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/29/11/1448 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0192513X08318154 2008 29: 1448 originally published online 27 May 2008 Journal of Family Issues Trees De Bruycker Contact With Close Kin Selection 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/alerts Email Alerts: http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/29/11/1448.refs.html Citations: What is This? - May 27, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 15, 2008 Version of Record >> at The British Sociological Association on February 5, 2013 jfi.sagepub.com Downloaded from
24
Embed
Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/28/2019 Selection Versus Structure_ Explaining Family Type Differences in Contact With Close Kin
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.