selection versus structure_ explaining family type differences in contact with close kin
TRANSCRIPT
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 1/24
http://jfi.sagepub.com/ Journal of Family Issues
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/29/11/1448The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X08318154
2008 29: 1448 originally published online 27 May 2008Journal of Family Issues Trees De Bruycker
Contact With Close KinSelection Versus Structure : Explaining Family Type Differences in
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Journal of Family Issues Additional services and information for
http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/29/11/1448.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- May 27, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Oct 15, 2008Version of Record>>
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 2/24
Selection Versus Structure
Explaining Family Type Differences
in Contact With Close Kin
Trees De BruyckerGhent University, Belgium
This article focuses on one aspect of family networks, namely, the frequency of
contact with close kin for adults living in different traditional and new family
types. Two mechanisms are hypothesized to account for the differences. The
first focuses on structural factors such as the number and type of persons in the
primary family network, availability of a second family network, and geograph-
ical proximity. The second is selection: Individuals with more postmodern
(family) attitudes and relatively strong orientation to friends rather than to
family may be selected into certain family types. Data from the Netherlands
Kinship Panel Study ( N = 8,155) give little support for the selection hypothesis
in explaining the differences in contact frequency found by family type. The
structural hypothesis, however, yields significant results, with network size and
geographical proximity being of key importance.
Keywords: family relations; intergenerational relations; family structure;
selection; contact
The 20th century, more especially its second half, saw profound changes
in family and living arrangements in Western societies. Characterized
by greater voluntarism in family formation, marriage, and childbearing, the
changes and their implications for the family have been reflected on at
length by many researchers in both sociology and demography (Bengston,
2001). The family decline hypothesis, as postulated by Burgess (1916) and
Journal of Family Issues
Volume 29 Number 11
November 2008 1448-1470
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0192513X08318154
http://jfi.sagepub.comhosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
1448
Author’s Note: I thank Hilary Page (Ghent University) for general advice and guidance and
Ronan Van Rossem (Ghent University) for his constructive comments on methodology and
results. The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study is funded by Grant No. 480-10-009 from the MajorInvestment Fund of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and by the Netherlands
Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, Utrecht University, the University of Amsterdam, and
Tilburg University. This article forms part of a larger research project on diversity in familial net-
works. Please address correspondence to Trees De Bruycker, Ghent University, Department of
Sociology, Korte Meer 3, 9000 Gent, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected].
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 3/24
later elaborated by Parsons and Bales (1955) and Popenoe (1993), captured
these trends by pointing to an increasing erosion of family life, family rela-
tions, and family values and formed the start of discussion pro and contrathe survival of the family. This resulted in, on one hand, studies on the
diverse new family types, often focusing on the weakness and fragility of
various contemporary family forms and living arrangements (e.g., Coleman,
Ganong, & Fine, 2000; Lansford, Ceballo, Abbey, & Stewart, 2001). On the
other hand, opponents countered the erosion hypothesis by highlighting the
importance of the broader family network (Bengston, 2001; Busschots &
Lauwers, 1994; Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993; Knijn, 2004). Recent work
on the second demographic transition both in Europe (Lesthaeghe & Surkyn,2007) and, particularly, in the United States (Lesthaeghe & Neidert, 2006) has
stimulated further interest in this discussion.
Theories concerning postmaterialism and postmodernism made clear that
the processes of change in the family in the last decennia were accompanied by
broader changes in values and attitudes, with increasing emphasis on expres-
sive individualism and voluntarism, and the weakening of social prescriptions
in general (Thornton, 1989; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). Studies of the
second demographic transition focus on the consequences of these for familyformation and dissolution, in particular on the decreasing importance of formal
marriage, the increasing acceptance of divorce, and the questioning of the
importance of having children (see, in particular, Lesthaeghe & Meekers, 1986;
Lesthaeghe & Neidert, 2006, pp. 669-672). Clearly, family construction can
increasingly be a matter of personal choice, what results in the now observed
destandardization of the life course and diversification of family types. Both the
family types in which individuals live and their relationships with kin can be
expected, therefore, to be at least in part the result of a selective process based
on personal attitudes, values, and ideas concerning the family. However,
although selection can be important in the way relationships with family
members are filled in, the size and structure of the family network can itself also
determine the relations between family members.
This article focuses on the impact of selection versus structure on the
differences in contact with close kin. More specifically, I examine the dif-
ferences in contact frequency with close kin between individuals living in
different family types and estimate the relative importance of selection and
structure. I focus on contact because contact can be considered effectivelya sine qua non for a personal relationship in general, and personal contact
is particularly important for social support (Attias-Donfut, 2003; Hogan
et al., 1993). With this focus, I try to get more insight into the differences
between the newer family types and more classic family forms.
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1449
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 4/24
Despite the continuing importance of the family network in an individ-
ual’s social capital and social support networks, as found in recent studies
(Agneessens, De Lange, & Waege, 2003; Attias-Donfut, 2003; Bengston,2001), little research has been carried out on the dynamics and diversity of the
family network of individuals living in the various contemporary family types.
Research has tended to concentrate on particular relationships, especially the
parent–child relationship (e.g., Lye, 1996; Schwarz, Trommsdorff, Albert, &
Mayer, 2005), the stepparent–stepchild relationship (e.g., Henderson &
Taylor, 1999; MacDonald & DeMaris, 2002; White, 1994), and the sibling
relationship. Less has been done at the level of the family network as such.
Moreover, where studies of the differences in the family networks of individ-uals with different living arrangements do exist, they have been largely
restricted to the elderly (i.e., Knipscheer, De Jong Gierveld, Van Tilburg, &
Dykstra, 1995; Pinquart, 2003). Furthermore, given their descriptive charac-
ter or their focus on outcomes such as loneliness rather than on the network
itself, the dynamics of the family network have received little attention.
In this article, I try to extend existing knowledge of family networks in
three ways. First, this article is broader in approach than many studies. It
addresses the characteristics of relationships with close kin in general ratherthan those of just one sort of close kin relationship such as the parent–child
relationship or the sibling relationship; it also studies the close kin networks
of all adults rather than those of just one or more particular subgroup such
as the elderly. Second, it focuses on network characteristics and dynamics as
outcome variables rather than as explanatory variables. Third, it examines
the impact of family type on family networks for all the main contemporary
family types, which makes it possible to identify possible differences
between the more traditional and the various new family forms.
Hypotheses
In the first place, this article aims at elaborating and refining our under-
standing of contemporary family life, in particular of differentials associ-
ated with the second demographic transition. According to the family
decline hypothesis, new or contemporary family types are expected to be
associated with weaker family life, which in this article means that individ-
uals living in the new family forms are expected to have less contact withtheir close kin. Our first hypothesis is, therefore, that cohabitants, divorced
and never-married single parents, divorced singles, and members of step-
families formed after divorce will have a lower frequency of contact with
their close kin than will individuals living in classic family types such as
1450 Journal of Family Issues
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 5/24
married couples, widowed singles and single parents, stepfamily members
formed following widowhood, and long-term singles (Hypothesis 1).
However, differences in contact with close kin can develop through twoquite distinct broad causal pathways—the selection and the structural
hypothesis—each containing several subhypotheses. The selection hypoth-
esis originated primarily from family studies and family demography (see,
in particular, the theory on the second demographic transition) and is the
most directly related to the original family decline hypothesis. Individuals
develop attitudes and values concerning the society in general and the
family in particular. These will have an impact on the importance individu-
als attend to formal marriage and to having children, which will have aneffect on their choices concerning the transitions to certain family types
(cohabitation, marriage, divorce, parenthood, etc.; De Jong Gierveld &
Liefbroer, 1998; Lesthaeghe, 2002; Lesthaeghe & Moors, 1994; Moors,
1996). These values will also have an impact on the relations that are main-
tained with family members living outside the household. In particular, atti-
tudes concerning family matters, like attitudes on family support and family
norms, as well as more general attitudes like postmaterialism, are found to
operate within the selection mechanism. Individuals with more postmod-ern, more postmaterialistic attitudes will be expected to be more likely both
to live in the new family types and also to have less contact with their close
kin (Hypothesis 2). Next, for those who are more strongly oriented toward the
family rather than toward friends, contact with family members is likely to be
more intense than for those who are oriented more to friends (Hypothesis 3).
Previous research has indicated that the connection between the family type
in which people live and their family attitudes, as well as their orientation
toward family or friends, is a result of selection (Moors, 1996). Married and
widowed persons tend to have more traditional family attitudes and to be
more family oriented than persons in other family types (Fischer, Sollie,
Soreel, & Green, 1989; Moors, 1996). Divorce may also have an impact on
ties with one’s own family (Johnson, 1992; Terhell, Broese van Groenou, &
Van Tilburg, 2004), and if people who are less oriented to family are more
likely to divorce, divorcees will also be a select group.
Network studies and social capital theory tend to focus more on the
effects of network size and structure. A central idea here is that people have
a certain need for contact. On one hand, the larger the number of biologi-cal kin, the more contact an individual is likely to have with kin. On the
other hand, individuals have limited time and resources. When their poten-
tial family networks are large, individuals will have to maintain contact
with more persons; because of limited time and/or resources, contacts have
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1451
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 6/24
1452 Journal of Family Issues
to be spread more thinly (Hypothesis 4). Following the same reasoning, the
existence of a second network, for example, of in-laws, could result in less
contact with one’s own (biological) family among married or cohabitatingpersons (Hypothesis 5). A second pronounced structural determinant of
contact frequency can also be found in network studies: distance. In social
support research, we find confirmation that geographical proximity facili-
tates contact (Attias-Donfut, 2003; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Hogan et al.
(1993), for example, found that contact that is motivated by personal
exchange is more frequent when the distance between the two persons is
relatively small (Hypothesis 6). Finally, having young children in the
household can also have important effects on contact with kin, althoughwhether the effects are positive or rather negative is still a subject of discus-
sion (Hypothesis 7). Hogan et al. (1993) found results that support the idea
that children, especially young children, bring the family together: A
preschool-age child, for example, leads to intensified contact as a result of
a greater need for support with child care. On the other hand, having
children limits the time and energy that can be invested in other family con-
tacts: Moore (1990) found that children led to a smaller effective network,
with fewer kin ties. Having other relatives living in the household (parentsor siblings) is also expected to have an impact on family relations. Because
parents are among the most important close kin (Agneessens et al., 2003;
Attias-Donfut, 2003), it is plausible that other family members will have
more contact when a parent is living in the household (Hypothesis 8). The
same reasoning can be followed for siblings living in the household of the
respondent (Hypothesis 9).
This brief review makes clear that both selection and structure can
account for differences, but the two mechanisms are not always in line with
each other. To test the relative importance of each, I estimate a path model,
as outlined in the following section.
Data, Measures, and Estimation Methods
Data
The Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (NKPS; Dykstra et al., 2004) con-
tains rich information permitting analysis of family networks, includingtesting of both the selection and the structure hypotheses. The NKPS col-
lected information between 2002 and 2004 on the family history, family
structure, and family relations of a random sample of adults living in pri-
vate households in the Netherlands. Information was obtained for a main
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 7/24
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1453
sample of 8,155 persons ages 18 to 79 via a computer-assisted personal
interview survey and a supplementary written self-completion survey.
Compared to the total population of the Netherlands, there is a slight over-representation of women, because of differences in response rates, and a
slight underrepresentation of the youngest age groups (for both men and
women) and of the oldest (only for women); people with children at home
are slightly overrepresented, whereas single women living alone and young
adults living with their parents are underrepresented (Dykstra et al., 2004).
Measures
Frequency of contact with close kin. In this analysis, I use a rather
restricted definition of close kin: the respondent’s own (biological) parents,
adult children, and siblings. This definition was chosen first for method-
ological reasons, particularly the need to compare specific kin for adults in
all family types, and second because biological family, especially parents,
children, and siblings, rather than in-laws or more distant kin, tend to be
seen as the key relatives with whom to have contact and to exchange sup-
port (Agneessens et al., 2003; Terhell et al., 2004; Wellman & Wortley,
1989). These last considerations are also reflected in the design of theNKPS, which collected quite detailed data on parents, children, and sib-
lings, and only more limited data on other relatives.
Contact itself can take many forms. Here, I focus primarily on face-to-
face contact, as this is the most important in the context of social support
(Rossi & Rossi, 1990). It is possible of course that telephone or electronic
contact may these days be a partial substitute for face-to-face contact, but
generally similar patterns were found when the analysis was repeated using
these measures rather than face-to-face contact.For each close kin member (father, mother, children, and siblings), the
respondent had to give information about the frequency of contact in the
past year, using the following seven categories (1 = not at all, 2 = once,
3 = a few times, 4 = at least once a month, 5 = at least once a weak, 6 = a few
times a week, and 7 = daily). For adult family members living in the house-
hold of the respondent, an assumption of daily contact was made. The sum of
these sums is taken here as an indicator of overall contact with close kin.
