The Nature of Family Ties
The Rossis made use of Bengtson’s dimensions of family solidarity in
astud y of 323 parents and 287 adult children. Focusing their analysis
on associational, functional, affectional, and consensual solidarity they
found substantial correlations between contact frequency (associational
solidarity) and help exchange (functional solidarity). Also, a relationship
between value consensus (consensual solidarity) and affective closeness
(affectional solidarity) showed up. A lack of connection was found between
contact frequency and value consensus. Apparently, some degree
of interaction is socially expected and occurs regardless of a consensus
about core values among parents and children. Neither was there a substantial
relationship between help exchange and value consensus; help
exchange occurs independently of the subjective feelings of children and
parents toward each other.
The Rossis’ research demonstrates that only two sets of the dimensions
of family solidarity as distinguished by Bengtson show consistent
and substantial correlations: functional solidarity (help exchange) and
associational solidarity (contact frequency), and consensual (value consensus)
and affectional solidarity (affective closeness). That connections
are found between help exchange and contact frequency is somewhat
of a tautology, as was said earlier. Also the relationship between shared
values and mutual affection does not come as a surprise, because having
similar ideas on religious and political matters is an important (though
not necessarily the only or the most important) precondition to mutual
liking and emotional closeness.
The main motivational base for providing assistance to parents or adult
children seems to be internalized norms of obligation. That is probably
the reason why the Rossis devote two chapters of their book to this issue.
The structure of these norms appears to be systematically patterned:
not the type of the kin person but the degree of relatedness of ego to
the various kin types was what mattered most. Children and parents
take priority over all other kin; siblings are the next in the hierarchy of
felt obligations, followed by grandchildren and grandparents. Still less
obligation was felt to nieces, nephews, aunts, and uncles.
As to the affectivity dimension the Rossis report evidence of the continuing
effects of early family experiences on current relations between
parents and adult children. Similar characteristics were transmitted from
one generation to the next. For instance, the quality of the parents’ marriage
was echoed in the marital happiness of adult children. A more
global quality of family life – family cohesion – was also transmitted
cross-generationally: happy, cooperative, interesting families tended to
breed families with similar characteristics themselves. Gender remains a
very significant factor in family life. Women keep playing a central role,
not only in the organization of the household and in child rearing but
also in the emotional climate of the family. Value consensus had an important
impact on the affective tone of parent-child relations. Dissensus
in core values (religion, politics, general outlook on life) depressed the
emotional closeness of parents and adult children.
As regards the next dimension, social interaction, the Rossis conclude
that their respondents had widespread access to both their own parents
and to their adult children. Apparently adult children did not move far
away from their parents in most cases. The access profile is reflected in
the contact between generations: from a third to almost half of the adult
children saw a parent at least once a week; one in five adult daughters had
daily phone contact with her mother. Most respondents were satisfied
with this contact frequency and, if they were not, they overwhelmingly
preferred more rather than less contact (often because one feels one
“should” have more contact). Whereas distance represented the major
factor affecting the frequency of interaction between mothers and adult
children, the quality of the relationship with fathers was even more of
an influence than sheer opportunity. Family size, in particular of the
parental generation (the number of children the parents had) but also
of the younger generation (the number of their own children), reduced
social interaction between individual members of different generations.
Accessibility of the generations (Bengtson’s “structural solidarity”) is,
of course, the fundament for both interaction and help exchange. Gender
differences were found, not only in social interaction but also in help
exchange.More women than men had regular contact with their parents,
and the help exchanged between the generations was most extensive in
the mother-daughter relationship. The quality of the emotional bond
between parent and child in the past had continuing direct effects on
the frequency of contact and the amount of help exchanged. The help
parents gave to children tended to be more instrumental (advice, job
leads, money), whereas the help children gave to parents was more personal,
hands-on care giving. Income had a strong impact on help between
generations: the higher the income of parents, the more extensive was the
help they gave to adult children. The exchange of help varied according
to the stage of the life course. Much help was given to young adults; as
the young adults matured, this help diminished, whereas children kept
giving support to their parents. As parents grew older they receivedmore
support, particularly from their daughters. Apparently there is a decline
in the reciprocity in the exchange of support between generations over
the course of life.