| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
Department of Sociology, University at Albany, State University of New York.
Address correspondence to Russell A. Ward, Department of Sociology, University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: r.ward{at}albany.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods. Wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households provided detailed information on relations between parents and each of their adult children. The sample included 2,270 persons aged 50+ who had at least one child aged 19+.
Results. Measures across multiple adult children uncovered more mixed patterns of "collective ambivalence" that included lesser quality and/or contact with at least some children. The presence of less positive relations with any children was consistently, albeit modestly, related to lower parent well-being. Mothers reported higher "maximum" quality and interaction across children, but mothers and father did not differ in "minimum" reports. Associations between parent–child relations and well-being were similar for mothers and fathers.
Discussion. Analyses that incorporate the relations of parents with their multiple adult children, viewed as part of a family network, yield a more comprehensive and nuanced view of those relations and their implications for well-being.
Key Words: Parent–child relations • Well-being • NSFH
THE parent–child bond is a central tie that now typically lasts into the later adult years of parents and into middle age and even beyond for children (Mancini & Blieszner, 1989
). Parent–adult child relations are generally characterized by positive feelings and solidarity (e.g., see Bengtson, Biblarz, & Roberts, 2002), but research has found only weak associations between those relations and parent well-being. This may reflect the mixed quality of parent–child relations. Little research has looked at parent–child relations as a network of ties in which some may be more positive whereas others may be more negative, with presumably mixed implications for parental well-being.
This article addresses the implications of considering in a more explicit and detailed way the multiple parent–adult child relations of most parents to better understand their implications for parent well-being. In particular, it directs attention to less positive aspects of parent–child relations and extends the concept of intergenerational ambivalence (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998), which has been applied to particular parent–child relationships, to a collective view of ambivalence across multiple children. The following sections review the literature on parent–adult child relations and well-being and on ambivalence in those relations.
Parent–Adult Child Relations and Well-Being
Close social relationships are presumed to contribute to individual well-being (Krause, 2001). Indeed, such perspectives as socioemotional selectivity and expectancy theory argue that people seek out ties that are emotionally supportive (Carstenson, 1992; Olson, Reese, & Zanna, 1996). Families in particular offer the kinds of durable "strong ties" that may contribute to well-being, in part by buffering the effects of stressful circumstances (Bengtson & Silverstein, 1993; Lin, Woelfel, & Light, 1985; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Umberson & Chen, 1994; Umberson, Wortman, & Kessler, 1992). Family ties may play an increasing role as individuals age and network ties focus increasingly on kin. Social networks in later life may become smaller but retain emotional closeness by focusing selectively on those ties, such as family, that are most supportive and gratifying (Ajrouch, Antonucci, & Janevic, 2001; Lang, Staudinger, & Carstensen, 1998; Shaw, Krause, Liang, & Bennett, 2007).
Drawing from various theoretical perspectives, Umberson (1992) cited the parent–child tie as a particularly strong and unique source of social attachment and solidarity. Indeed, it seems reasonable to expect that such relations would affect well-being through supports that meet the needs of both parents and their adult children. Knoester (2003) also suggested that the well-being of adult children affects parent well-being through feelings of empathy, as parents vicariously experience their children's joys and sorrows, and because children's successes or failures reflect on parent performance.
Knoester, however, indicated that relatively little is known about the extent to which parents and adult children actually affect one another's well-being. Being childless, for example, exhibits little association with well-being (Brubaker, 1991; Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002; Zhang & Hayward, 2001). The proximity and frequency of contact with adult children appear to have little overall association with well-being (Brubaker, 1991; Mancini & Blieszner, 1989; Suitor & Pillemer, 1987). Weinstein, Glei, Yamazaki, and Ming-Cheng (2004) reported little association between interaction and affectional ties with adult children and parent depression. Parents who are "sandwiched" between their adult children and older parents also exhibit little association between parent–child relations and well-being (Logan & Spitze, 1996; Ward & Spitze, 1998).