Family type. Twelve mutually exclusive family types are used, hereby
making a distinction between individuals living in more classic family types,
those in newer family forms, and those who have not (yet) started a long-
standing relationship. The distinction concentrates on the de facto situation
and is based on choices concerning marriage and/or partner forming and
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 8/24
dissolution and having children present in the household. I distinguish five
traditional family types—married individuals without children in the house-
hold, married individuals with children in the household, widowed singles,classic single parents (widows and widowers with children in the household),
and individuals living in classic stepfamilies (stepfamilies formed following
widowhood of one of both partners—no distinction is made here between a
respondent’s stepchild or the partner’s stepchild). I also distinguish five new
family types—divorced singles, new single parents (divorced or never mar-
ried persons with a child in the household), cohabitants with children in the
household, cohabitants without children in the household, and members of
new stepfamilies (stepfamilies formed after a divorce of one or both partners).For completeness, I include two categories for primary singles (never married
nor in a relationship that lasted longer than 3 years, and not cohabitating at
the moment of the interview): young primary (younger than 30) singles and
older primary (older than 30) singles. It is not easy to classify individuals in
these two groups as classic or as new family types. The first group is very
diverse, including both those who want to remain single and those who do
not. The second group is more uniform; its members are more likely, delib-
erately or not, to remain single. On one hand, there have always been primarysingles; on the other hand, their number has been increasing recently, sug-
gesting that they may be more new than classic.
Selection Variables
Based on the hypothesis of the selection effect, four variables were iden-
tified as valuable for this analysis: attitudes on family support, attitudes on
family norms, preference for postmaterialism or materialism, and orienta-
tion to family as opposed to friends.
1. A scale of 12 items, with five response categories, was used to estimate the
attitudes on family support. Items such as “You must be able to count on
your family” and “Children should look after their sick parents” (with the
possible scores on each item being 5 = totally agree, 4 = agree, 3 = don’t
know, 2 = don’t agree, and 1 = totally don’t agree) give an indication of the
scale. The scale has strong internal reliability (Cronbach’s α = .875).
2. The scale for attitudes on traditional family norms was constructed in a sim-
ilar way, with the same five response categories. It includes items like “Aman and a woman may cohabitate without marrying” and “A woman should
stop working when she gets a child,” which focus on new family trends and
gender equalities in contemporary family life. These items also result in a
scale with strong internal reliable (Cronbach’s α = .844).
1454 Journal of Family Issues
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 9/24
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1455
3. The postmaterialism or materialism measure is based on the classic items
that were used by Inglehart (Abramson & Inglehart, 1998). Two dummy
variables were created, one for respondents who rank the two postmaterial-istic items “political participation” and “freedom of speech” highest, and
one for respondents who preferred the two materialistic items “law and
order” and “fighting rising prices.” Respondents who indicated a mixed
preference form the reference category. These three variables are expected
to have a direct selection effect as well as an indirect effect via the variable
on family orientation.
4. The strength of the individual’s family orientation is measured using a scale
based on five items contrasting family members with friends (“If I have
problems I can discuss them with members of my family rather than withfriends,” “I have more confidence in the members of my family than in my
friends,” “If I would need help, I would call on my friends rather than on
members of my family,” “I can rely more on my friends than on members of
my family,” and “I prefer to have friends come to visit than members of the
family”). Where necessary, the items were recoded so that they all scored
in the same direction (1 = strongly oriented toward friends to 5 = strongly
oriented toward family). This scale too has strong internal reliability
(Cronbach’s α = .805).
Structural Variables
In total, six structural variables are included in the model.
1. The size of the family network is simply the number of living parents,
children, and siblings of the respondent.
2. The availability of a second network is a dummy variable based simply on
whether the respondent knows his or her partner’s parents (0 = not known or
not alive or 1 = one or both parents-in-law known) because parents-in-laware the most important individuals in the family-in-law network (Rossi &
Rossi, 1990).
3. The geographical proximity of close kin is operationalized as the number of
close kin living within 10 kilometers of the respondent.
4. The three variables for coresidence of close kin are all dummies based on
the presence (coded 1) or absence (coded 0) of one or more kin of the type
concerned (children, parents, or siblings) living in the respondent’s house-
hold. In this analysis, young children are children under the age of 10,
because we can assume that up to this age children cannot operate indepen-dently from adult supervision, which results in a need for childcare.
Control Variables
Age, gender, and educational attainment are also included in the analyses
as control variables. Age is measured in single years; educational attainment
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 10/24
1456 Journal of Family Issues
is entered as a 10-point scale based on the highest education completed,with scores ranging from 0 for those who have not finished elementary edu-
cation to 9 for those with postacademic education. The importance of age
(Ganong, Coleman, McDaniel, & Killian, 1998; Gauthier, 2002), sex
(Attias-Donfut, 2003; Kohli & Künemund, 2003; Marks & McLanahan,
1993), and education (Kalmijn, 2005) in the study of family relations and
family networks has been emphasized in other studies. Given the broad
support for the importance of these personal features, I included them in
this model, and their effects are included in the results. Because they are notcentral to the questions addressed in this particular article, they are not dis-
cussed in the results.
Estimation Method
The model underlying the hypotheses is shown in Figure 1. Ideally, the
various effects in the underlying model would be estimated via structural
equation modeling. However, the model includes endogenous variables that
are measured as nominal and categorical data. It is, therefore, not possibleto estimate the entire model using standard programs for structural equation
modeling. I have, therefore, had to limit the analysis to an examination of
each of the various relationships separately, using either regression or
(multinomial) logistic regression, depending on the dependent variable.
Figure 1
Underlying Model
Classic - Married without children- Married with children- Widowed single- Classic single parent- Classic stepfamilyNew
- Divorced single- New single parent- Cohabitant without children- Cohabitant with children- New stepfamilyPrimary singles - Young primary single- Older primary single
Family type
- Size of primary network- Presence of a second network- Geographical proximity of kin- Co-residence of children,
siblings, or parents
Structural aspects of thefamily network
- Orientation family versus friends- Family norms- Family attitudes- Postmaterialism
Selection
Frequency ofcontact
with close kin
Control variables: age, gender, and education
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 11/24
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1457
Results
I discuss first the differences in contact frequency observed betweenindividuals living in different family types and then the estimated direct
effects on contact frequency of family type, the structural variables, and the
selection variables. To evaluate the role of the structural and selection
mechanisms in producing the relationship between family type and contact
frequency, I then combine the findings for the direct effects of the structural
and selection variables on contact frequency with the estimated relationship
of these variables with family type.
