short paper

Life Course Transitions, the Generational Stake, and Grandparent-Grandchild Relationships Author(s): Robert Crosnoe and Glen H. Elder, Jr. Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1089-1096 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600007 . Accessed: 05/12/2013 09:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Grandparent-Grandchild Relations 1091

Our fourth research question also addresses variability. Is the link between the grandchild's entry into higher education and the quality of the grandparent-grandchild relationship moderated by the grandparent's relationship with the grand- child's parent? This question is based on family systems theory (Cox & Paley, 1997), which holds that any relationship cannot be divorced from the larger family system and past findings that the gatekeeper role of the middle generation links young and old and affects relationship quality (King & Elder, 1995; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). In families where grandparents and parents are not close, enrollment in higher education, which might entail freedom from parental constraints, could allow young people to build stronger ties with grandparents.

METHOD

Sample

The Iowa Youth and Families Project, which be- gan in 1989, is a longitudinal study of 451 fami- lies (parents, focal adolescent in 7th grade in 1989, and a near sibling) in North Central Iowa. In 1994 and 1998, grandparents were also sur- veyed. Not all adolescents had a grandparent par- ticipate, and some had all four grandparents par- ticipate.

To select our study sample, we chose the 1994 survey (when focal adolescents were seniors in high school) as the starting point and the latest survey (1997 for adolescents, 1998 for grandpar- ents) as the end point. Although these two end

points differ, we believe they are close enough to each other and within the normative span of the adult transition to be useful. A total of 411 ado- lescents and 592 grandparents participated at both time points. This attrition is not negligible, but past studies of the sample have shown no strong attrition biases (King & Elder, 1999). In order to match grandparent and grandchildren reports, we had to focus on specific grandparent-grandchil- dren pairs. Rather than having a single grandchild appear in the data multiple times (with the ana- lytical problems this repetition poses), we selected one grandparent for each focal child who had a grandparent interviewed through a process of ran- dom assignment. The final study sample contains 316 grandparent-grandchild pairs.

Measures

For each of two intergenerational relationship characteristics, we create grandparent (based on grandparent reports on the focal adolescent in 1994 and 1998) and grandchild (based on grand- child reports about that grandparent in 1994 and 1997) versions. All other variables are based on 1994 data. From this point on, we refer to 1994 data as Time 1 (or pretransition) and 1997/1998 data as Time 2 (or posttransition).

Grandparent mentoring. Grandchildren assessed how often (1 = never to 4 = often) their grand- parent gave advice or helped with problems (M = 2.45, SD = 0.93 in 1994; M = 2.54, SD = 1.02 in 1997). For grandparents, we take the sum of their assessments (1 = yes, 0 = no) of whether in the last month they gave advice to the grand- child, served as a voice of experience, served as a source of family history, and talked to the grand- child about their own childhood (M = 3.07, SD = 1.04 in 1994; M = 3.18, SD = 0.94 in 1998).

Quality of grandparent-grandchild relationship. Grandparents assessed the quality of relations with their target grandchild (1 = poor to 4 =

excellent), how close they felt to the grandchild (1 = not at all to 5 = very), and how much the grandchild made them feel loved and appreciated (1 = not at all to 4 - a lot). These items are standardized and averaged, with the absolute val- ue of the minimum added to each case to ease interpretation (M = 4.00, SD = 0.83 in 1994; M = 5.00, SD = 0.81 in 1998). For grandchildren, we take the mean of their assessments of how hap- py they were with their relationships with the grandparent (1 = very unhappy to 4 - very hap- py) and how often (1 - not at all to 4 = a lot) their grandparent made them feel loved and ap- preciated (M = 3.42, SD - 0.71 in 1994; M = 3.44, SD = 0.72 in 1997).

Grandchild transitions. We created binary mea- sures for whether the grandchild had enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college, gotten married, become a parent, or started full-time employment between 1994 and 1997.

Control variables. Analyses control for grandpar- ent gender (1 = female, 73%); grandparent edu- cation (1 - attended college, 24%); grandparent self-reported health (1 = poor to 4 = excellent; M = 3.03, SD - 0.77); grandparent marital status

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1096 Journal of Marriage and Family

L., & Conger, R. D. (in press). Relations with grand- parents: Rural Midwest versus urban southern Cali- fornia. Journal of Family Issues.

Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. New York: Aldine.

Silverstein, M., & Long, J. D. (1998). Trajectories of grandparents' perceived solidarity with adult grand-

children: A growth curve analysis over 23 years. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 912-923.

Szinovacz, M. E. (1998). Handbook on grandparent- hood. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Uhlenberg, P., & Kirby, J. B. (1998). Grandparenthood over time: Historical and demographic trends. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandparenthood (pp. 23-39). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

This content downloaded from 137.52.76.29 on Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:32:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions