth's eco nomic independence as much as their offspring, and the immediate effect of these events is a strengthening of a ^parental sense of affection and consensus with their off spring despite less social contact. The first sexual relationship of the offspring is one of two landmark events in the emancipation process for both ■ parent and offspring; the experience of this event reducing perceived solidarity for both. The reason for the signif- ! icance of the loss of virginity is not clear. Possibly the; event represents a permanent transition, irrevocable, an end to childhood forever. It may also reflect the sexual preoccupation of the American culture. As personal commit-' i ments outside the relationship are made, such as in engage ment and marriage, bonds of solidarity for both parent and offspring further decline with the marriage of the off spring. Weakened affectional bonds perceived by the parent result, being perhaps one aspect of changed kinship rela tionships cited by others (Hill and Aldous, 1969; Raush, i Goodrich, and Campbell, 196 3). I Permanent departure from the parental home is the other landmark event for parent and offspring, also de creasing the perception of solidarity by both. In , addition, of the two other departure events, when a child 160 left against parental wishes constituted a threat, particu larly to the parent, thereby reducing perceived value con sensus . Model of Solidarity The findings of this study has implications for the model of solidarity developed by Bengtson, Olander, and Haddad (19 75), despite the limited established validity of two of the indices. In essence, solidarity is a multi dimensional construct; use of only one index of solidarity is not as adequate as the use of three indices. The assumption of covariation of the three components is somewhat limited. Covariation,of all components is noted mainly for the impact of dyad sex configuration, residential propinquity, and two events concerned with emancipation upon the solidarity perceptions of both off spring and parent; it is noted also for four other events but then only upon offspring solidarity perception. Otherwise, the independent variables usually influ enced the perception of only one component by either one or both dyad members. It appears that the crucial element may be the particular significance of an independent vari able to the respondent. A second implication is that certain components are more subject to influence than are others. The perception of Associational Solidarity was the single component most 161 often influenced to a statistically significant degree by the independent variables of this study. This may be an artifact of the particular dyad being investigated. A commonly accepted result of youth's emancipation is reduced contact and interaction with the parent. Since the dyad was studied in terms of emancipation, it could be expected that Associational Solidarity would be the component most influenced. It could be that this particular dyadic rela tionship examined at other stages of the members' life would be seen to change in terms of other components of solidarity. Apparently, perceived Affectual and Consensual Soli darity are relatively less subject to influence by the various independent variables of the study, at least, at this point in the history of the relationship. This may be true particularly for Affectual Solidarity which rarely was significantly influenced; in addition, respondents consistently reported greater affectional bonds in the relationship than frequent interaction or similarity of opinions. It may be that affectual ties are the cement which maintains a relationship over a span of years, in spite of disruptive events, shifts in developmental con cerns and investments, or changes in social position of the dyad members. It is difficult to identify a meaningful set of variables influencing Affectual Solidarity in this data. APPENDIX A ITEMS USED FROM THE FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OFFSPRING AND/OR PARENTS 162 163 A STUDY OF GENERATIONS You are taking part in an important study of the attitudes and feelings of parents, grandparents, and young adults. Over 5,000 people will be participating in this study. The research is designed to find out what kinds of simi larities and differences there are between age groups in today's society. We need your own honest answers to the questions that are asked because we want an accurate picture of how you feel, compared to others of your own age group and persons of other generations. We thank you for your cooperation in this research. PROJECT STAFF AND CONSULTANTS Dr. Vern L. Bengtson Director (Assoc. Prof. of Sociol ogy, University of Southern California) Dr. K. Dean Black Associate Director (Ass't Prof. of Sociology, U.S.C.) STATEMENT ON CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION We want to emphasize that the information you give in this study will be kept completely and entirely confidential. We are taking several steps to guard the privacy of the answers of our respondents : - Names will never be used in this study. Each person is given a code number to assure complete anonymity, - The code number (on the front of this booklet) is used to keep track of who has completed the questionnaire and who has not. - No one except our research staff will have access to these booklets. - No other agency will have access to the names and addresses of the persons in the study, or to any of the responses. 164 - All data will be analyzed on a group basis. No individual profiles will be examined. If you have any questions concerning the research in general or any of the specific questions that are asked, please call Miss Russo or Mrs. Walsh at (213) 747-5836 collect - Monday through Friday in the afternoon. HOW TO FILL OUT THIS BOOKLET 1. It may be difficult for you to answer some of these questions. Some of them you may never have thought about before. But answer each the best you can, because it is important to us that we understand how each person feels. 2. Answer by circling the number of the answer that best applies to you in that question, or by checking one of the blank lines provided. For example, suppose you were to answer the following question; 1. Couples should be formally engaged for at least a year before they marry. Disagree 1 2 4 Agree You are to circle the number that is closest to your own opinion on an agree-disagree line. In all cases the numbers mean the following ; 1 = Strongly disagree with the statement 2 = Disagree somewhat 3 = Agree somewhat 4 = Strongly agree with the statement In this case, the person answering the question circled "3", meaning he agreed somewhat with the statement. 