A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren
Identifieur interne : 000553 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000552; suivant : 000554A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren
Auteurs : Debra Friedman ; Michael Hechter ; Derek KreagerSource :
- Rationality and society [ 1043-4631 ] ; 2008-02.
English descriptors
- Teeft :
- Adult children, Bengtson, Caregiver, Caregiving, Chan, Cherlin, Closeness, Conger, Differential investment, Elder care, Elderly parents, Emotional closeness, Euler, Friedman, Furstenberg, Grandchild, Grandparent, Grandparental, Grandparental investment, Grandparental solicitude, Grandparenting, Hammill, Intergenerational, Investment decisions, Laditka, Life course, Life uncertainty, Marital status, Maternal grandparents, Normative, Pashos, Paternal, Paternal grandmother, Paternal grandparents, Political economy, Present theory, Rationality, Reciprocity, Reproductive strategy, Silverstein, Uhlenberg, Uncertainty reduction, Vivos transfers, Weitzel.
Abstract
As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/1043463107085436
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title><author><name sortKey="Friedman, Debra" sort="Friedman, Debra" uniqKey="Friedman D" first="Debra" last="Friedman">Debra Friedman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: debra.friedman@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs, Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685, USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hechter, Michael" sort="Hechter, Michael" uniqKey="Hechter M" first="Michael" last="Hechter">Michael Hechter</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: michael.hechter@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, michael.hechter@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kreager, Derek" sort="Kreager, Derek" uniqKey="Kreager D" first="Derek" last="Kreager">Derek Kreager</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: dkreager@psu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, dkreager@psu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C</idno><date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/1043463107085436</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000553</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000553</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title><author><name sortKey="Friedman, Debra" sort="Friedman, Debra" uniqKey="Friedman D" first="Debra" last="Friedman">Debra Friedman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: debra.friedman@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs, Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685, USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hechter, Michael" sort="Hechter, Michael" uniqKey="Hechter M" first="Michael" last="Hechter">Michael Hechter</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: michael.hechter@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, michael.hechter@asu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kreager, Derek" sort="Kreager, Derek" uniqKey="Kreager D" first="Derek" last="Kreager">Derek Kreager</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation></mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: dkreager@psu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, dkreager@psu.edu</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Rationality and society</title><idno type="ISSN">1043-4631</idno><idno type="eISSN">1461-7358</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-02">2008-02</date><biblScope unit="volume">20</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="31">31</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="63">63</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1043-4631</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1043-4631</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult children</term><term>Bengtson</term><term>Caregiver</term><term>Caregiving</term><term>Chan</term><term>Cherlin</term><term>Closeness</term><term>Conger</term><term>Differential investment</term><term>Elder care</term><term>Elderly parents</term><term>Emotional closeness</term><term>Euler</term><term>Friedman</term><term>Furstenberg</term><term>Grandchild</term><term>Grandparent</term><term>Grandparental</term><term>Grandparental investment</term><term>Grandparental solicitude</term><term>Grandparenting</term><term>Hammill</term><term>Intergenerational</term><term>Investment decisions</term><term>Laditka</term><term>Life course</term><term>Life uncertainty</term><term>Marital status</term><term>Maternal grandparents</term><term>Normative</term><term>Pashos</term><term>Paternal</term><term>Paternal grandmother</term><term>Paternal grandparents</term><term>Political economy</term><term>Present theory</term><term>Rationality</term><term>Reciprocity</term><term>Reproductive strategy</term><term>Silverstein</term><term>Uhlenberg</term><term>Uncertainty reduction</term><term>Vivos