Understanding Family Complexity in the Study of Intergenerational Relationships:Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Generations

Merril Silverstein, Ph.D.Professor of Gerontology and

SociologyDavis School of Gerontology

Department of SociologyUniversity of Southern California

Families Through Historical Time• Increased longevity means greater co-survival

between generations and prolonged relationships.

• Possible kinship issuesoFertility declineoHigher prevalence of divorce, remarriage, step-familiesoGeographic distance increasingoWeaker sense of filial obligation

• How to study social change in real time instead of using retrospective reports or using “proxy” evidence?

• How to better approach families systemically?

Studies of Families and Social Change

• Using a single individual as informant about family process at one historical moment limits research questions that can be addressed

• Use of retrospective reports has biases• Cross-sectional comparisons regarding social

change of interest (e.g., divorced vs. married) ignores socio-historical context

• Cohort studies in repeated cross-sections ignore intra-familial dependence and cannot address issues that require parent-child data

5

Generational-Sequential Design

• Members of different generations in the same families measured at the same age but at different historical periods to test for effects of social conditions at a common life-stage.

• Useful for studying age-dependent processes where social conditions are also changing.

Comparison of Intergenerational Relations Across Historical Contexts

• Historical/generational change in the quality of intergenerational relationships– Requires early reports from parents and later reports from

children

• Has the quality of older parent-child relations weakened over historical time?

• If so, is this related to:– Increasing geographic distance– Rising divorce rates– Weakening norms of familism

The USC Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG)

• A multigenerational multi-time-point study, started in 1971 with repeated panels 2005.

• Consists of about 3,000 individuals from 374 three-generation families recruited within Southern California region.

• Full families are surveyed: grandparents, parents, and grandchildren (16+), including siblings, spouses, former spouses.

• Fourth generation added in 1991 (Fifth generation in 2010).

Design of LSOG

Multi-generational Family Clusters

1971 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 20050

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Age and Period Design of LSOG

G1G2G3G4

Year of Meassurement

Ag

e

1971 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 20050

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Age and Period Design of LSOG

G1G2G3G4

Year of Meassurement

Ag

e

Application of Generational Sequential Design

• Do G3 children maintain less close relationship to their parents than G2 parents maintained with their parents?

• Is so, does a G3-G2 difference persist after controlling for individual-level variables representing the “social change” of interest.

• Methodological individualism: characteristics of serial generations proxy the social change of interest by virtue of their unique historical/cohort experiences.

Sample & Design• Data for this analysis from LSOG: 554 G2s in 1971

and their G3 children surveyed between 1991 2005.– G2s averaged 44 years of age in 1971.– G3s reached the age of each parent somewhere between

1991-2005. For each G3 we use the survey that matches the closest to their parent’s 1971 age.

• Use multilevel modeling to estimate change in emotional closeness to parents over time in G2s and G3s, comparing (1) slopes and (2) levels at the historical time when they match in age.

Cross-Generational Comparisons in the LSOG

  T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Year 1971 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2005

G2 43 57 60 63 66 59 72 77

G3 20 34 37 40 43 46 49 54

G4       16 19 22 25 30

Cross-Generational Comparisons in the LSOG

  T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Year 1971 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2005

G2 43 57 60 63 66 59 72 77

G3 20 34 37 40 43 46 49 54

G4       16 19 22 25 30

-33 -19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 0 14 17 20 23 26 29 3315

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Predicted for Emotional Closeness to Mothers in Two Linked Generations Centered on Age Match

G2 Mothers

G3 Children

Age Centered by Matched G2-G3

Em

oti

on

al C

lose

nes

s to

Mo

ther

s

Cohort Gap

-33 -19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 0 14 17 20 23 26 29 3315

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Predicted Emotional Closeness to Fathers in Two Linked Generations Centered on Age Match

G2 Parents

G3 Chil-dren

Age Centered by Matched G2-G3

Em

oti

on

al C

lose

nes

s to

Fat

her

s

Cohort Gap

-33 -19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 0 14 17 20 23 26 29 3310

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Predicted Emotional Closeness to Mothers in Two Linked Generations Centered on Age by

Health of G1 Mothers

G2 Mothers: G1 Mothers NO IADL

G2 Mothers: G1 Mothers MOD IADL

G2 Mothers: G1 Mothers HIGH IADL

G3 Children

Age Centered by Matched G3-G2

Em

oti

on

al C

los

en

es

s t

o M

oth

ers

Multi-level Regression Results Predicting the G3-G2 Cohort Gap

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

Demographic Controls

Distance Added Divorce Added Norms of Familism Added

G3

-G2

Aff

ectio

n

Average G3 - G2 Difference in Closeness to Parents When Generations are Age-Matched (40-50)

With Mothers

With Fathers

**

*** **

*

20

Cross Generational-Sequential

• Transmission of values, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral tendencies across age-matched generations within the same families.