3. If you wish to explain the answers you have checked, or add something to the alternatives provided, you may use the spaces beneath or beside the question to write in your comment. However, try wherever possible to use the answers as printed. 4. It is very important that the answers in this booklet reflect your own feelings, not those of your family or friends. Please answer all questions according to how you feel without getting the opinion of anyone else, or 165 letting them see your answers. If you need help in reading or understanding the questions, ask a friend or relative; but make sure they put down your answer. 5. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers to any questions, so answer the way that best describes your thoughts. 6. In general, go through the answer very quickly. Usually we want the first thing that comes to your mind...your first reaction to the question. (The items below through page 172 are from the Offsprings* questionnaire.) 1. What is your age?_________ 2. Sex? male female 3. What is your present marital status? (Circle the number of the appropriate answer.) 1 single 2 engaged or "committed" 3 married: for how long? ______ 4 permanently living with someone, but not legally married: how long?_____ 5 widowed : how long?_________ 6 divorced or separated: how long?___ Do you have any children? _________ If "yes" , what are their ages? ________ sons daughters 5. What is your racial or ethnic background? 6. What is your religion : (If Protestant, which denom ination?) 7. Are you now attending school? 1 yes, high school 2 yes, college 3 no, but plan to go back 4 no, have finished school 166 8. Are you working now? 1 no 2 no, temporarily out of work 3 yes, but only a temporary job 4 yes, part-time 5 yes, full-time 6 housewife 9. If you are working now, what kind of work do you do? (Be as specific as possible: "Sales clerk in a department store or file clerk in a small office; short-haul truck driver for furniture deliveries or long distance truck driver for a moving and storage company", etc.] 10. FAMILY RELATIONS IN THREE GENERATIONS In this section of the questionnaire we wish to find out about family relations in three generations. 1. . . . . 4. Were you brought up by both of your natural parents? (If not, by whom; for how long?)________________ ■ 5. ACTIVITIES We are interested in finding out what kinds of things people do with their families, (If one of the relatives we ask about in this section is deceased, just skip the question. If your answer is for a stepparent, please write "step" at the beginning of that section.) Go through as rapidly as possible, marking an "x" in the appropriate box. Please feel free to write in the space at the bottom to explain any answer. 167 ÂBp ÀjeAe qsouLXv s e ü itq . T g j e A 3 g 3[00M •g 0OUO gnocrv qq-uom g 0OUO q.noqy o s ao 'qq. uouî aeqqo ÀJOAa jg e A g seuiTq. %g:[0A0S Jg0À g 0DUO qnoqy J 0 A 0 U g s o u ït V p. en 0 •p g 1 — 1 X rP 0 0 Xi ip 4 - > G 4 1 ^ X en 4J -H 0 ts p Q ) • • P C : 0 -P H o K >4 0 E h •P <q> 4 44 td m O +J E H 0 H 0 P M K < m ü ' H g ■ H 04 w C ü • H ^ ii C ü i ( U h o - H 4J § -P Æ C ü " " T) œ • H Oa U 1 -H +) P 0 - P O c o - H -p n J ( ü P ü w s C N J e n P C ü O O - H T S p f O C ü en O O - P - P C ü en w w O P O C ü il C ü g C ü -p > i m w e n 44 o - H p - P C ü o 5 ( U n J tn e u I ■§ k ro w O O •H e n n s ü ü O td - H e n o e u C ü - H 0 4 P e n e e J e n P O 44 e n P > ' H o en o o n j - P e n r c s H en e e J Tî • H P S - H t o r* 44 C ü r P .X I — I - H n j I —I â 0 O > 1 o + J - p 0 (d - p p o S • H C ü P (d + J (d 5 e n en 0 • H P > O tn 0 • H I —I td E h L O 0 • H I 44 o e n C ü • H - P • H > - H - P ü fd e n 0 o • H en - H I —I C ü P C : V £ » e n P B - P C ü I —I 0 •P - P • H P 1 2 P C ü :S o ü (d C ü en 0 -p 0 O 04 C ü I —I C ü E H 00 p C ü 5 C ü en O +j p C ü 0 0 -P Q c n i C ü en § ü X C D 4 -) 44 -P Ü e n t S § P P C ü p G e n Q ) P o S -P - P 0 o g •p en 0 -p 04 I —! C ü X i p 0 o > H e n § P P Q ) P O e n Q ) P O ü -p 4 J 0 o 0 0 > 1 t r > 0 •p 04 1 ----1 C ü x i e n •p m CM ro 16 8 0 • 0 1 3 0 X • P t P p in w 0 0 0 0 c o O . 0 r H o X 0 0 C n Ü tr» 0 1 — 1 G P ü O u • H • H 0 0 T J C J w O u 0 0 w X U 0 P 0 • p 0 0 P 0 c u , G 0 Oa G O P u IP • P • • G p o P G p •P o < 0 O •p • 1 — 1• H p 0 0 0 0 P P ü ü G p in o •P 0 p O 0 p P Qa o - H >i G ^ in > • - P I— 1 tr in ■ p G Ü • H g O Æ 13 O 0 6 P 0 P t j > -P C O f o 0 0 G P P P X w 0 O O ü ip P 0 G 0 o p p P 0 0 in o P 0 P in 0 G X 1 5 0 in 0 in O p P O ü G o 0 X 0 I— 1 O XI 0 0 p 0 P G •p p C O P 0 p 0 •p > 0 w ! 5 -— ' 0 o o in 0 O P p M >, G G in P P O u Ej G • H 0 0 G rp < 0 P 0 13 0 0 0 PI g 0 P p 0 P X Ü W 0 w 0-i'P 0 P - H p ^ : P P p P Oa p G •p ^ P 1 G G O P P P Ot'P 0 G 0 0 0 13 0 O 0 % > p w • H > i X in - in 0 w p G 0 0 G O 0 !s 0 G P O P I T > O 0 - H G >, P w P P •P G ' G P W w w > 0 G O 0 Ë 0 0 -P O X 0 4 0 G 0 I T > G -P 0 P cr o •P P 0 H 1 — i 0 in I T > Ë 0 ü 0 1 — 1 0 G 0 M EH 8 > 4 m E H H •H Ü -P H C O C O O Ç U O +J a ) ( d C O C O ^ ( d - P C O > 1 •p P r4 Æ! < i > nd Ü 0 ( d H C P S-& c u - p o fd - P S S ^ g g g >iX} MH P H O -H C O P 0 0 w 5 g +j 0 0 O g % M - 1 G H ( d 8 > H i E h œ 8 H 3 § CO E H s I p ^ : D g p 0 A 0 £ 0 I — I Ü p •H u p . G O >1 H3 g P> w p 0 G G w • P G S fd Ou 1 — 1 0 X P 1 — 1 ü 0 1 — 1 G 0 1 — 1 g P s P P X 1 — 1 O 0 0 ü 0 0 0 g G O P P 0 g P 0 P P P P g 0 P P P P O o O P 0 X O 0 G G in Oa > 0 G G c \ . 1 — 1C M en LO VD G 1 — i C M • O >, P P P 0 w 0 , G G X P P P O P O S s 0 -p >, p G 0 P - P O P 0 X w Ou > 0 in - P G 0 P 0 O a 1 — 1 X p I — l p O G 1 — 1 0 G X G O 1 — 1 1 — 1 O O X g > 1 0 1 — 1 >, G ü 0 1 — 1 g G Æ 1 — 1 I— 1 Î 5 P 1 — 1 1 — 1 X g o 1 — 1 0 P 0 0 0 0 ü O G 0 0 0 o > i 1 5 g 0 G O g g P P P 0 P g P P 0 0 P >1 P 0 P > 1 P G P p g 0 P P G p P g 0 P P 0 O o O P 0 X O o O O P 0 X > i G G W 0 4 > 0 >, G G w O u > 0 O O 13 1 — 1C M m \Ti v o 13 1 — 1C M ro in v o P 1 — 1 P •• 1 — 1 0 P 0 P 0 0 X X P p o 0 O 0 Î G P 4 m k O' ! CQ 169 P rG P ü ü P 0 P! G X G • H P p p Ü x: g G 0 O J G g 0 p p G ü O P G U P 0 P > i 0 g G ^ > 1 >i P g G G: >i p p p 1 — g ü p P g u p •H o 0 0 p O G 0 P •H O G 0 0 o >1p g 0 O > i g g O I — 1 O > i g g P p p 0 P p 0 P P p 0 n * P p >1 p 0 0 p >. p >i 0 p > i p G P p P 0 P P G P g 0 P P 0 P P g 0 p p O O 0 0 P 0 X r-. O O 0 P 0 X > 0 O 0 p 0 X > i G G P CU > 0 w G G w CU > 0 0 > G W cu > 0 P rG 1 3 G U P C M C O in V O 0 1 — 1 C M ro in V D U i P C M P ' 5 1 * L O V O 0 P P 0 G O • • O u • » 0 • • P P P P P 0 p 0 0 0 0 X G g: CU X P p O p P 0 o > 1 o p O s s G S w g 0 p o >i G p 0 p 1 — 1 P 0 0 1 — 1 0 CU 0 P p 0 X X p p p O G ü G P 0 G O G O P P P G 1 — 1 ü g >i 0 ü X g >1 0 p O p G ü P G ü p 0 P >i >i 0 g G X >i O P g G ^ >1 1 — I p p p 1 - -1 g ü P 13 P g ü P 0 p O 0 0 0 P O G 0 •H O G 0 0 0 O > iP g 13 0 O >i g g G 1 — 1 O >i g g P p P P 0 P P 0 O P P 0 P P >1 P P 0 0 P >1 P •H >i 0 P >1 P G p P • H 0 P P Ü G P g 0 P P P P P g 0 P P O 0 O 0 P 0 X 0 O 0 O P 0 X ü 0 O O P 0 X >i G G P CU > 0 CU G G W CU > 0 0 > G W CU > 0 w P O 0 P 13 P C M n in VO P 1 — 1CM p ' 5 1 * L O v o 0 P CM P Tf in VO P X Xî P o ü 0 P G P G P P 0 g 0 g 0 X X X p V P o 0 0 0 O 0 h C m Î G C m rn in 170 rH G ! rH ü 1 — 1 0 G! G 1 — 1 P ü g ; g 0 1 — 1 G u 0 1 — 1>H g G X p ! 