Ambivalence in Later‐Life Family Networks: Beyond Intergenerational Dyads

• Published date: 01 June 2018
• Author: Ingrid Arnet Connidis,Anna‐Maija Castrén,Rita Gouveia,Barbara Masotti,Eric D. Widmer,Myriam Girardin
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12469
• Date: 01 June 2018

M G University of Geneva

E D. W University of Geneva∗

I A C University of Western Ontario∗∗

A-M C University of Eastern Finland∗∗∗

R G University of Lisbon∗∗∗∗

B M University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland∗∗∗∗∗

Ambivalence in Later-Life Family Networks:

Beyond Intergenerational Dyads

NCCR LIVES, Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of

Gerontology and Vulnerability,University of Geneva, 54,

rte des Acacias, 1227 Carouge, Geneva, Switzerland.

∗NCCR LIVES, Department of Sociology, Universityof

Geneva, Uni Mail, 40 bd du Pont-d’Arve, CH-1211 Geneva

4, Switzerland (eric.widmer@unige.ch).

∗∗Department of Sociology, University of WesternOntario,

London, Ontario N6A5C2, Canada.

∗∗∗Department of Social Sciences, University of Eastern

Finland, PO Box 1627, Kuopio, 70211, Finland.

∗∗∗∗Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon,

Avenida Professor Aníbal Bettencourt n∘9, Lisboa

1600-189, Portugal.

∗∗∗∗∗NCCR LIVES, Centre of Competence on Aging,

University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern

Switzerland, Stabile Piazzetta, Via Violino11, 6928

Manno, Switzerland.

© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Marriage and Familypub-

lished by WileyPeriodicals, Inc. on behalf of National Coun-

cil on Family Relations.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Cre-

ativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which

permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited and is not used

for commercial purposes.

Key Words: ambivalence, conict, emotional support, family

networks, inequalities, older adults.

In later life, changing conditions related to

health, partnership, and economic status may

trigger not only support but also conict and

ambivalence, with the consequent renegotia-

tion of family ties. The aim of this study is

to investigate both conict and emotional sup-

port in the family networks of older adults,

taking the research beyond the level of inter-

generational dyads. We used a subsample of

563 elders (aged 65 years and older) from the

Swiss Vivre/Leben/Vivere survey. Multiple cor-

respondence analysis and in-depth case studies

were used to identify the key social conditions

that relate to the prevalence of conicted and

supportive dyads in family networks. Findings

showed that the balance of conict and emo-

tional support in older adults’ family networks

varied according to the composition of their fam-

ily network as well as their age, health, income,

and gender.

Heightened attention to the concept of ambiva-

lence since the turn of the century challenged

the view of family ties as exclusively supportive

or positive and highlighted contradictions in

the ties between adult children and their aging

parents (Connidis, 2012, 2015; Connidis &

768 Journal of Marriage and Family 80 (June 2018): 768–784

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12469

Ambivalence in Later-Life Family Networks 769

McMullin, 2002; Lüscher, 2002, 2005; Lüscher

& Hoff, 2013; Lüscher & Pillemer, 1998). The

ambivalence concept emphasizes the coex-

istence of conict and support as inherent

parts of family dynamics (Connidis, 2012,

2015; Connidis & McMullin, 2002; Lüscher,

2002, 2005; Lüscher & Hoff, 2013; Lüscher &

Pillemer, 1998; Willson, Shuey, Elder, & Wick-

rama, 2006). To date, the ambivalence research

has been mainly circumscribed to the dyadic

level and rarely considers how ambivalence

in intergenerational relationships is embedded

in patterns of conict and emotional support

in larger family networks. Using a representa-

tive sample of older adults living in Geneva,

Switzerland, this article explores conict and

emotional support in later-life family networks,

identies four patterns, and investigates how

those patterns are embedded in the demo-

graphic, social, and economic conditions that

affect individuals and their family ties. It goes

beyond intergenerational dyads by studying

ambivalence at the level of family networks and

by making connections to broader social forces,

particularly social inequality or structured social

relations. The results are discussed in relation to

key issues in social gerontology, including older

adults’ socioemotional selectivity (Carstensen,

1992) and the unintended consequences of

family support (Connidis & McMullin, 2002;

Lüscher & Pillemer, 1998; Willson et al., 2006).

B

Ambivalence Beyond Intergenerational Dyads

Ambivalence is a multilevelconcept that empha-

sizes contradictions at the levels of individuals

and relationships; social institutions, including

families; and society, including the welfare state

and the structured social relations of inequality

based on gender, class, race or ethnicity, age,

and ability (Connidis, 2015). Individuals strive

to negotiate these multilevel contradictions and

the resulting coexistence of conict and emo-

tional support in their various personal relation-

ships, including ties in the family realm. These

negotiations occur at the meso level of families,

and they need to be explored at this level—that

is, beyond the level of isolated dyads.

Typologies haveproven to be a useful tool for

exploring ambivalence in intergenerational fam-

ily dyads as was shown by European research

(e.g., Ferring, Michels, Boll, & Filipp, 2009;

van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006). Lüscher’s (2002,

2005) theoretical typology of ambivalence is one

of very few attempts to capture the interaction

between support and conict in intergenera-

tional ties; it includes the following four types

of distinct relational patterns: emancipation,

solidarity, captivation, and atomization. These

types identify the various ways in which family

members negotiate ambivalence in intergenera-

tional relationships (Lüscher & Hoff, 2013). In

the emancipation type, individuals accept con-

ict along with cooperation and support and nd

new and more effective ways of relating. In the

solidarity type, parents and children emphasize

togetherness and support as ways of avoiding

conict and open ambivalence. Captivated

parent–child ties are stuck in conict, entangled

in an ongoing battle over ambivalence, whereas

atomized intergenerational dyads disengage

to avoid conict and ambivalence. Lüscher’s

typology has contributed to a large body of theo-

retical and empirical work in social gerontology

(e.g., Connidis, 2015; Katz & Lowenstein, 2010;

Lang, 2004; Letiecq, Bailey, & Dahlen, 2008;

Phillips, Ogg, & Ray, 2003). However, related

empirical work focuses on intergenerational

dyads.

A key challenge in the study of ambiva-

lence in social gerontology is to explore the

four patterns of Lüscher’s (2002, 2005) the-

oretical typology at the meso level of family

networks. We therefore aim to place dyads in

the wider conguration of family networks

and to then relate family network types to the

larger social context in which they are embed-

ded. Empirically identifying various types of

family networks and their available resources

may reveal variability among family types in

the capacity to negotiate ambivalence in ways

that enhance emotional support in older adults’

families. To investigate ambivalence at the meso

level of families, we transpose Lüscher’s (2002,

2005) theoretical typology into the framework

of social network analysis, in which dyads are

considered as interdependent parts of a network

whose features account for much of what hap-

pens in any of them (Wasserman& Faust, 1994).

Such tools have been used in social gerontology

to explore family support structures (Cornwell,

2009, 2011; Girardin & Widmer, 2015). We

propose using these tools to assess the relative

dominance of conicted and supportive dyads

in the overall dynamics of older adults’ family

networks (see Table 1).