Direct Effects of Family Type, Selection Variables, and
Structural Variables on Differences in Contact Frequency
A first regression model (Table 1, Model 1), confirms the existence of
differences in contact frequency for individuals living in the 12 different
family types. Controlling for age, gender, and education, living in almost
every one of the new family types or being an older primary single are asso-
ciated with having statistically significant less contact than the reference
group, namely, married individuals with children in the household. Older
primary singles score the lowest ( B = –5.181, p < .001), followed by cohab-
itants without children ( B = –2.072, p < .001) and with children ( B =–2.058, p < .01). Divorced singles ( B = –1.885, p < .001) and new single
parents ( B = –1.419, p < .05) score higher than these three family types but
still lower than married individuals with children, although the differences
are smaller. Married individuals without children, widowed singles, classic
single parents, and stepfamily members do not differ significantly from
married individuals with children in their households. The significant dif-ferences in contact frequency are mostly in line with the expectations of
Hypothesis 1, namely, that individuals living in the newer family forms will
have less frequent contact with close kin. However, the hypothesis does not
hold for new stepfamily members.
Table 1, Model 2, presents the results of a multiple regression analysis
of contact frequency that includes not only family type but also the struc-
tural and selection variables as independent variables. Note that most of the
effects of family type are now insignificant or markedly smaller, except foryoung primary singles, married individuals without children, and new step-
families, where a significant difference appears, and also that in general the
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 12/24
T a b l e 1
E f f e c t o f S t r u c t u r e a n d S e l e c t i o n o n C o n t a c t F r e q u e n c y : S t e p w i s e - B u i l t R e g r e s s i o n
M o d e l W i t h F a m i l y T y p
e s ( M o d e l 1 ) a n d S t r u c
t u r e a n d S e l e c t i o n V a r i a b l e s ( M o d e l 2 ) ,
U n s t a n d a r d i z e d a n d S t a n d a r d i z e
d R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s
F a c e - t o - F a c e C o n t a c t
M o d e l 1
M o d e l 2
R e g r e s s i o n
B
β
B
β
C o n s t a n t
1 8 . 1 1 4 * * *
– 1 . 1 0 9
F a m i l y t y p e s a
C l a s s i c
M a r r i e d w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n
0 . 6 2 9
. 0 2 6
1 . 0 3 4 * * *
. 0 4 2
W i d o w e d s i n g l e
– 0 . 4 6 6
– 0 . 0 1 0
0 . 0 8 0
. 0 2 0
C l a s s i c s i n g l e p a r e n t
1 . 2 7 6
. 0 1 1
0 . 9 4 7
. 0 0 8
C l a s s i c s t e p f a m i l y
– 2 . 5 2 2
– . 0 1 2
– 1 . 3 6 9
– . 0 0 7
N e w D i v o r c e d s i n g l e
– 1 . 8 8 5 * * *
– . 0 5 5
– 0 . 4 8 2
– . 0 1 4
N e w s i n g l e p a r e n t
– 1 . 4 1 9 *
– . 0 2 7
– 1 . 0 9 6 * *
– . 0 2 1
C o h a b i t a n t w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n
– 2 . 0 7 2 * * *
– . 0 5 3
0 . 1 1 7
. 0 0 3
C o h a b i t a n t w i t h c h i l d r e n
– 2 . 0 5 8 * *
– . 0 3 3
0 . 3 3 3
. 0 0 5
N e w s t e p f a m
i l y
– 0 . 7 3 4
– . 0 1 1
– 1 . 4 8 4 * *
– . 0 2 2
P r i m a r y s i n g l e s
Y o u n g p r i m a r y s i n g l e
– 0 . 4 3 5
– . 0 1 1
0 . 9 6 2 *
. 0 2 4
O l d e r p r i m a r y s i n g l e
– 5 . 1 8 1 * * *
– . 1 2 8
– 0 . 7 2 0 *
– . 0 1 8
S t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s
N e t w o r k s i z e
2 . 3 6 9 * * *
. 6 8 4
A v a i l a b i l i t y s e c o n d n e t w o r k
– 0 . 6 4 0 * * *
– . 0 3 1
G e o g r a p h i c a l p r o x i m i t y
1 . 5 1 4 * * *
. 3 0 4
( c o n
t i n u e d )
1458
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 13/24
T a b l e 1 ( c o n t i n u e d )
F a c e - t o - F a c e C o n t a c t
M o d e l 1
M o d e l 2
R e g r e s s i o n
B
β
B
β
C o r e s i d e n t f a m
i l y b
P a r e n t s
4 . 9 0 8 * * *
. 0 7 5
Y o u n g c h i l d r e n
– 4 . 6 3 5 * * *
– . 1 9 1
S i b l i n g s
0 . 1 7 2
. 0 0 2
S e l e c t i o n v a r i a b l e s
F a m i l y v e r s u s
f r i e n d s o r i e n t a t i o n
0 . 3 1 9 * * *
. 1 1 3
A t t i t u d e s f a m i l y s u p p o r t
– 0 . 0 0 1
. 0 0 0
A t t i t u d e s f a m i l y n o r m s
– 0 . 0 0 9
– . 0 0 6
P o s t m a t e r i a l i s m c
– 0 . 4 9 8 *
– . 0 1 4
M a t e r i a l i s m
– 0 . 2 5 7
– . 0 1 0
C o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s
A g e
0 . 0 9 0 * * *
. 1 2 9
– 0 . 0 6 3 * * *
– . 0 9 1
S e x d
0 . 3 1 4
. 0 1 5
0 . 6 1 7 * * *
. 0 2 9
E d u c a t i o n
– 0 . 6 1 2 * * *
– . 1 3 6
0 . 2 0 8 * * *
. 0 4 6
R ²
. 0 7 6
. 7 3 0
A d j u s t e d R ²
. 0 7 4
. 7 2 9
C h a n g e d R ²
. 0 7 6 * * *
. 6 5 3 * * *
a . R e f e r e n c e c a t e g o r y f o r f a m i l y t y p e s i s m a r r i e d i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h c h i l d r e n .
b . R e f e r e n c e c a t e
g o r y f o r c o r e s i d e n t k i n i s n o c o r e s i d e n t k i n .
c . R e f e r e n c e c a t e g o r y f o r p o s t m a t e r i a l i s m o r m a
t e r i a l i s m i s t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n .
d . R e f e r e n c e c a t e
g o r y f o r s e x i s m a l e .
* p <
. 0 5 . * * p < . 0 1 . * * * p <
. 0 0 1 .
1459
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 14/24
1460 Journal of Family Issues
effects of the structural variables are stronger than those of the selection
variables. However, to evaluate and elaborate the possible structure and
selection mechanisms, it needs to be examined whether those structural andselection variables that are significantly associated with contact frequency
are also significantly associated with particular family types.