If the parent–adult child tie is central in the lives of both, why is the evidence of its effects on well-being so weak? It may be that children have less salience for parental well-being following the empty nest, in what Rossi (1968) termed the disengagement stage of parenthood. This reduction in the parenting role may itself be a source of gratification. Although children can be a source of enjoyment, the parent role can also be stressful, especially when children are young, and there is some evidence that the departure of children (the "empty nest") is associated with increased well-being (Barber, 1989; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Ross, Mirowsky, & Goldstein, 1990; Van Laningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001; White & Edwards, 1990).
There are indications that involvement and interaction with adult children may enhance well-being (Logan & Spitze, 1996; White & Edwards, 1990) but also that adult children can be a source of distress. Reciprocity in gratifications and assistance is accompanied by reciprocity in strain and burden, as parents and adult children affect one another's lives. Negative dimensions of parent–child ties have been a focus in caregiving research assessing, for example, the burdens and strains experienced by child (and other) caregivers (e.g., see Pearlin, Aneshensel, Mullan, & Whitlatch, 1996; Sherwood, Given, Given, & Von Eye, 2005; Vitiliano, Zhang, & Scanlan, 2003). Even aside from caregiving, other research has found that some aspects of parent–child relations are associated with psychological distress for both parents and adult children (e.g., Logan & Spitze, 1996; Pillemer & Suitor, 1991; Umberson, 1992). Knoester (2003) found that the well-being of parents and adult children, and changes in their well-being, affect the well-being of the other. Parent–child relations may have both positive and negative effects, varying by relationship quality, circumstances of parents and children, and other factors (Ha & Carr, 2005; Silverstein, Chen, & Heller, 1996; Umberson, 1989, 1992).
Multiple Parent–Child Relations and Collective Ambivalence
These considerations suggest that parent–adult child relations matter but that children (and parents, for that matter) are a "mixed blessing." Parent–adult child relations are generally positive along multiple dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997), with relatively close proximity, frequent contact, emotional closeness, and feelings of normative obligation accompanied by support and advice (Bengtson et al., 2002; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Lye, 1996; Umberson, 1992). These positive portrayals notwithstanding, social ties, including family, have both positive and negative dimensions that may affect well-being both positively and negatively (Ingersoll-Dayton, Morgan, & Antonucci, 1997; Krause, 1995; Okun & Keith, 1998).
The potentially mixed qualities of parent–adult child relations point to a need to recognize the multiple relations experienced by most parents. Research has typically operationalized parent–child relations as individual dyads or children grouped as a composite. Lye (1996) noted related questions regarding the appropriate unit of analysis in studies of parent–child relations. Focusing on a particular parent–child tie, or on children as an undifferentiated composite, loses information about how relations with one child fit into and are related to those with other children within a network of parent–child ties. Multiple relations include the possibility that some are positive but others are negative.
There has been attention to within-family differentiation among adult children in such areas as emotional closeness and "favoritism" (e.g., Aldous, Klaus, & Klein, 1985; Suitor & Pillemer, 2007) and the division of labor in caregiving (e.g., Matthews, 1995; Pillemer & Suitor, 2006; Szinovacz & Davey, 2007; Wolf, Freedman, & Soldo, 1997). These studies have investigated the existence of such differentiation and its predictors (e.g., gender and family size). I extend that line of research here to consider the consequences of within-family differentiation for parent well-being, applying and extending the concept of ambivalence in parent–child relations.
Research has described parent–adult child relations as being characterized by intergenerational ambivalence, or "contradictions and ambiguities in relationships" (Lowenstein, 2007, p. S101) at social–structural and subjective–emotional levels that are reflected in a mix of solidarity and conflict, and autonomy and dependence (also see Luescher & Pillemer, 1998; Pillemer & Suitor, 2005; Spitze & Gallant, 2004). This ambivalence has been operationalized as "mixed feelings" (e.g., Lowenstein, 2007), but this has largely focused on particular dyads. Ambivalence may also be extended to consider relations with multiple children. For example, not only are some children noted by parents as "favorites" (Suitor & Pillemer, 2007), but Aldous and colleagues (1985) found that parents may refer to some children as more "comforting" and others as "disappointing." Thus, there may be collective ambivalence entailed in mixed feelings across multiple children.