transfers</term><term>Weitzel</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>grandchild</json:string><json:string>grandparent</json:string><json:string>grandparental</json:string><json:string>intergenerational</json:string><json:string>caregiving</json:string><json:string>paternal</json:string><json:string>differential investment</json:string><json:string>grandparental investment</json:string><json:string>silverstein</json:string><json:string>euler</json:string><json:string>elderly parents</json:string><json:string>bengtson</json:string><json:string>uhlenberg</json:string><json:string>conger</json:string><json:string>reciprocity</json:string><json:string>maternal grandparents</json:string><json:string>weitzel</json:string><json:string>chan</json:string><json:string>cherlin</json:string><json:string>furstenberg</json:string><json:string>friedman</json:string><json:string>caregiver</json:string><json:string>paternal grandparents</json:string><json:string>rationality</json:string><json:string>laditka</json:string><json:string>grandparenting</json:string><json:string>hammill</json:string><json:string>uncertainty reduction</json:string><json:string>adult children</json:string><json:string>pashos</json:string><json:string>marital status</json:string><json:string>elder care</json:string><json:string>present theory</json:string><json:string>political economy</json:string><json:string>emotional closeness</json:string><json:string>life uncertainty</json:string><json:string>closeness</json:string><json:string>investment decisions</json:string><json:string>grandparental solicitude</json:string><json:string>paternal grandmother</json:string><json:string>life course</json:string><json:string>reproductive strategy</json:string><json:string>vivos transfers</json:string><json:string>normative</json:string><json:string>arizona state university</json:string><json:string>maternal grandfather</json:string><json:string>older children</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>medical technology</json:string><json:string>altruism</json:string><json:string>reproductive</json:string><json:string>intergenerational solidarity</json:string><json:string>genetic relatedness</json:string><json:string>rural greece</json:string><json:string>grandchildren grandparents</json:string><json:string>male children</json:string><json:string>female children</json:string><json:string>younger children</json:string><json:string>grandparental investments</json:string><json:string>normative explanations</json:string><json:string>social networks</json:string><json:string>intergenerational ties</json:string><json:string>maternal grandmother</json:string><json:string>other cultures</json:string><json:string>michael hechter</json:string><json:string>differential investments</json:string><json:string>childless children</json:string><json:string>unmarried children</json:string><json:string>rational choice</json:string><json:string>grandparent divorce</json:string><json:string>matrilineal advantage</json:string><json:string>intergenerational contact</json:string><json:string>grandparent role</json:string><json:string>parental</json:string><json:string>gender</json:string><json:string>parent</json:string><json:string>solicitude</json:string><json:string>maternal</json:string><json:string>insurance policy</json:string><json:string>derek kreager</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string><json:string>more children</json:string><json:string>pennsylvania state university</json:string><json:string>resource flows</json:string><json:string>direct childcare</json:string><json:string>indirect effect</json:string><json:string>fewer resources</json:string><json:string>common grandchildren</json:string><json:string>intergenerational investments</json:string><json:string>younger spouse</json:string><json:string>proportional investment</json:string><json:string>church attendance</json:string><json:string>purchase care insurance</json:string><json:string>life situation</json:string><json:string>fundamental assumption</json:string><json:string>empirical validity</json:string><json:string>paternal uncertainty</json:string><json:string>familial obligations</json:string><json:string>evolutionary theory</json:string><json:string>family relations</json:string><json:string>grandchild sets</json:string><json:string>maternal line</json:string><json:string>relationship quality</json:string><json:string>financial support</json:string><json:string>evolutionary theories</json:string><json:string>social support</json:string><json:string>parental investment</json:string><json:string>alternative courses</json:string><json:string>poor outcomes</json:string><json:string>young parents</json:string><json:string>grandchildren uhlenberg</json:string><json:string>more grandchildren</json:string><json:string>birth order</json:string><json:string>social ties</json:string><json:string>future reciprocity</json:string><json:string>elderly care policies</json:string><json:string>nuclear family</json:string><json:string>random sample</json:string><json:string>parental responsibilities</json:string><json:string>direct transfer</json:string><json:string>equal bequests</json:string><json:string>other theories</json:string><json:string>parental