The Structural Mechanism
The estimated effects of the structural variables on contact frequency are
presented in Table 1, Model 2. The estimated effects of family type on the
structural variables are shown in Table 2 (regression) and Table 3 (logisticregression). I examine the role of each of our structural variables in turn.
First of all, the size or range of the network (Hypothesis 4) is, as
expected, of primary importance in the frequency of contact with close
kin (see Table 1). Having more family members results in a higher score
on the overall frequency of contact with kin: One additional person in the
network produces an extra score of 2.369 ( p < .001) on the overall fre-
quency scale. This does not mean, however, that a larger network is asso-
ciated with more frequent contacts per kin member: The opposite is true.We can see this easily if we compare, for example, the 10th and the 90th
percentiles. These correspond with scores of 6 and 32, respectively, on
overall contact frequency; that is, they differ by 26. The same percentiles
differ by only 7 on network size. The coefficient of 2.369 applied to a dif-
ference of 7 in network size is only 16.583, which is considerably less
than the observed 26. In other words, the coefficient of 2.369 implies that
for each additional person in the network there is more frequent contact
in total, but less contact per person. Table 2 shows that all family types,
except single parents and classic stepfamilies, have significant smaller
networks than married persons with children. Primary singles and, in
decreasing order, cohabitants without children and divorced singles show
quite smaller networks. Married individuals without children, widowed
singles, and cohabitants with children have slightly smaller family net-
works, compared to the reference category. The distinctive smaller net-
works for divorced singles and cohabitants without children result in a
first structural explanation for the differences between classic and new
family types in contact frequency.The second structural variable, geographical proximity (Hypothesis 6),
also exhibits a strong effect on contact frequency (see Table 1) as could be
expected given the large support for the effect of geographical proximity in
previous research (Attias-Donfyt, 2003; Rossi & Rossi, 1990).
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 15/24
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1461
Primary singles, especially young ones, have the least amount of kin liv-
ing within 10 kilometers (see Table 2). Individuals living in new familytypes such as divorced singles, cohabitants without children, and new step-
families are also less likely to be living close to relatives. This combined
with the effect of geographical proximity on contact frequency provides
another partial explanation for their low contact frequency.
Table 2
Effect of Family Types on Structural Features: Regression on Size of
Family Network and Geographic Proximity, Unstandardized andStandardized Regression Coefficients
Structural Variables
Geographical
Size Network Proximity
Regression B β B β
Constant 5.906*** 3.757***Family typesa
Classic
Married without children –1.294*** –.182 0.124 .025
Widowed single –1.236*** –.098 0.049 .005
Classic single parent –0.600 –.017 –0.044 –.002
Classic stepfamily –0.220 –.040 –0.640 –.015
New
Divorced single –1.494*** –.150 –0.360*** –.052
New single parent –0.091 –.006 –0.209 –.020
Cohabitant without children –2.065*** –.180 –0.356*** –.044Cohabitant with children –0.689*** –.039 –0.193 –.016
New stepfamily 0.416* .022 –0.309* –.023
Primary singles
Young primary single –2.175*** –.193 –1.219*** –.154
Older primary single –2.857*** –.241 –0.500*** –.060
Control variables
Age 0.044*** .222 –0.004 –.028
Sexb –0.091 –.015 –0.090 –.021
Education –0.161*** –.125 –0.243*** –.270
R² .172 .101Adjusted R² .171 .100
a. Reference category for family types is married individuals with children.
b. Reference category for sex is male.
* p < .05. *** p < .001
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 16/24
T a b l e 3
E f f e c t s o f F a m i l y T y p e s
o n S t r u c t u r a l F e a t u r e s
: L o g i s t i c R e g r e s s i o n o n S e c o n d F a m i l y
N e t w o r k ,
C o r e s i d e n t P a r e n t , S i b l i n g ,
a n d Y o u n g C h i l d ,
O d d s R a t i o s
S t r u c t u r a l V a r i a b l e s
L o g i s t i c R e g r e s s i o n
S e c o n
d N e t w o r k
C o r e s i d e n t P a r e n t
C o r e s i d e n t S i b l i n g
C o r e s i d e n t Y o u n
g C h i l d
C o n s t a n t
4 8
5 . 0 4 9 * * *
1 3 0 . 5 5 0
3 . 6 2 2
1 4 9 9 4 0 0 * * *
F a m i l y t y p e s a
C l a s s i c
M a r r i e d w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n
0 . 4 5 6 * * *
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0
0 0
W i d o w e d s i n g l e
0 . 0 2 9 * * *
0 . 0 0 0
6 . 5 8 5
0 . 0
0 0
C l a s s i c s i n g l e p a r e n t
0 . 0 2 3 * * *
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 2
9 5 *
C l a s s i c s t e p f a m i l y
4 . 6 4 3 *
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1 . 1
4 7
N e w D i v o r c e d s i n g l e
0 . 0 3 6 * * *
2 . 4 1 8
2 . 7 3 5 *
0 . 0
0 0
N e w s i n g l e p a r e n t
0 . 0 3 9 * * *
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 6
9 8 *
C o h a b i t a n t w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n
1 . 0 1 6
0 . 2 5 6
0 . 2 0 5 *
0 . 0
0 0
C o h a b i t a n t w i t h c h i l d r e n
1 . 1 2 4
0 . 3 1 6
0 . 9 5 2
1 . 8
6 3 *
N e w s t e p f a m
i l y
1 . 1 8 5
0 . 0 0 0
0 . 0 0 0
1 . 2
1 0
P r i m a r y s i n g l e
Y o u n g p r i m a r y s i n g l e
0 . 0 0 9 * * *
7 . 3 4 6 * * *
7 . 5 4 2 * * *
0 . 0
0 0
O l d e r p r i m a
r y s i n g l e
0 . 0 1 5 * * *
9 . 7 6 3 * * *
3 . 6 6 5 * * *
0 . 0
0 0
C o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s
A g e
0 . 8 9 2 * * *
0 . 7 5 2 * * *
0 . 8 7 7 * * *
0 . 7
1 5 * * *
S e x b
0 . 6 4 8 * * *
0 . 8 6 7
0 . 9 3 0
0 . 4
3 3 * * *
E d u c a t i o n
1 . 1 1 6 * * *
0 . 8 7 7 * *
0 . 8 0 7 * * *
1 . 1
8 5 * * *
N a g e l k e r k e R ²
. 6 1 3
. 6 3 7
. 4 7 3
. 8
4 1
a . R e f e r e n c e c a t e
g o r y f o r f a m i l y t y p e s i s m a r r i e
d i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h c h i l d r e n .
b . R e f e r e n c e c a t e
g o r y f o r s e x i s m a l e .