5 1 — Il—1 g O P p O 0 0 ü O G 0 0 O >1 ^ g G O >, g g p P 0 g P P 0 p p p 0 P P p p P 0 P P P P g 0 P P o o 0 P 0 X O O 0 P 0 X G G ^ cu> 0 G G M C U > 0 P C M p p vo 1 — 1 C M P " s T p p C Q P G 0 P 0 C U p p -p ■ H 0 0 P P P P P O 0 0 O Gî P P 1 5 P P O o G G P ■ H 0 P 0 P >1 P "P P 0 0 P >1 P 0 P P P 0 X cu > 0 p C M p 'î f L O V Û • • # # P • • P P G p 0 0 O 0 X >, X P P P O c \ . O 13 O S M P S C * - * G •• g 0 G C O 0 P P E H 0 S P C U S ë 1 3 rH p 0 P < 3 G 1 — 1 G u P p Pu 0 1 — 1 0 O G ! G G P P 0 p 1 — 1 p ^ >1 ü P! g O ■H 0 P p p 4 0 0 p G ü > , 0 P P D P 0 p > , P g G P P 0 P > , O 0 1 — 1 1 —Il—! M X g ü P rH P P P P 1 — 1 >4 1 3 P O 0 0 G ü O G 0 0 ■H O 0 0 G G 0 O ^ g P G O >, g g 0 0 0 ^ >iP g Q G P P 0 P g P P 0 P P P ^ P 0 S P P ! > i P 0 P P 0 P >, P < G P P P 0 P P G P P g 0 P p G P P g 0 P P 1 5 O O O 0 P 0 X O O o o P 0 X O 0 0 O P 0 X O >, G G ^ C U > 0 >, G G M C U > 0 >1 G G M C U > 0 E h O 0 O C O 13 1 — 1C M ro ^ in vo 13 rH C M P "sT L O vo 1 3 1 — 1C M ro ^ in vo Z O P G! P H P ü P E H 0 P G p 0 P < 0 g 0 P 0 X X X X H P p P S O 0 O 0 O 0 ffi C m m C m C m P 4 P O • • • >4 vo r - co m Q ) S m •H 171 o. 0 1 p G 0 U 0 CU U G g g ai 0 P 0 P O G e O O P P O G ■ S g P 0 P C U ■g G g >i G 0 > i P P P 0 X > 0 p CM ro ' s j * LO VD p 0 5 ê o* m P G 0 P 0 P u P G O >i 13 P 0 g P 0 0 p X 0 ü 1 —I P P •H g O p o p p p 0 o > G 'g fi g g U P P > i P ' 0 P P P 0 X e u > 0 p CM ro Tf m VD P 0 5 O « s r * o X X > i ü G ü G O X G p O g 0 ü ^ g ü 1 — 1 G ü 1 - -1 G ü 0 1 — 1 g G X > i O P g 0 X >i P u 0 g ü 1 — 1 3 P g O P 0 O G 0 • H O G 0 0 P O g g G 1 — 1 O g g P 0 p P 0 O p P 0 0 P > i P • H > i 0 P >f P G P p g 0 P P P P p g 0 P P O O o o P 0 X ü 0 o O P 0 X > i G G 0 P u > 0 0 > G 0 eu > 0 P O P 1 3 1 — 1 C M r o LO VD 0 1 -1CM ro Tf LO VD ü •• O •• P 0 5 0 C m G g g m p 0 P 0 C m œ E H S PU g O >i Q n o >H » • 0 1 — 1 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 1 — 1 p O rH 0 ü 1 — 1 ü O 0 G 0 ü 1 — 10 >i O 0 p ü o p >i O O 0 1 — 10 p O P! Ü g O ü P 1 5 P 0 13 0 P > 4 P p P g 0 P p 0 o O O P 0 X 0 G G 0 P u > 0 O 1 — 1 ü P CM r o lO VD o. 1 5 0 O P • • P! G P 0 0 • > P X G 0 p O P u o • H P p 0 G P O 0 >i 1 3 -P 13 0 G 0 G 0 0 0 O 0 0 O ü G 0 O 0 p O O 1 — 1 0 ü O >, 1 — 1 ü o 0 P 0 ü 1 — 1 0 >i G G 0 P ü O p • H 0 o o 0 p 0 0 1 — 1 o P I > i ü g e n 1 5 ü p 1 5 p 0 G P 0 p p •P 0 p p g 0 P p rG D o o O p 0 X p G G 0 c u > 0 h C U p •P 0 X 1 —1CM r o lO VD > 0 0 G O • • en-P P G P 0 •p 0 X ' i P 0 p 0 EH P C m O 172 G O >1 G 0 ü 0 g P! I I 0 G O >, G U P 0 G O G O 0 ü CU G P O 0 >1 0 U 13 G P 0 0 X p p p 0 0 0 en U G G * H 1 3 O 1 3 o O 1 3 e n O O e n O 13 >1 13 en O P O o o 0 O o > 1 e n g en p p 0 0 p >1 p p p g 0 p p o o O p 0 X G G 0 cu > 0 P CM ro L Dvo P P p 0 0 0 p 1 — 1 G X 0 P P 0 P 0 1 — 1 0 g G P 0 0 • H 1 — l P P 0 G p e n o g •P 0 0 P 0 O o X P g P P P G p p p 0 ■ H • H > 1 O P 0 > i G 0 g P O P P S' o 0 O P 0 O P 0 G p P O >1 0 g g o >1 O g O 0 P P 0 O p P 0 p 0 p 0 P ^ P 13 0 P >1 P 0 p p P g 0 P P P p g 0 P P • H • H O O P 0 X 0 o o P 0 X p p 1 3 G 0 eu > 0 •• 0 G 0 C U > 0 0 P e n p G G p CM ro LO vo O 1 — 1CM ro '= 3 ' in vo 0 o 0 g -H > U G O P 0 5 a >1 s •H 1 5 P 0 5 0 e n o p 0 5 O G P 0 P 0 G 0 P 1 — 1 0 O 1 3 P 0 P •H 0 X! O 0 1 - -1 0 g e n G P 0 13 O P P P •H G 0 0 O 1 3 e n P g • H 0 0 •H P O o 0 •H g P X P 1 — 1 e n o 1 3 >4 rH P 0 P -H >1 P O G 0 1 3 en o p •H G 0 g P O P O o o 0 g 0 O •H O O O •H o o > i e n g P P o >1 0 g 1 3 g O P P en p p 0 0 0 p P 0 Op 0 O 0 p > 4 P p 0 P >i P G 13 ü p P g 0 p p 1 5 p p g 0 P P O — 1p •H 0 o o O p 0 X O P o O P 0 X >1 0 o G 0 G G 0 eu > 0 X! 13 G 0 C U > 0 0 G G 0 13 O 13 P p CM ro T P m v o 1 —1 P CM ro " O * u o v o 1 — 1CM O 0 G ü 0 e n P 0 • • 0 P , , 0 G p G p P P ■H 0 X! 0 X 3 0 e n 0 X O 0 X ü P P 1 5 p O X 0 G 0 O 0 M 0 C m H C m C m G 0 P G P 0 O P G P 0 > , O P P P 0 0 P > , P g 0 P P O P 0 X 0 eu > 0 p C M ro ^ in v o P G 0 P 0 C U P G O > H 1 3 g G O >1 O 1 3 r - 4 0 1 5 g 0 p ë 0 o 0 o 0 0 3 ^ 0 P >1 ^ P P 0 0 0 O ^ > o 1 5 g 1 5 P P ( U 0 P >1 P G G 0 P P P 0 X 0 e u > 0 p CM ro Tf LD vo P 0 5 ê 0 1 5 P O G 0 1 5 O O P P O G 0 1 5 >1 0 I — I >i 1 5 P P >1 P 0 P P P 0 X C U > 0 0 I ** P CM ro L O vo P 0 P 0 C m c ^ i I —) e n P LO 173 (The items on this page to the middle of page 178 are from the parents' questionnaire.) ' 1. What is your age ? 2. Sex? male female 3. What is your present marital status? (Circle the number of the appropriate answer.) 1 single 2 engaged 3 married: for how long?_________ 4 permanently living with someone, but not legally married: how long? ____ 5 widowed: how long? 6 divorced or separated: how long?_________ 4. What are the ages of all your children? Sons * ages : ; ; ; ; please check here if you have no sons Daughters ' ages : ; ; ; ; please check here if you have no daughters (Please circle the ages of any step-children or adopted children.) 5.......... 6. What is your racial or ethnic background?_________ 7. What is your religion: (If Protestant, which denomination?) 8. Are you working now? 1 no 2 no, temporarily out of work 3 yes, but only a temporary job 4 yes, part-time 5 yes, full-time i 6 housewife | I 9. If you are working now, what kind of work do you do? (Be as specific as possible: "sales clerk in a department store or file clerk in a small office; short-haul truck driver for furniture deliveries or long distance truck driver for a moving and storage company", etc.) 174 j i 10. FAMILY RELATIONS IN THREE GENERATIONS In this section of the questionnaire we wish to find out about family relations in three generations. 5. Is the child we are asking about in this study: (Circle one) 1 the natural child of you and your current spouse 2 your natural child but not your current spouse's 3 your current spouse's natural child but not yours 4 other (please explain) ____________________ ________ ACTIVITIES We are interested in finding out what kinds of things people do with their families. (If one of the relatives we ask about in this section is deceased, just skip the question. If your answer is for a stepparent, please write "step" at the beginning of that section.) Go through as rapidly as possible, marking an "x" in the appropriate box. Please feel free to write in the space at the bottom to explain any answer. A • «... D. With your child: (the one named on the paper at the beginning of this section) (This item is identical to that cited on page 15 7, excluding number 13.) 