altruism</json:string><json:string>target child</json:string><json:string>parental transfers</json:string><json:string>discriminative grandparental solicitude</json:string><json:string>gender differences</json:string><json:string>differential grandparental solicitude</json:string><json:string>adult grandchildren</json:string><json:string>older parents</json:string><json:string>family silverstein</json:string><json:string>sexual selection</json:string><json:string>public programs</json:string><json:string>normative obligation</json:string><json:string>research interests</json:string><json:string>global studies</json:string><json:string>probable return</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Debra Friedman</name><affiliations><json:null></json:null><json:string>E-mail: debra.friedman@asu.edu</json:string><json:string>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs, Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685, USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Michael Hechter</name><affiliations><json:null></json:null><json:string>E-mail: michael.hechter@asu.edu</json:string><json:string>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, michael.hechter@asu.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Derek Kreager</name><affiliations><json:null></json:null><json:string>E-mail: dkreager@psu.edu</json:string><json:string>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, dkreager@psu.edu</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>grandparents</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>grandchildren</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>rational choice</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>intergenerational transfer</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>elder care</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_1043463107085436</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/M70-4X7236FV-J</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.044</score><pdfWordCount>11447</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>73140</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.5</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>33</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>391.181 x 612.283 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>87</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>635</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Rationality and society</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>1043-4631</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1461-7358</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>RSS</json:string></publisherId><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>31</first><last>63</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1986</json:string><json:string>2008</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>University of Washington Seminar</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Studies</json:string><json:string>Michael Hechter</json:string><json:string>Peter H. Rossi .</json:string><json:string>Becky Pettit</json:string><json:string>Vern L. Bengtson</json:string><json:string>Rand D. Conger .</json:string><json:string>T. K. Hareven</json:string><json:string>K. Thompson</json:string><json:string>M.B. Ofstedal</json:string><json:string>A. Pifer</json:string><json:string>J. Curtice</json:string><json:string>Aging Parents</json:string><json:string>L. Bronte</json:string><json:string>John M. Darley .</json:string><json:string>A. Park</json:string><json:string>B. Campbell</json:string><json:string>J. Ogg</json:string><json:string>Yoshinori Kamo.</json:string><json:string>Sage Publications</json:string><json:string>H.H. Kelley.</json:string><json:string>Adult Children</json:string><json:string>W. Andrew Achenbaum</json:string><json:string>Frank F. Furstenberg .</json:string><json:string>M.C. Chang.</json:string><json:string>P. K. Smith.</json:string><json:string>Grandparenthood</json:string><json:string>K. Thomson.</json:string><json:string>R. Jowell</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Reciprocity</json:string><json:string>Greece</json:string><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>Taiwan</json:string><json:string>American</json:string><json:string>Los Angeles</json:string><json:string>Japan</json:string><json:string>Hagestad</json:string></placeName><ref_url><json:string>http://rss.sagepub.com</json:string></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Matthews and Sprey 1985</json:string><json:string>Daly and Wilson 1980; Trivers 1972, 1985</json:string><json:string>Smith 1991</json:string><json:string>King (2003)</json:string><json:string>Szinovacz 1998</json:string><json:string>Chan and Elder 2000</json:string><json:string>Bernheim and Severinov 2003</json:string><json:string>Lye 1996: 95</json:string><json:string>Whitbeck et al. 1993</json:string><json:string>Dubas 2001</json:string><json:string>Fingerman (2004)</json:string><json:string>Henretta et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Hagestad 1986</json:string><json:string>Hermalin