Ambivalence in parent–adult child relations may be particularly pertinent to parent well-being. Some have suggested that negative interactions and feelings within social networks may affect well-being more strongly than positive interactions; that family ties are more likely than other relationships to include negative, conflictual, or unbalanced exchanges; and that negative dimensions of such close ties are a particular source of distress (Krause, 1995, 2005; Rook, 1997). Krause (1995) suggested that negative interactions may be more likely with kin than other relationships but that they are not expected, so problematic relations "stand out" when they occur. Lowenstein (2007) found negative emotions (conflict and ambivalence) in family relations to be relatively low in surveys of five countries, but feelings of both solidarity and ambivalence predicted quality of life among older persons. Umberson (1992) found that negative aspects in the relationship had stronger associations with distress for both parents and adult children than did positive, supportive aspects. Thus, consideration of collective ambivalence across adult children, and particularly of less positive relations with some children, can contribute to an understanding of the implications of parent–adult child relations for parent well-being.
Gender Differences in Parent–Adult Child Relations
Research on parent–adult child relations must attend to gender differences. Gender is an organizing feature of family relationships, and the significance and implications of family ties likely differ for men and women. Women have been described as kinkeepers who feel stronger family obligations, maintain family bonds, and are most involved in assistance and caregiving (Bengtson, Rosenthal, & Burton, 1990; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Lye, 1996; Mancini & Blieszner, 1989; Moen, 1996; Rossi, 1993; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). Such family connections carry both benefits and costs and may themselves be sources of stress (Antonucci, 1990). Pillemer and Suitor (2002), for example, suggested that mothers feel more ambivalence in the parent–child relationship.
Gender differences in parent–adult child relations should not be oversimplified, however; Logan and Spitze (1996) noted that they are not necessarily straightforward and evidence is not consistent. For example, they found that women received and gave more help in exchanges with adult children, but gender differences were not strong; and although having and helping children increased family burden for women but not for men, children were a potential source of distress for both. Umberson (1992) found that parent–child strains had a greater effect on mothers than fathers, but others have found similar outcomes of parent–adult child relations for mothers and fathers (Knoester, 2003; Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002).
Research Questions
This study looked explicitly at relations by parents across multiple adult children by using a data set that assesses relations with each of multiple children within a family. The main question was as follows: How does this contribute to understanding the implications of parent–adult child relations for parent well-being? More specifically, the literature suggests that negative relations with children may have a greater effect on parent well-being than positive relations. How does this play out across multiple children, viewed as collective ambivalence? Does it matter, for example, if the relations with any child within a network are negative, or are things OK as long as there are positive ties to any (perhaps favorite) child? I also investigated parental gender differences in these patterns. Reflecting their kinkeeping role, I hypothesized that parent–adult child relations, and especially negative relations and collective ambivalence, may have a greater effect on the well-being of mothers. I also included in the analysis other variables that may be pertinent to parent–adult child relations and their consequences, including parent and family characteristics (e.g., parent age, marital status, and health; family size and gender composition).