* p <
. 0 5 . * * p < . 0 1 . * * * p <
. 0 0 1 .
1462
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 17/24
The third structural variable, the availability of a second family network
(Hypothesis 5) also has a significant effect on contact frequency (see Table
1). It is also related to family type (see Table 3), exhibiting a very logical neg-ative relationship with all types of single individuals. On the other hand, a few
not-so-expected results become clear with a closer look at the results. Being
married without children has a significant negative effect on the availability
of a second network in comparison to being married with children. The same
is true for widowed singles. Although I controlled for age in general, these
results may be an effect of a concentration of older persons in these two
family types, especially in the category of widowed singles, resulting in a
higher chance that both parents-in-law are deceased. The combination of asignificant effect of a second network on contact frequency with several sig-
nificant relationships between family type and the availability of a second
network makes it possible to conclude that this can also account in part for
the differences in contact by family type, especially for singles.
The estimated effects of having family members living in the household
(see Table 1) suggest that these effects can be brought back to constraints
imposed by limited time and resources. Having a young child present in the
household has a large negative effect on contact with close kin ( B = –4.635,β = –0.191, p < .001; Hypothesis 7). This is in line with Moore (1990), who
said that having children intensifies the interaction within the household
and therefore leaves less time for maintaining relations with close kin out-
side the household. Combining this effect with the relationship between
family type and having a young child in the household, we see that this
mechanism largely accounts for the lower contact frequency of cohabitants
with children, given the fact that these persons have a greater chance of
having young children in the household. For single parents, it works in the
other direction, however, given the fact that children in these households
are mostly of older age. Table 1 shows that parents living in the household
also are of great importance for the frequency of contact with close kin
(Hypothesis 8). Given the fact that the score on contact frequency was aug-
mented with 7 (assumed daily contact) for adults living in the household,
the observed positive effect is logical, but its value shows that contact fre-
quency with other family members is lower. Having a parent living in the
household is most common for primary singles, who can more easily take
in a parent than can individuals with partners or children (see Table 3). Thisresults in overall positive effects only for singles though. From Table 1, we
see that having a sibling living in the household has no effect on contact fre-
quency and cannot, therefore, account for the differences in contact by
family type. Therefore we have to reject the Hypothesis 9.
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1463
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 18/24
1464 Journal of Family Issues
The Selection Mechanism
The selection variables show fewer significant direct effects on contactfrequency than the structural variables do (Table 1, Model 2). In general,
therefore, we might expect the selection mechanism to be weaker unless the
selection variables have particularly strong effects on family type. The
results of multinomial logistic regressions for the latter are given in Table 4.
A relatively strong orientation toward family rather than friends does
have a direct positive effect on the frequency of contact with close kin
(Hypothesis 3): As expected, people who feel more strongly about their
families also have more contact with them (see Table 1). Family orientation
is also significantly related to certain family types: Individuals who are
more strongly oriented to family are less likely to be living as primary sin-
gles, new single parents, divorced singles, cohabitants without children, and
classic stepfamily members. The combination of these effects provides fur-
ther explanation for the low levels of family contact among individuals liv-
ing in some of the new family types. Family orientation does not have a
significant effect on the likelihood of being a cohabitant with children or
living in a new stepfamily, however.
Having more postmaterialistic ideas is related to less contact with closekin (see Table 1). Primary singles and cohabitants with children score
remarkably higher on postmaterialism (see Table 4), compared to the refer-
ence category, than do married or cohabitating individuals without children.
None of the other selection variables contributes directly to differences
in contact frequency by family type. Although primary singles, divorced
singles, and single parents have more positive ideas on support (see Table
4), and divorced singles, single parents, and cohabitants are more likely to
be found among those with less attention to classic family norms (see Table4), these variables cannot account for the differences in the overall fre-
quency of contact with their kin, because there is no direct effect of these
attitudes on contact frequency (see Table 1).
Therefore, if these variables play a role at all, it must be through their
effect on family orientation and, to a lesser extent, through having more
postmaterialistic values.
Conclusion and Discussion
With rising voluntarism in family life decisions, an increasing number of
individuals are likely to be living in new family types in the future; it is,
therefore, of interest to develop more insights in the family dynamics and
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 19/24
T a b l e 4
E f f e c t o f S e l e c t i o n V a r i a b l e s o n F a m i l y T y p e s : M u l t i n o m i a l R e g r e s s i o
n ,
O d d s R a t i o s
F a m i l y T y p e s a
C l a s s i c
N e w
P r i m a r y s i n g l e s
M a r r i e d
C l a s s i c
N e w
C o h a b i t a n t
C o h a b i t a n t
Y o u n g
O l d e r
M u l t i n o m i a l L o g i s t i c
W i t h o u t
W i d o w e d
S i n g l e
C l a s s i c
D i v o r c e d
S i n g l e
W i t h o u t
W i t h
N e w
P r i m a r y
P r i m a r y
R e g r e s s i o n
C h i l d r e n
S i n g l e
P a r e n t
S t e p f a m i l y
S i n g l e
P a r e n t
C h i l d r e n
C h i l d r e n
S t e p f a m i l y
S i n g l e
S i n g l e
S e l e c t i o n v a r i a b l e s
F a m i l y v e r s u s f r i
e n d s
o r i e n t a t i o n
0 . 9 9 3
0 . 9 7 0
1 . 0 0 3
0 . 8 6 1 *
0 . 9 0 8 * * *
0 . 9 0 5 * * *
0 . 9 6 7 *
1 . 0
0 8
0 . 9 7 8
0 . 8 9 8 * * * 0
. 9 3 1 * * *
A t t i t u d e s f a m i l y s u p p o r t
0 . 9 9 5
1 . 0 0 3
0 . 9 7 3
0 . 9 9 9
1 . 0 3 5 * * *
1 . 0 5 8 * * *
1 . 0 1 3
1 . 0
1 3
1 . 0 2 8 *
1 . 0 1 6
1
. 0 3 2 * * *
A t t i t u d e s f a m i l y n o r m s
1 . 0 2 0 * *
0 . 9 8 0
1 . 0 3 0
0 . 9 9 1
0 . 9 6 3 * * *
0 . 9 5 2 * * *
0 . 9 4 5 * * *
0 . 9
2 5 *
0 . 9 8 8
0 . 9 8 9
0
. 9 9 5
P o s t m a t e r i a l i s m b
1 . 3 4 6 *
1 . 0 7 6
1 . 2 6 5
0 . 8 8 3
1 . 7 4 6
2 . 0 3 4
1 . 4 9 3 *
1 . 8
2 1 *
1 . 4 9 4
2 . 0 1 8 *
1
. 5 0 9 *
M a t e r i a l i s m
0 . 9 1 0
0 . 9 7 3
0 . 9 1 9
0 . 6 9 8
0 . 9 7 4 * *
1 . 1 3 7 * *
0 . 9 8 6
1 . 2
2 4
0 . 7 9 3
0 . 6 2 0 *
0
. 8 5 3
C o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s
A g e
0 . 8 9 0 * * *
1 . 1 2 8 * * *
0 . 9 5 9 * *
0 . 9 6 8
0 . 9 6 0 * * *
0 . 9 0 0 * * *
0 . 8 3 3 * * *
0 . 8
5 4 * * *
0 . 9 0 1 * * *
0 . 5 6 2 * * * 0
. 9 2 3 * * *
S e x c
1 . 2 3 2 * *
2 . 8 8 9 * * *
1 . 8 0 9 *
0 . 9 8 4
1 . 0 2 1 * * *
5 . 4 5 8 * * *
0 . 8 6 5
1 . 0
7 7
1 . 3 1 8
0 . 4 1 4 * * * 0
. 8 8 4
E d u c a t i o n
1 . 0 2 6
0 . 8 8 8 * * *
0 . 9 1 9
0 . 8 1 4
0 . 9 7 5
0 . 9 4 3
1 . 1 0 3 * *
1 . 0
8 6 *
0 . 9 0 8 *
1 . 1 2 9 * * 1
. 0 9 4 * * *
M o d e l
– 2 l o g l i k e l i h o o d =
2 2 , 6 3 7 ; χ 2 =
6 , 4 5 9 ; d f =
8 8 ; p s e u d o R 2 N a g
e l k e r k e =
. 6 1
a . R e f e r e n c e c a t e g o
r y f o r f a m i l y t y p e s i s m a r r i e d i n d i v
i d u a l s w i t h c h i l d r e n .