175 13....... 14. How many miles do you live from this child?___________ 15....... RELATIONS In this section are questions about many areas of family relations. Circle the number that comes closest to your feelings about that question. Please go as rapidly as possible, giving the first answer that seems to fit. If you want to explain any answer, please feel free to write in the space beside or beneath that question. We've tried to allow enough space. If you are answering about a stepchild, please answer about the same child as in the previous section. A. YOUR CHILD'S RELATIONS TOWARD YOU: 1. How well do you feel this child understands you? (Circle the number) 1 not well 2 not too well 3 some 4 pretty well 5 very well 6 extremely well 2. How well do you feel your child trusts you? 1 not much 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty well 5 very well 6 extremely well 3. How fair do you feel your child is toward you? 1 not fair 2 not too fair 3 fair 4 pretty fair 5 very fair 6 extremely fair 176 4. How much respect do you feel from this child? 1 none at all 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty much 5 very much 6 extremely much 5. How much affection do you feel your child has for you? 1 very little 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty much 5 very much 6 extremely much B. YOUR RELATIONS TOWARD YOUR CHILD: 6. How well do you understand him (or her)? 1 not well 2 not too well 3 well 4 pretty well 5 very well 6 extremely well 7. How much do you trust this child? 1 not much 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty much 5 very much 6 extremely much 8. How fair do you feel you are toward your child? 1 not fair 2 not too fair 3 somewhat fair 4 pretty fair 5 very fair 6 extremely fair 177 9. How much do you respect this child? 1 not at all 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty much 5 very much 6 extremely much 10. How much affection do you feel toward this child? 1 very little 2 not too much 3 some 4 pretty much 5 very much 6 extremely much C. YOU AND YOUR CHILD: 11. Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel is the relationship between you and this child? 1 2 3 4 5 6 not close not too close somewhat close pretty close very close extremely close 12. How is communication between youself and this child:— how well can you exchange ideas or talk about things that really concern you? 1 not good 2 not too good 3 some 4 pretty good 5 very good 6 extremely good 13, In general, how similar are your views about life to those of your child? 1 different 2 not too similar 3 some 4 pretty similar 5 very similar 6 extremely similar 178 14. How often do you do things together with this child? 1 seldom 2 not too often 3 some 4 pretty often 5 very often 6 extremely often 15. Generally, how well do you and this child get along together? 1 not well 2 not too well 3 somewhat 4 pretty well 5 very well 6 extremely well BACKGROUND INFORMATION (The following item is from the offsprings' questionnaire only.) How much money do you (and your wife or husband) make a year? (Circle the nearest number) $300 $600 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000; $12,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 or more (The following items are from both the parents' and the offsprings' questionnaires.) Now, some questions about education. 1. How many years of schooling have you completed? (Circle one) 1 grade school (1-6 years) 2 junior high (7-9 years) 3 some high school (10-11 years) 4 high school graduate (12 years) 5 some college (1-2 years) 6 college graduate (4 years) 7 some graduate study 8 Ph.D., DDS, MD, JD, etc. : 179 j 2 ' I ■11, How much, approximately, are the combined annual incomes of all the members of your household? Include your parents if they support you. (Circle the answer that comes closest.) $3,000 - 4,999 15,000 - 16,999 30,000 - 34,999i $5,000 - 6,999 17,000 - 18,999 35,000 - 39,999; $7,000 - 8,999 19,000 - 20,999 40,000 - 49,999i $9,000 - 10,999 21,000 - 22,999 50,000 or more ! $11,000 - 12,999 23,000 - 24,999 $13,000 - 14,999 25,000 - 29,999 12...... APPENDIX B ITEMS USED FROM THE SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE FOR OFFSPRING AND PARENTS 180 181 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION We want to emphasize again that the information you give in this study will be kept completely and entirely confi dential. We have taken these steps to guard the privacy of the answers of our respondents : - Names will never be used in this study. Each person is given a code number to assure complete anonymity. - The code number (on the front of this booklet) is used to keep track of who has completed the questionnaire and who has not. - No one except our research staff will have access to these booklets. - No other agency will have access to the names and addresses of the persons in the study, or to any of the responses. - All of the data will be analyzed on a group basis. No individual profiles will be examined. INSTRUCTIONS 1. It may be difficult for you to answer some of these questions. Some of them you may never have thought about before. But answer each the best you can, because it is important to us that we understand how each person feels. 2. It is very important to our study that the answers in this booklet reflect your own feelings, not those of your family or friends. Please answer all questions according to how you feel without getting the opinions of anyone else, or letting them see your answers. If you need help in reading or understanding the ques tions, ask a friend or relative; but make sure they put down your answer. 3. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions, so check the space that best de scribes your thoughts. In general, go through quickly— we want your first reaction to the question. 