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
). The first wave had particular variety in measures of parent–child relations, especially about each adult child, that enabled a more comprehensive view of relations across multiple children. I used a subsample, selecting respondents who had at least one adult child (aged 19 or older) and were themselves aged 50 or older (N = 2,270). Age 50 was the cutoff to focus on parents in later middle age and beyond and to focus on their relations with adult children in part by lessening the presence and implications of relations with younger children. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of parent respondents (N = 2,270) and their adult children (N = 7,322), including parent age, gender, and marital status; and number, gender, and ages of adult children. As also noted in the table, nearly one fourth of parents had a coresident adult child, and almost all had at least one adult child outside of their household; a minority (13%) had an adult stepchild, and only 8% had a child younger than 19 in the household.
|
Parents were also asked about assistance to and from each adult child. Assistance from children included the following: listens to my problems and provides advice; provides news about mutual friends and the family; helps out with household tasks, including transportation; provides financial assistance; and provides companionship. Assistance to children included these five dimensions plus child care. I created separate indicators for instrumental assistance (household tasks, financial, child care) and expressive assistance (listening, news, companionship). Preliminary analyses found little difference in associations with well-being separately for giving and receiving assistance, and giving and receiving were highly correlated (indicating strong patterns of reciprocity, as well as multicollinearity); for these reasons, measures of exchange of assistance combined giving and receiving separately for expressive and instrumental dimensions (the number of times children were named for each).
There are various options for combining information on relations across multiple children. Preliminary analyses assessed different options, including counting number of children versus whether any child was mentioned for assistance, and counts versus maximums and minimums across children on quality and interaction. Empirical patterns considered in selecting which measures to employ in subsequent analyses included distributional characteristics (e.g., skewness), intercorrelations among measures of parent–child relations (to avoid multicollinearity), and patterns of association with well-being. Indicators of parent–child quality and contact tended to be skewed positively. Some measures were intercorrelated; for example, as noted above, assistance from and to children were highly correlated. It is interesting, however, that quality of parent–child relations had only moderate correlations with the other dimensions of their relations (no higher than.3–.4). Finally, some approaches yielded stronger associations with well-being. For example, maximum and minimum quality of parent–child relations had more consistent associations than did counts of the number of children who were high or low in quality.
On the basis of these considerations, I selected the following indicators of parent–child relations for use in subsequent analyses: maximum and minimum quality of relations and of contact (i.e., highest and lowest reports across children), and number of children reported for exchange of expressive and of instrumental assistance (to reduce skewness, I recoded these as 0 to 5 or more). Looking at both highest and lowest quality and contact was intended to capture collective ambivalence of both positive and negative (or, perhaps more accurately given the patterns, less positive) relations across multiple children. I also addressed collective ambivalence by looking at the extent to which relations by parents across their adult children combined both higher and lower levels of quality or contact with different children.
The presentation of results first summarizes patterns of parent–adult child relations when viewed across multiple children. The main focus, however, is on associations of parent–child relations with parent well-being using two indicators: (a) global happiness ("Taking things all together, how would you say things are these days"; 1 = very unhappy to 7 = very happy; M = 5.5), and (b) a composite of 12 items assessing depression included in a "list of the ways you might have felt or behaved during the past week" (aggregated number of days, M = 13.0).
Multivariate analyses of parent well-being included as control variables that may affect parent–adult child relations and parent well-being. These included the following parent characteristics: age, race/ethnicity (binary variables for Black and for Hispanic), marital status (a binary variable for married), health (self-reported, from 1 = very poor to 5 = excellent), and education (number of years) as an indicator of social class. Family characteristics included family size (number of adult children), the presence of a child younger than 19, gender composition of adult children (binary variables for sons only and daughters only, with both sons and daughters as the omitted category), and having an adult stepchild.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
presents more detailed information on these patterns and their predictors. Viewed across all of a respondent's adult children, the table presents selected information on the highest reported quality (a 7 reported for any child) and lowest quality (less than 7 for any child), the highest reported interaction (more than weekly for any child) and lowest interaction (less than weekly for any child), and whether any child was named for giving or receiving expressive or instrumental assistance. As described below, the table also presents frequencies of parents' reported mixed patterns of quality and interaction across children (i.e., higher for some children but lower for others).
|
There were also indications that parents had mixed relations among their children, reflecting collective ambivalence (see "Mixed quality" and "Mixed interaction" in Table 2). For reported quality, 62% of parents reported only the highest rating (7) for all of their children, but 21% reported both a high rating (7) for some children and lower (1–6) ratings for other children; another 17% reported only ratings lower than 7 for all of their children. For interaction, 26% saw all of their children at least once a week, but 47% saw some children that often and other children less often; another 27% saw all of their children less than once a week.