b . R e f e r e n c e c a t e g o
r y f o r p o s t m a t e r i a l i s m o r m a t e r i a l i s m i s t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n .
c . R e f e r e n c e c a t e g o
r y f o r s e x i s m a l e .
* p <
. 0 5 . * * p <
. 0 1 . * * * p <
. 0 0 1 .
1465
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 20/24
family relations of individuals living in the new family types. Based on the
family decline hypothesis and on studies of the second demographic tran-
sition, I hypothesized that individuals living in new family types wouldhave less contact with their close kin family, indicating the higher volun-
tarism in new family life. The analysis of the NKPS data reveals consider-
able differences in frequency of contact with close kin by family type, with
individuals living in the classic family types having a higher contact fre-
quency on average than those living in other family types. I have shown that
individuals living in nearly all the new family types associated with the sec-
ond demographic transition tend to have less contact with their close kin
than do those in the reference category (married individuals with childrenin the household). Cohabitating individuals and divorced singles in partic-
ular have lower frequency of contact. Unexpected results are found, how-
ever, for individuals living in a stepfamily formed after a divorce. Although
this family type can be clearly categorized as a new family form, it shows
no significant difference from the classic married-with-children type. Older
primary singles (individuals older than 30 who have not yet entered in a
longstanding or cohabitating relationship) have markedly lower contact fre-
quency, which can be traced both to weaker orientation to family and tohaving fewer close kin living relatively close by. This suggests that
although this family type has always existed, its increasing share in the total
population reflects a new family type rather than a classic family type.
Given the fact that contact frequency is linked with support (Hogan
et al., 1993; Marks & McLanahan, 1993) and solidarity (Silverstein &
Bengston, 1997), I can, based on the results, expect that most of the indi-
viduals in new family types will have less access to support from their rel-
atives. This means that I do not find confirmation for the idea that the
multigenerational bonds in new families have been taking over some of the
lost functions of the classic family, as Bengston (2001) argued.
Although the differences between individuals living in new or contem-
porary family types and those in the more classic family forms can be
explained by selection and by structure, structural characteristics of the
family network appear to be more important in determining contact fre-
quency than selection, based on family orientation and other attitudes. The
larger the number of close kin, the greater the overall contact frequency but
the thinner the contact tends to be spread over the various kin members, inline with the notion of constraints on the time and resources devoted to kin.
The effects of having young children in the household and the availability
of a second network and of proximity confirm the importance of time and
resource constrains. With individuals in new family types tending to live
1466 Journal of Family Issues
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 21/24
further away from their relatives, proximity is one of the most important
paths in explaining the differences between new and traditional families.
The selection hypothesis is supported by the effect of family versus friendorientation, with most individuals in most of the new family types being
more likely to be more oriented toward their friends and by the higher post-
materialism of cohabitants. That selection tends to be less important in
explaining contact frequency differences can be due to the changed ratio of
new to classic family types. As more individuals start living in the new
family types, we could assume that living in those types will be more
accepted. Consequently, differences in attitudes and norms between indi-
viduals in new and classic family types can be assumed to become smallerover time and disappear eventually. Based on the longer tradition of infor-
mal partnerships, the postponement of having children, and rising divorce
rates, the Netherlands can be seen as rather ahead in the second demo-
graphic transition compared to the rest of the European countries (de Beer
& Deven, 2000). In spite of this, the majority of the Dutch are still members
of a classic family type and have a traditional life course (Dykstra &
Komter, 2006). It is possible that the selection effect and consequently the
differences in contact between individuals in classic and new family typeswill further slow down if more individuals enter new family types.
Finally, some limitations should be mentioned. First, the NKPS data set
has a few limitations. The response rate was only 45%, which is a normal
rate for surveys in the Netherlands (Dykstra et al., 2004), but still rather
low. Information on the nonrespondents is very limited, but it cannot be
ruled out that persons for whom family is less important are underrepre-
sented. Furthermore, although the NKPS is one of the most extensive sur-
veys on family life and family relations, practical constraints meant that
even here only part of the family network could be studied in detail and
choices as to which relations would be studied in detail had to be made.
Based on this data set, it was, therefore, not possible to make the link with
other personal and family networks.
Second, note that some of these theoretical concepts were not easy to
operationalize. This was particularly the case for the selection mechanism,
where I tried to combine several different types of potentially relevant
information. Family orientation was introduced as a key variable because of
its high relevance given that social capital and networks may be becomingmore oriented toward friends than toward family. However, the family ori-
entation variable does not capture underlying family and nonfamily values.
I therefore added scales based on attitudes to traditional family organization
and on the importance of family as a source of potential support and also a
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1467
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 22/24
basic indicator of postmaterialism. Despite the high internal strength of the
scales, neither they nor postmaterialism showed many direct effects. Any
effects they have are presumably channeled through family orientation.Last but not least, this particular article is limited to contact frequency
and to cross-sectional data. I have not addressed the content of kin contact,
nor have I explicitly addressed the possible impact of transitions to other
family types over the life course. The first of these is, however, currently
under study and will be the topic of another article.