182 4, If you have any questions, please call our offices at (213) 747-5836 collect - Monday through Friday in the afternoon. SCHEDULE OF LIFE EVENTS In this part of our study we are seeking information about the timing of some events in the course of people's lives. I For each event listed, please write down the year (example: i1956] ÎÏÎ which that event happened to you. Some of the jevents may have happened more than once. Whenever that is the case, please indicate the date of each occurrence. I Of course, when v/e ask for the first or the last occurrence I of something, put only one date. Since this list covers the whole life-span (for example : retirement), many of the events may not have occurred in your life. If you have never experienced the event, write "Never" (or just "N") in the blank. If you can't remember the year, estimate as well as you ' can. EVENT YEAR(S) I 1. You got your first full-time i job (Not just a summer job) ________________ j 2. You began working in your life I career occupation (If you've I changed careers, when did you I begin your first one?) : 3. You changed to a new career (Remember: if this occurred several times, put down each I year that it happened) 4. You lost a job (fired, laid off, or you quit) 5. Retirement 6. You began dating for the first time I 7. You became engaged to be married EVENT 8. You began living with some one outside of marriage 9, You experienced your first sexual relations 10. You were married 11. Separation from spouse 12. Death of a spouse 13. Divorce 14. You began formal schooling for the first time 15. You re-entered formal school ing after having left 16. You ceased formal schooling 17. You gained a child (birth, adoption, or marriage to someone with dependent children); 18. Oldest child entered first grade 19. You "launched" a child into a life of his own 20. You became economically self- supporting 21. You entered military service 22. You were discharged from the military service 23. You were arrested for a misdemeanor 24. You were arrested for a felony 25. You were sentenced to a correctional institution 183 YEAR(S) ! First Last 184 EVENT YEAR(S) i 26. You moved to a new residence ! 27. A Child left home against your will 28. You permanently left your parents * home 29. You underwent treatment for an emotional disorder 30. You began regular church attendance 31. You ceased regular church attendance ' 32. You changed to a new religion : or religious denomination 33. You had an important spiritual experience 34. You experienced a major personal success (Please list below each major success experience, if any, and in dicate the date of its occur rence; each such event should be listed, even it we have already included it in our list.) 185 EVENT YEAR(S) 35. You experienced a major personal failure (Again, please list each such event, if any, even if we've already included it. ) 36. You felt like you were going to have a nervous breakdown ; 37. Death of a parent 38. Death of a child 39. Other important things that happened in your life. (Please write in.) REFERENCES 186 REFERENCES Adams, Bert N. 19 67 "Interaction theory and the social network." Sociumetry 30 (March) : 64-78. Aldous, Joan 196 5 "The consequences of intergenerational conti nuity." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27 (November): 462-468. 1967 "Intergenerational visiting patterns: Variation in boundary maintenance as an explanation." Family Process 6 (September): 235-251. Aldous, Joan, and Reuben Hill 1965 "Social cohesion, lineage type, and intergenera tion transmission." Social Forces 43 (May): 471-482. Angell, Robert Cooley 19 36 The Family Encounters the Depression Scribner. New York: Axelson, Leland J. ‘ 1960 "Personal adjustment in the postparental period." Marriage and Family Living 22 (February): 6 6-6 8. Bengtson, Vern L. 1969 "The generation gap": Differences by generation and by sex in the perception of parent-child relations." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Seattle, April 24. 1970 "The generation gap: A review and typology of social-psychological perspectives." Youth and Society 2 (September); 7-32. 1971 "Inter-age perceptions and generation gap." Gerontologist 11 (Winter): 85-89. 19 72 "Fcimily solidarity and psychological well-being in three generations." Paper presented at the ^ 79th. annual meeting of the American Psycho logical Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, Septem ber 2, 19 72. I 1975 "Generation and family effects in value socializa-- tion." American Sociological Review 40 (June): 358-371. 187 188 Bengtson, Vern L., and K. Dean Black 19 73 "Intergenerational relations and continuities in socialization." Pages 207-234 in Paul B. Baltes and K. Warner Schaie (eds.), Life Span Develop mental Psychology: PersunallLy and Socialization. New York: Academic Press. Bengtson, Vern L., and Joseph A. Kuypers 1970 "The drama of generational differences: Percep tion, reality, and the developmental stake." Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Miami, September 4. 19 71 "Generational differences and the developmental stake." Aging and Human Development 2:249-260. Bengtson, Vern L., Edward B. Olander, and Anees Haddad 1975 "Generation gap and aging family members : Toward a conceptual model." J.E, Gubrium (ed.), Roles in Old Age. New York : Behavioral Publications. (In press.) Bernard, Jessie 1956 Remarriage: A Study of Marriage. New York : Dryden Press. Besner, Arthur 1966 "Economic deprivation and family patterns." Pages 15-29 in Lola M. Irelan (ed.), Low-Income Life Styles, Welfare Administration Publication No. 14. Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Bettelheim, Bruno 1962 "The problem of generations." Daedalus (Winter): 68-96. Black, Karl Dean 19 71 "A systems approach to the development of the marital relationship." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Pennsylvania State University. Black, K. Dean, and Vern L. Bengtson 19 73 "The measurement of family solidarity: An inter generational analysis." Unpublished manuscript. Los Angeles: Department of Sociology, University of Southern California. 189 Blood, Robert O,, Jr. 1963 "The husband-wife relationship." Pages 282-305 in F. Ivan Nye and Lois W. Hoffman (eds.), The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally. Blood, Robert O., Jr., and Robert L. Hamblin 196 8 "The effect of the wife's employment on the family power structure." Social Forces 36 (May): 347-352. Bossard, James H. S., and Eleanor Stoker Boll 1956a "Adjustment of siblings in large families." American Journal of Psychiatry 112 (May): 889-892. 1956b The Large Family System: An Original Study in the Sociology of Family Behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 196 6 The Sociology of Child Development, Fourth Edi tion. New York: Harper & Row. Bowerman, Charles E., and Donald P. Irish 1962 "Some relationships of stepchildren to their parents." Marriage and Family Living 24 (May): 113-121. Brittain, Clay V. 1963 "Adolescent choices and parent-peer cross pressures." American Sociological Review 2 8 (June): 385-391. 1966 "Age and sex of siblings and conformity toward parents versus peers in adolescences." Child Development 37 (September): 709-714. 