Families, Intergenerational Relationships in

Theoretical Perspectives on Intergenerational Relations

During the past several decades, the study of inter-generational relationships has been principally guided by two conceptual orientations: the solidarity-conflict paradigm and Ambivalence Theory. Building on theoretical and empirical advances in the social psychology of small group cohesion, the solidarity-conflict paradigm codifies the sentiments, behaviors, attitudes, values, and structural arrangements that bind the generations. This scheme is operationalized along seven dimensions: affectual solidarity (emotional cohesion), associational solidarity (social interaction), structural solidarity (opportunities for interaction based on geographic proximity as well as family size and gender composition), functional solidarity (support and assistance), normative solidarity (filial obligation), consensual solidarity (agreement on values and opinions), and functional solidarity (provisions of material, instrumental, and social support of intergenerational family members). Continuing efforts to refine the solidarity model have resulted in the inclusion of intergenerational conflict as a principal dimension. Although conflict was originally conceptualized as the absence of solidarity, it subsequently began to be considered a form of engagement that could exist alongside positive aspects of solidarity.

Most research suggests that the dimensions of solidarity are all-inclusive descriptors of the strength of intergenerational bonds, but other research finds that the dimensions are not additive and do not form a unitary scale. Alternatives to examining these dimensions additively include clustering approaches that allow the identification of relationship types based on various combinations of the dimensions. Using five dimensions from the solidarity model, the following general types of parent-child relationships were identified in national data: (a) tight-knit, characterized by high levels on all dimensions of solidarity; (b) sociable, characterized by frequent contact, shared values, and emotional closeness, but little exchange of support; (c) obligatory, characterized by frequent contact and exchange of support, but emotionally distant and with few shared values; (d) intimate but distant, characterized by emotional closeness and shared values but with infrequent contact and little exchange of assistance; and (e) detached, characterized by low levels on all dimensions. Although a plurality of relationships fell into the tight-knit type, the three variegated types—strong on some dimensions and weak on others—formed a majority when taken together. Thus, intergenerational relationships are diverse and complex in form, with most falling somewhere between the polarities of tight-knit and detached.

...