As anticipated, mothers reported higher maximum quality and interaction than did fathers, but quality and interaction minimums did not differ significantly by parent gender; and mothers were less likely to have lower quality or interaction with all of their children. Thus, mothers appeared to experience more positive relations across children without also experiencing more negative relations. Mothers also reported more exchanges of aid. Other analyses indicated that larger families (more adult children) entailed both more positive and more negative relations, though exchange of assistance was less sensitive to family size; sons and daughters had comparable maximum and minimum quality of relations, with mothers reporting more positive relations with both sons and daughters; and relations with adult stepchildren entailed lower quality, interaction, and exchange of assistance (for details of these analyses, see Ward, 2007).
To summarize, incorporating information from all adult children yields a more complete view of parent–adult child relations. In particular, compared with reports for individual parent–child dyads or "averages" combined across children, assessing lowest levels of quality and contact across multiple children uncovers more indications of negative (or less positive) relations. It is apparent that mixed relations across adult children (collective ambivalence) is not uncommon for middle-aged and older parents. What are the implications of these relations for parent well-being?
Parent–Adult Child Relations and Parent Well-Being
The main focus here is the implications of parent–adult child relations for parent well-being. I conducted regression analyses with parent happiness and depression as dependent variables. I anticipated that negative relations with children and collective ambivalence would be more influential than positive relations. Preliminary analyses indicated that minimum scores for adult child quality had stronger associations with well-being than maximum quality. I also included minimum contact as a parallel predictor; these measures of quality and contact were only modestly correlated (r =.34). I also included measures of exchange of expressive and instrumental assistance (number of children named for giving/receiving each) as predictors; assistance is not directly related to ambivalence, but it is an important dimension of parent–adult child relations that may affect parent well-being, though it is not obvious whether assistance exchanges would affect well-being positively or negatively.
Table 3 presents regression results for the total sample and separately for mothers and fathers. I conducted additional subgroup analyses by age (50–59 vs 60+), marital status (married vs not married), and number and gender of adult children. I assessed the latter to investigate whether relations with adult children might be more influential, for example, if there are only one or two children or only sons or daughters, as well as whether the implications of these factors differ for mothers and fathers. Table 3 does not report those analyses, but I refer to them in the text. As noted earlier, control variables in the analyses included parent and family characteristics.
|
Child gender appeared to play little role in these patterns of well-being. Preliminary analyses found that correlations with well-being were similar for measures of quality of relations with sons and with daughters for both mothers and fathers. Furthermore, gender composition of children was unrelated to happiness (see Table 3); analyses for sons-only and daughters-only families (not shown) exhibited similar patterns to those for the sample as a whole for both mothers and fathers.
Looking at patterns for depression, subjective health was again a consistent predictor. Depression was also lower for men and for married and better educated parents. Better parent–child quality (a higher minimum rating) was associated with less depression; the magnitude of these coefficients was comparable to those for gender, marital status, and education. As with happiness, associations for parent–child quality and patterns for mothers and fathers were similar across subgroup analyses, including those respondents with only one or two adult children and those with only sons or only daughters. Also as with happiness, other measures of parent–child relations and family characteristics exhibited little association with depression. In summary, although coefficients for parent–child minimum quality with happiness and depression were not high, they were consistently significant across a variety of subgroup analyses, including parent gender and the number and gender of children. Only health, and to a lesser extent marital status, had stronger and more consistent associations with well-being.