19 67 "An exploration of the bases of peer-compliance and parent-compliance in adolescence." Adoles cence 2 (Winter): 445-458. Bronfenbrenner, Urie 19 5 8 "Socialization and social class through time and space," In Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartly (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, Third Edition. New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Buhler, Charlotte 196 7 "Human life as a whole as a central subject of humanistic psychology." Pages 83-91 in James F. T. Bugental (ed.). Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. New York : McGraw-Hill. 190 Burchinal, Lee G. 1964 "Characteristics of adolescents from unbroken, broken and reconstituted families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 26 (February): 44-51. Campbell, Ernest Q. 1969 "Adolescent socialization." Pages 821-859 in D. A. Goslin (ed,). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cavan, Ruth Shonle 1964 "Subcultural variations and mobility." Pages 535-581 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cavan, Ruth Shonle, and Katherine Howland Ranck 19 38 The Family and The Depression: A Study of One Hundred Chicago Families. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Clausen, John A. 1966 "Family structure, socialization, and person ality." Pages 1-53 in Lois W. Hoffman and Martin L. Hoffman (eds.), Review of Child Develop ment Research, Volume Two. New York: Russell Sage. Cutright, Phillips 19 71 "Income and family events : Marital stability." Journal of Marriage and the Family 33 (May): 291-306. Dager, Edward Z. 1964 "Socialization and personality development in the child." Pages 740-781 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago : Rand McNally. Douvan, Elizabeth, and Joseph Adelson 1966 The Adolescent Experience. New York and Sons. John Wiley Douvan, Elizabeth, and Martin Gold 1966 "Model patterns in American adolescence." Pages 469-528 in Lois W* Hoffman and Martin L. Hoffman (eds.). Review of Child Development Research, Volume Two. New York : Russell Sage. I 191 ■Duvall, Evelyn M. I 19 57 Family Development. Philadelphia; Lippincott. ! Dyer, Everett D. 1963 "Parenthood as crisis: A re-study. Marriage and ! Family Living 25 (May): 196-201. Elder, Glen H., Jr., and Charles E. Bowerman 1963 "Family structure and child-rearing patterns: ; The effect of family size and sex composition." American Sociological Review 2 8 (December): 891-905. ;Elkind, David I 1970 "Exploitation and the generational conflict." i Mental Hygiene 54 (October): 490-497. IErikson, Erik H. 19 50 Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton. 19 59 "Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers by ‘ Erik H. Erikson." Psychological Issues 1: Monograph 1. : 1962 "Youth : Fidelity and diversity." Daedalus i (Winter): 5-27. Flack, Richard 1 9 6 7 "The liberated generation : An exploration of the roots of student protest." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July): 52-75. Friedenberg, Edgar Z. 1959 The Vanishing Adolescent. Boston: Beacon Press. Gardner, George E. 19 56 "Separation of the parents and the emotional life of the child." Mental Hygiene 40 (January): 53-64. Gilford, Rosalie, and Dean Black 19 72 "The grandchild-grandparent dyad: Ritual or I relationship." Paper presented at the 25th. annual meeting of the Gerontological Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 17-21. ,Glick, Paul C. 1947 "The family cycle." American Sociological Review 12 (April): 164-174. 1955 "The life cycle of the family." Marriage and Family Living 17 (February): 3-9. ' 192 Goode, William 1956 After Divorce. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press. ,Guilford, J. P. 19 56 Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educa tion, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Haddad, Anees A. 19 71 Family Vertical Solidarity and Mental Health in Lebanon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Hansen, Donald A., and Rueben Hill 1964 "Families under stress." Pages 782-819 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.). Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand McNally. Havighurst, Robert G. 195 3 Human Development and Education. New York : Longmans, Green. 1972 Developmental Tasks and Education, Third Edition. New York: David McKay. Hawkes, Glenn R., Lee Burchinal, and Bruce Gardner 1958 "Size of family and adjustment of children." Marriage and Family Living 20 (February): 6 5-68. Heer, David M. 19 58 "Dominance and the working wife." Social Forces 36 (May): 341-347. Hill, Reuben 19 56 "Decision making and the family life cycle." Pages 113-139 in Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib (eds.). Social Structure and the Family : Generational Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall. 19 70 Family Development in Three Generations : A Longi tudinal Study of Changing Family Patterns of Planning and Achievement." Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman. Hill, Reuben, and Joan Aldous 1969 "Socialization for marriage and parenthood." Pages 885-950 in D. Goslin (ed.). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. 19 3 Hill, Reuben, and Roy H. Rodgers 1964 "The developmental approach," Pages 171-211 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.). Handbook of Marriage and the Family, Chicago: Rand McNally, Hinkel, Lawrence E, Jr,, e^ al, 19 58 "An investigation of the relation between life experience, personality characteristics, and general susceptibility to illness," Psychosomatic Medicine 20 (July-Auguts): 278-295, Hoffman, Lois W, 1961 "Effects of maternal employment on the child," Child Development 32 (March): 187-19 7, Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G, Niemi 19 74 The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Keniston, Kenneth 1967 "The sources of student dissent," Journal of Social Issues 23 (July): 108-137, 196 8 Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth, New York : Harcourt, Brace and World, Kerckhoff, Alan C, 196 5 "Nuclear and extended family relationships: A normative and behavioral analysis." Pages 9 3-112 in Ethel Shanas and Gordon F, Streib (eds.), Social Structure and the Family: Generational Relations, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Kohn, Melvin L, 1959 "Social class and the exercise of parental authority," American Sociological Review 24 (June): 352-366, 1963 "Social class and parent-child relationships: An interpretation," American Journal of Sociology 68 (January): 471-480. Komarovsky, Mirra 19 40 The Unemployed Man and His Family; The Effect of Unemployment Upon the Status of the Man in Fifty- Nine Families, New York : Dryden Press, 1950 "Functional analysis of sex roles," American Sociological Review 15 (August): 508-516, 194 Landis, Judson T. 1960 "The trauma of children when parents divorce." Journal of Marriage and the Family 22 (February) 7-13. LeMasters, E. E. 1957 "Parenthood as crisis." Marriage and Family Living 19 (November): 352-355. Litwak, Eugene 1959 1960a 1960b 1965 "The use of extended family groups in the achieve ment of social goals: Some policy implications." Social Problems & (Winter): 177-187. "Geographical mobility and extended family cohesion." American Sociological Review 25 (June): 385-394. "Occupational mobility and extended family cohesion." American Sociological Review 25 (February): 9-21. "Extended kin relations in an industrial demo cratic society." Pages 290-323 in Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib (eds.). Social Structure and the Family : Generational Relations. Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Englewood McDermott, John F., Jr. 1968 "Parental divorce in early childhood." American Journal of Psychiatry 124 (April): 1424-1432. 1970 "Divorce and its psychiatric sequelae in chil dren." Archives of General Psychiatry 23 (November): 421-427. McKinley, Donald Gilbert 1964 Social Class and Family Life. Press. New York: Free McNemar, Quinn 1962 Psychological Statistics, Third Edition. New York : John Wiley and Son. Mannheim, Karl 1952 Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London : Millsom, Carol Ann 19 66 Conformity to Peers versus Adults in Early Adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. 195 Nie, Norman, Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull 19 70 SPSS; Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York; McGraw-Hill. Nie, Norman H., and C. Hadlai Hull 1973 SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences : Update Manual. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago. Nye, F 1952 1957 Ivan "Adolescent-parent adjustment: Age, sex, sibling number, broken homes, and employed mothers as variables." Marriage and Family Living 14 (November): 327-332. "Child adjustment in broken and in unhappy un broken homes." Marriage and Family Living 19 (November): 356-361. Nye, F. Ivan, John Carlson, and Gerald Garrett 1970 "Family size, interaction, affect and stress." Journal of Marriage and the Family 32 (May): 216-226. Peatman, John G. 196 3 Introduction to Applied Statistics. New York: Harper and Row. Peterson, James A. 1964 Education for Marriage, Second Edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Pinder, E. 1925 Kunstgeschichte nach generationen. Zwischen philosophie und Kunst. Leipzig: Johann Vokeltzum 100. Pitts, Jesse R. 1964 "The structural-functional approach." Pages 51-124 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago : Rand McNally. Rapoport, Robert, and Rhona Rapoport 1965 "Work and family in contemporary society." American Sociological Review 30 (June): 381-394 Raush, Harold L., Wells Goodrich and John D. Campbell 196 3 "Adaptation to the first years of marriage." Psychiatry 26 (November): 368-380. i 196 I i iReinhard, David W. ; 19 71 "The reaction of adolescent boys and girls to the divorce of their parents." Dissertation Abstracts I International 32 (October); 2408-2409. Reiss, Paul J. 1962 "Extended kinship system: Correlations of and attitudes to frequency of interaction." Marriage i and Family Living 24 (November): 333-339. Riley, Matilda White, and Ann Foner 1968 Aging and Society , Volume One : An Inventory of Research Findings. New York: Russell Sage. Robins, Lee N., and Miroda Tomanec 1962 "Closeness to blood relatives outside the imme diate family." Marriage and Family Living 24 (November): 340-346. Rodgers, Roy H. 1962 "Improvements in the construction and analysis of family life cycle categories." Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. Rosen, Bernard C. 1964 "Family structure and value transmission." Merrill Palmer Quarterly 10 (January): 59-76. Rossi, Alice S. 196 8 "Transition to parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (February): 26-39. Sears, Robert R., Eleanor E. Maccoby and Harry Levin 1957 Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & Co. Shanas, Ethel 1969 "Living arrangements and housing of old people." Pages 129-149 in Ewald W. Busse and Eric Pfeiffer (ed.). Behavior and Adaptation in Late Life. Boston: Little, Brown. Smith, Thomas Ewin 1971 "Birth order, sibship size and social class as antecedents of adolescent's acceptance of parent's authority." Social Forces 50 (December): 223-232. Solomon, Daniel 196 3 "Influences on the decisions of adolescents." Human Relations 16 (February): 45-60. 19 7 I Spence, Donald, and Thomas Donner | 1971 "The *empty-nest* : A transition within mother- i hood." Family Coordinator 20 (October): 369-375. ! Sussman, Marvin B. 1955 "Activity patterns of postparental couples and their relationship to family continuity." Mar riage and Family Living 17 (November); 338-341. 1959 "The isolated nuclear family : Fact or fiction?" Social Problems 6 (Spring): 333-340. 1965 "Relationships of adult children with their parents in the United States." Pages 6 2-92 in Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib (eds.), Social Structure and the Family : Generational Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ' Sussman, Marvin B., and Lee Burchinal i 19 62 "Kin family network: Unheralded structure in current conceptualizations of family functioning."! Marriage and Family Living 24 (August): 231-240. | \ I Thomes, Mary Margaret 1968 "Children with absent fathers," Journal of Mar- | riage and the Family 30 (February): 89-96. Troll, Lillian E. 19 71 "The family of later life : A decade review." ' Journal of Marriage and the Family 33 (May): ; 263-290. I ! Troll, Lillian E., Bernice L. Neugarten and Ruth J. Kraines 1969 "Similarities in values and other personality characteristics in college students and their parents." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 15 (January): 323-336. Watts, William A., Steve Lynch and David Whittaker 1969 "Alienation and activism in today's college-age youth: Socialization patterns and current family relationships." Journal of Counseling Psychology 16 (January): 1-7. Westby, David L., and Richard G. Braungart 1966 "Class and politics in the family backgrounds of student political activists." American Socio logical Review 31 (October): 690-692. 19 8 i Westman, Jack C., David W. Cline, William J. Swift and ; Douglas A. Kramer 19 70 "Role of child psychiatry in divorce." Archives of General Psychiatry 23 (November): 416-420. U. S. Bureau of the Census 1973 Statistical Abstract of the United States; 1973 (Ninety-fourth Annual Edition). Washington; U. S. Government Printing Office.</q>