References
Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. (1998). Value change in global perspective. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Agneessens, F., De Lange, D., & Waege, H. (2003). Over het verband tussen sociale relaties
en attitudes, waarden en normen [About the relationship between social relations and atti-
tudes, values and norms]. In Administratie Planning en Statistiek (Ed.), Vlaanderen
Gepeild, 2003 (pp. 15-51). Brussels, Belgium: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
Attias-Donfut, C. (2003). Family transfers and cultural transmissions between three genera-
tions in France. In B. L. Bengston & M. Silverstein (Eds.), Global aging and challenges
to the families (pp. 214-250). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Bengston, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigener-
ational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1-16.
Burgess, E. (1916). The function of socialization in social evolution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Busschots, M., & Lauwers, J. (1994). Familiale en sociaal culturele werken [Family and social
cultural work]. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of
progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1288-1367.
de Beer, J., & Deven, F. (2000). Diversity in family formation: The second demographic tran-
sition in Belgium and the Netherlands. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.De Jong Gierveld, J., & Liefbroer,A. (1998). Sociale herkomst, opvattingen over relaties en gezin
en leefvormkeuzes van jongvolwassenen [Social background, family attitudes and living
arrangement choices of young adults: Results of a panel study]. Sociologische gids, 45, 96-115.
Dykstra, P., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T., Komter, A., Liefbroer, A., & Mulder, C. (2004). Codebook
of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A multi-actor, multi-method panel study on soli-
darity in family relationships. Wave 1 [NKPS working paper] (Vol. 1). The Hague:
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.
Dykstra, P., & Komter, A. (2006). Structural characteristics of Dutch kin networks. In P.
Dykstra, M. Kalmijn, T. Knijn, A. Komter, A. Liefbroer, & C. Mulder (Eds.), Family soli-
darity in the Netherlands (pp. 21-42). Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.Fischer, J. L., Sollie, D. L.,Sorell, G. T., & Green, S. K. (1989). Marital status and career stage influ-
ences on social networks of young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 512-534.
Ganong, L., Coleman, M., McDaniel, A. K., & Killian, T. (1998). Attitudes regarding obliga-
tions to assist on older parent and stepparent following later life remarriage. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 60, 595-610.
1468 Journal of Family Issues
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 23/24
Gauthier, A. (2002). The role of grandparents. Current Sociology, 50, 295-307.
Henderson, S. H., & Taylor, L. C. (1999). Parent–adolescent relationships in nonstep-, simple
step-, and complex stepfamilies. In E. M. Hetherington, S. H. Henderson, & D. Reiss(Eds.), Adolescent siblings in stepfamilies: Family functioning and adolescent adjustment
(pp. 79-101). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hogan, D. P., Eggebeen, D. J., & Clogg, C. C. (1993). The structure of intergenerational
exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1428-1458.
Johnson, C. L. (1992). Divorced and reconstituted families: Effects on the older generation.
Generations, 16, 17-21.
Kalmijn, M. (2005). Educational inequality and family relationships: Influences on contact
and proximity. European Sociological Review, 22, 1-16.
Knijn, T. (2004). Family solidarity and social solidarity: Substitutes or complements. In
T. Knijn & A. Komter (Eds.), Solidarity between the sexes and generations (pp. 18-33).Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Knipscheer, C. P. M., De Jong Gierveld, J., Van Tilburg, T. G., & Dykstra, P. (1995). Living
arrangements and social networks of older adults. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Kohli, M., & Künemund, H. (2003). Intergenerational transfers in the family: What motivates
giving? In V. L. Bengston & M. Silverstein (Eds.), Global aging and challenges to families
(pp. 123-142). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure matter?
A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and step-
mother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 840-851.
Lesthaeghe, R. (Ed.). (2002). Meaning and choice: Value orientations and life course deci-sions. Brussels, Belgium: NIDI-CBGS Monographs.
Lesthaeghe, R., & Meekers, D. (1986). Value changes and the dimensions of familism in the
European Community. European Journal of Population, 2, 225-268.
Lesthaeghe, R., & Moors, G. (1994). Living arrangements, socio-economic position, and val-
ues among young adults: A pattern description for Belgium, France, the Netherlands and
West-Germany, 1990. In H. Van den Brekel & H. Deven (Eds.), Population and family in
the Low Countries 1994: Selected current issues (pp. 1-56). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Lesthaeghe, R., & Neidert, L. (2006). The second demographic transition in the United States:
Exception or textbook example? Population and Development Review, 34, 669-698.Lesthaeghe, R., & Surkyn, J. (2007). When history moves on: The foundations and diffusion
of a second demographic transition. In R. Jayakody, A. Thornton, & W. Axinn (Eds.),
International family change: Ideational perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lye, D. N. (1996). Adult-child parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 79-122.
MacDonald, W. L., & DeMaris,A. (2002). Stepfather–stepchild relationship quality: The step-
father’s demand for conformity and the biological father’s involvement. Journal of Family
Issues, 23, 121-137.
Marks, N. F., & McLanahan, S. (1993). Gender, family structure, and social support among
parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 481-493.
Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55, 726-735.
Moors, G. (1996). Gezinsvorming en processen van waardenselectie en–aanpassing [Union for-
mation and processes of selection and adaptation of values]. Mens en maatschappij, 71, 4-24.
Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family: Socialization and interaction process. New York:
Free Press.
De Bruycker / Selection Versus Structure 1469
at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selection-versus-structure-explaining-family-type-differences-in-contact-with 24/24
Pinquart, M. (2003). Loneliness in married, widowed, divorced, and never-married older
adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 31-53.
Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 527-555.
Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Schwarz, B., Trommsdorff, G., Albert, I., & Mayer, B. (2005). Adult parent–child relation-
ships: Relationship quality, support, and reciprocity. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 54, 396-417.
Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of
adult child–parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103,
429-460.
Terhell, E. L., Broese van Groenou, M. I., & Van Tilburg, T. (2004). Network dynamics in the
long-term period after divorce. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 719-738.Thornton, A. (1989). Changing attitudes toward family issues in the United States. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 51, 873-893.
Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family
issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family,
63, 1009-1037.
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1989). Brothers’ keepers: Situating kinship relations in broader
networks of social support. Sociological Perspectives, 32, 273-306.
White, L. (1994). Growing up with single parents and stepparents: Long-term effects on
family solidarity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 935-948.
1470 Journal of Family Issues