I repeated analyses in Table 3 using maximum quality and interaction with adult children as predictors in place of the minimum measures. Maximum quality had a somewhat stronger association with happiness than its minimum counterpart for fathers (β =.13,vs.08, p <.05). With that exception, however, the more positive indicators of parent–child relations exhibited weaker associations with well-being than did the minimum indicators.
To further explore the implications of negative parent–adult child relations and of collective ambivalence, the bottom of Table 3 reports findings using indicators of either mixed or consistently low quality and contact with children; each is a binary variable, with highest quality (7) and at least weekly contact for all children, respectively, as omitted comparison groups. Those results further highlighted the relevance of negative (or less positive) relations with at least some children. Compared with parents who reported consistently high quality across their adult children, those who reported more mixed relations and especially those who reported consistently lower quality had lower happiness and higher depression. Furthermore, low contact with all children also exhibited associations with lower well-being (depression) that were not evident in the analyses in the upper part of Table 3. Differences in coefficients in these analyses for mothers and fathers were not statistically significant.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Looking at multiple parent–adult child relations also enables a better understanding of the implications of parent–adult child relations for parent well-being. Past research has found limited and inconsistent evidence that such relations affect well-being. Here, however, there is evidence that parent–adult child relations have a consistent, albeit modest, contribution to parent well-being. This cuts across a variety of demographic and family subgroups, including parent age and marital status and family size. It appears that perceived quality of parent–child relations matters more than quantity (in terms of contact or exchanges of assistance). Furthermore, more negative aspects of parent–child relations, especially lower quality with at least one child (and especially with all children), appear to be more salient than positive aspects, as Krause (1995) and Umberson (1992) have also suggested. It may not be relations with a favorite child that matter so much to parent well-being as those involving less favored or more problematic children.
I expected parental gender differences in parent–adult child relations and their implications for parent well-being, but there were both differences and similarities between mothers and fathers. Mothers reported more positive quality across multiple children, as well as greater contact and exchange of assistance, but mothers did not report more negative relations. Compared with those of fathers, mothers' relations with adult children appeared to exhibit more benefits without more "costs," or collective ambivalence. However, there were not significant differences between mothers and fathers in the implications of negative relations with adult children for well-being. As Logan and Spitze (1996) noted, gender differences may not be as clear cut as often presumed; and, as here, they found that adult children were a potential source of distress for both mothers and fathers.
In addition to parent gender, the analyses reported here sought to assess the role of child gender in various ways. Previous analyses indicated that quality of relations reported by parents is similar for sons and daughters (see Ward, 2007). In the analyses for this article I found that measures of relations with sons and daughters were correlated similarly with the well-being of mothers and fathers, that the gender composition of adult children was not related to parent well-being, and that patterns did not vary for sons-only or daughters-only families. Thus, the implications of relations with children for parent well-being investigated here do not appear to depend on child gender.
I should acknowledge some limitations of this research. It relied on parent reports of parent–child relations. Parents tend to give somewhat more positive reports than children (Aquilino, 1999); thus, child reports might have exhibited more mixed relations and collective ambivalence. Parents' perspectives are more relevant here, however, for the focus on parent well-being.
This cross-sectional view cannot be unequivocal about causal ordering in the association between the quality of parent–adult child relations and parent well-being. It seems reasonable that negative relations with children (and especially with all of one's children) reduce parental well-being, but it is plausible that causality may operate also in the other direction: Parent depression or unhappiness may cause strains in parent–adult child relations, and difficult parents may alienate their children.