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There are three issues which serve as a foundation for this research. One is an interest in the relationship between parents and their offspring as a common but particularly significant relationship which evolves over the life span of its members. Relationships may be regarded as continually undergoing change and as rarely static. The family of which an individual is a member may be regarded best as a system of evolving relationships and not as a mere sequence of encounters. Thus, family relationships have histories and anticipate a future.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Bureaucrats and old clients: dependence, stigma, and negative sentiment in the service relationship

PDF

Psychological well-being and location in the social structure

PDF

Social factors involved in the success or failure of consumer cooperatives in the United States

PDF

Dying And Death Role-Expectation: A Comparative Analysis

PDF

The Effects Of Generation, Religion, And Sex On The Relationship Of Family Vertical Solidarity And Mental Health In Lebanon

PDF

Mental disorders in the metropolitan area: an ecological analysis

PDF

A study of the effect of social status on the degree of class crystallization in an urban community

PDF

Some Behavioral Consequences Of Career Success: A Synthesis Of Reward Andbalance Approaches

PDF

The prose fiction of Salvador Elizondo

PDF

An experimental study of the effect of "human interest" factors on listenability

PDF

Social environment, self-concept, and social conduct: sense of self as mediator of the relationship between life-change and marital interaction

PDF

The ecology of eight species of intertidal crabs of the family xanthidae in the Marshall Islands

PDF

The Public Definition Of A Social Movement: Women'S Liberation

PDF

The biographers and critics of Juan de Mena

PDF

Structural effects of unemployment on juvenile delinquency and crime rates: a synchronic cross-sectional analysis

PDF

The Attitude Of Resistance To The Adoption Of An Older Child

PDF

¹⁹F-NMR studies of trifluoroacetyl insulin derivatives

PDF

The impact of family structure and family process on adolescent sexual behavior: race and gender variations

PDF

The effects of estradiol-17B on cleavage, nucleic acid metabolism, and protein synthesis in embryos of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus

PDF

Systematics and host relationships of the mites of the family Spinturnicidae In Costa Rica (Acarina: Spinturnicidae)

Asset Metadata

Creator Olson, John Theodore (author)

Core Title The impact of developmental events upon the perception of intergenerational family solidarity

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

Degree Conferral Date 1976-01

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Advisor Bengtson, Vern L. (committee chair), Acock, Alan C. (committee member), Cutler, Neal (committee member), Peterson, James (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11256251

Unique identifier UC11256251

Legacy Identifier DP31767

Document Type Dissertation