• Multi-actor data?

• Causal direction?

• Research questions focusing on interdependencies and influence across family actors over time call for unique approaches.

• Religion is a family affair.• Children are socialized to

religious traditions by parents and grandparents

• Do grandparents influence the values, attitudes, and beliefs of their grandchildren beyond the influence of parents, synergistically with parents, and as mediated by parents?

LSOG Data: Lagged Triads

• Grandparents in 1971 (mean age =44)– G2 = 257

• Parents in 1988 (mean age = 40)– G3 = 341

• Grandchildren in 2005 (mean age = 31)– G4 = 565

Measures of Religiosity• Practice

– Attendance at religious services: “never” to “everyday”• Salience

– Importance of “a religious life” ranked among 13 social values• Identity

– How religious are you?: “not at all” to “very religious”• Beliefs

– Strength of conservative religious beliefs: agreement with statements

• God exists in the form as described in the Bible• All people today are descendents of Adam and Eve • All children should receive religious training• Religion should play an important role in daily life

• Additive scale (standardized factor score) computed for each generation

Nesting of Grandchildren in Two Three-Generational Families: Basis

for Multi-level Modeling

Grandparent: Red Grandparent: Green

Parent #1

Parent #2

Parent #3

Parent #1

Parent #2

Empirical Results from Multilevel Models Transmission of Religiosity

Grandparent Religiosity

1971

Parent Religiosity

1988

Grandchild

Religiosity2004

.10*

.38***.32***

.38***

.10* .12*

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Ef

fect

on

GC

Rel

igio

sity

Standardized Effects of Parents' and Grandparents'Religiosity on Grandchildren's Religiosity

Parents' Direct Effect Grandparents' Direct Effect Grandparents' Indirect Effect

• Parents’ direct influence is almost four times that of grandparents, but grandparents do directly influence their grandchildren net of parents.

• Grandparents also indirectly influence their grandchildren through parents. Total influence of grandparents (.22) is 58% that of parents (.38).

Source: Copen & Silverstein, 2007, Journal of Comparative Family Studies.

• Grandchildren are most religious when both their parents and grandparents are more religious.

• Suggests that several generations together reinforce a family culture of religiosity.

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Lower GP Religiosity Higher GP Religiosity

GC

Rel

igio

sity

Grandchildren's Religiosity by Levels of Grandparent's and Parent's Religiosity

Lower Par Religiosity

Higher Par Religiosity

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Lower GP Religiosity Higher GP Religiosity

GC

Rel

igio

sity

Grandchildren's Religiosity by Grantparent's Religiosity and Parental Marital History

Intact Marriage

Ever Divorced

• Grandparents are better able to transmit their religiosity to grandchildren within intact families.

• Parental divorce is associated with less religiosity in their children; grandparents do not compensate.

Measures of Gender Role Attitude

• Husbands ought to have the main say in family matters [Disagree]

• Women’s liberation ideas make a lot of sense to me [Agree]

• It goes against nature to put women in positions of authority over men [Disagree]

• Women who want to remove the word “obey” from the marriage service don’t understand what it means to be a good wife. [Disagree]

• Additive scale (standardized factor score) computed for each generation

Grandmother Gender Role

Attitudes1971 Mother Role

Attitudes1988

Grandchild

Gender Role Attitudes

2005

.11

.16**.09**

Mother Contact with Grandmother

1988

.10*

Empirical Results from Multilevel Models Transmission of Gender Role Attitudes

31

Longitudinal Generational-Sequential Design in the LSOG Using 14 Years

Historical Period Historical Period1971 ---------->1985 1991 ---------->2005

Life Stage Transition Age Span (Gen) Age Span (Gen)Early Adulthood 19 -------> 33 (G3) 19 -------> 31 (G4)Middle Adulthood 44 -------> 58 (G2) 42 -------> 56 (G3)Late Adulthood 64 -------> 77 (G1) 63 -------> 76 (G2)

Summary

• Generational-sequential designs provide useful tools for understanding how societal change is manifest in micro-family environments and across multiple family members.

• Generational differences can be investigated with GSD in terms of change across cohorts– Intergenerational ties weakening over historical

time.

• And in terms of cross-cohort continuity– Intergenerational transmission occurring (and

possibly changing) over historical time.