The data employed here were gathered 20 years ago. It is not uncommon to use such "older" data, especially with data sets as rich as the National Survey of Families and Households and when not addressing issues and events that be may relatively specific to particular cohorts or historical periods. Nonetheless, the salience of parent–adult child relations in the lives of both generations, and their implications for parent well-being, might vary by cohort and/or period. Gans and Silverstein (2006) noted that historical conditions that shape the values of birth cohorts may yield variation in family values and expectations; in particular, they cited suggestions that there has been a decline in the salience of family values in American society. However, Gans and Silverstein found that although there was evidence that filial norms had weakened some between 1985 and the 1990s, later born baby boom cohorts expressed slightly stronger norms of filial responsibility than did earlier cohorts. Bengtson and colleagues (2002) argued that there is more support for continued family solidarity than for a "family decline" perspective. Logan and Spitze (1996) suggested that such factors as divorce, single parenthood, and increased longevity and widowhood may have heightened the salience of parent–child relations as the most enduring relationship. Thus, it is reasonable to anticipate that parent–adult child relations continue to affect parent well-being now in ways that are similar to patterns in these data, with similar conceptual underpinnings.
This was also a relatively exploratory look at the issues addressed here. Although the data set used here is unusual in providing information about relations between parents and each of their adult children, available measures of those relations were limited in depth and variety. In particular, measurement of relationship quality rested on a single item. More direct measures are needed that assess ambivalence both in particular parent–adult child relationships and collectively across multiple children.
Analyses here considered some of the predictors of parent–adult child relations and parent well-being. Gender differences were a particular focus, with standard controls for parent and family characteristics incorporated into the multivariate analyses; some of these (age, marital status, and family size) were investigated further through subgroup analyses. Further research should explore in more depth the role of other factors, including the characteristics of parents, adult children, and parent–child dyads. For example, although there was some attention to child gender here, more in-depth assessment of same- and different-gender parent–child dyads is warranted. In addition, the quality of other relationships, such as marital or other social ties, may also affect parent–child relations and their consequences.
I also suggested in the introduction that parents may be affected by circumstances in the lives of adult children—their successes or failures. These may themselves affect parent well-being independent of, or in spite of, the nature and quality of parent–child relations. They may also affect parent–child relations and thereby affect parent well-being, as Knoester (2003) suggested that the quality of parent–adult child relations mediates links between parent and child well-being. Future work should consider the implications of child experiences, such as job promotion (or loss) and marriage (or divorce), for both parent–child relations and parent well-being.
There are other ways in which the research and issues addressed here can be extended. Luescher and Pillemer (1998) indicated that a dynamic life course approach is warranted for understanding ambivalence, and that ambivalence can be either a dependent or independent variable. Suitor and Pillemer (2007) noted that the developmental literature on young and adolescent children has found parental differentiation among children on various dimensions; parent–adult child ambivalence itself has roots in family history and early parent–child relations (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998). Thus, early parent–child relations affect subsequent within-family differentiation among adult children; for example, Suitor and Pillemer (2007) found differences between first- and last-born adult children in emotional closeness and preferences for assistance. Differences across children in adult life course transitions and statuses, such as marital and parental status, are likely to be sources of further differentiation across children (Aldous et al., 1985; Aquilino, 1997; Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998; Knoester, 2003; Umberson, 1992).
The focus here was the implications of within-family differentiation and ambivalence in parent–adult child relations for parent well-being. Other potential outcomes should be explored. For example, Pillemer and Suitor (2006) investigated parent preferences for particular children as caregivers and how this is related to variation in emotional closeness and past exchanges of assistance with children.
Recognition of multiple parent–adult child relations also directs attention to how relations with one or some children may affect relations with other children in the same family, and how these interconnecting ties affect parent–child relations and parent well-being. For example, modeling by Spitze, Logan, Deane, and Zerger (1994) of parent–adult child exchanges suggested the existence of sibling dependence in such exchanges. Further research needs to address and bring in the effects of relations with one adult child on those with others.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Received for publication December 3, 2007. Accepted for publication April 10, 2008.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  K. Pillemer and J. J. Suitor Collective Ambivalence: Considering New Approaches to the Complexity of Intergenerational Relations J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2008; 63(6): S394 - S396. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Ward, G. Deane, and G. Spitze Ambivalence About Ambivalence: Reply to Pillemer and Suitor J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., November 1, 2008; 63(6): S397 - S398. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