et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Horowitz 1985</json:string><json:string>Silverstein et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986</json:string><json:string>Pashos (2000)</json:string><json:string>Lin et al. (2003)</json:string><json:string>Elder and Conger 2000</json:string><json:string>King et al. (2003)</json:string><json:string>Mills (1999)</json:string><json:string>Lee et al. 1994b</json:string><json:string>Finley 1989</json:string><json:string>Symons 1979</json:string><json:string>Lin et al. 2003b</json:string><json:string>Kennedy and Kennedy 1993</json:string><json:string>Bernheim et al. 1985</json:string><json:string>Hoffman 1979</json:string><json:string>Mills et al. 2001</json:string><json:string>Bengtson (2001)</json:string><json:string>Matthews et al. 1989</json:string><json:string>Pashos 2000</json:string><json:string>Montgomery and Kamo 1989</json:string><json:string>Johnson 1988</json:string><json:string>Rosenau 2001</json:string><json:string>Chan and Elder (2000)</json:string><json:string>Dench et al. 1999</json:string><json:string>Pebley and Rudkin 1999</json:string><json:string>Elder and Conger (2000)</json:string><json:string>Euler and Weitzel 1996: 39</json:string><json:string>Daly and Wilson 1983</json:string><json:string>Azzi and Ehrenberg 1975</json:string><json:string>Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986)</json:string><json:string>Fergusson 2004</json:string><json:string>Lye 1996</json:string><json:string>Henretta et al. 1997c</json:string><json:string>Bengtson and Roberts 1991</json:string><json:string>Silverstein and Marenco 2001</json:string><json:string>Lee et al. 1994: 1010</json:string><json:string>Norton and Newhouse 1994</json:string><json:string>Tversky and Kahneman 1973</json:string><json:string>Euler and Weitzel (1996)</json:string><json:string>Eisenberg 1988</json:string><json:string>Thibaut and Kelley 1959</json:string><json:string>Latané and Darley 1970</json:string><json:string>Riley and Riley 1993</json:string><json:string>King and Elder (1995)</json:string><json:string>Lang and Brody 1983</json:string><json:string>Salmon (1998)</json:string><json:string>Aldous 1995</json:string><json:string>Uhlenberg and Hammill (1998)</json:string><json:string>Lye 1996: 97</json:string><json:string>Whitbeck et al. (1993)</json:string><json:string>Cox 1987</json:string><json:string>Pauly 1990</json:string><json:string>Michalski and Shackelford 2005</json:string><json:string>Lin et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Laditka and Laditka 2001</json:string><json:string>King et al. 2003b</json:string><json:string>King and Elder 1995</json:string><json:string>Harsthorne and Manaster 1982</json:string><json:string>Rossi and Rossi (1990)</json:string><json:string>Laham et al. (2005)</json:string><json:string>Stoller 1990</json:string><json:string>Cantor 1991</json:string><json:string>Pinquart and Sorensen 2002</json:string><json:string>Kivett 1985</json:string><json:string>Hodgson 1992</json:string><json:string>Lee and Aytac 1998</json:string><json:string>Cox and Rank 1992</json:string><json:string>Friedman et al. 1994</json:string><json:string>Silverstein and Marenco (2001)</json:string><json:string>Henretta et al. 1997a</json:string><json:string>Matthews and Rosner 1988</json:string><json:string>Euler et al.</json:string><json:string>1974, 1991</json:string><json:string>Hartshorne and Manaster 1982</json:string><json:string>Shuey and Hardy 2003a</json:string><json:string>Euler and Weitzel 1996</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/M70-4X7236FV-J</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - sociology</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - social sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - sociology</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Social Sciences (miscellaneous)</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Sociology and Political Science</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2008</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/1043463107085436</json:string></doi><id>6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>sage</p></licence></availability><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B"></p><date>2008</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Debra</forename><surname>Friedman</surname></persName><email>debra.friedman@asu.edu</email><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs, Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685, USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Michael</forename><surname>Hechter</surname></persName><email>michael.hechter@asu.edu</email><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, michael.hechter@asu.edu</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Derek</forename><surname>Kreager</surname></persName><email>dkreager@psu.edu</email><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, dkreager@psu.edu</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-4X7236FV-J</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/1043463107085436</idno><idno type="article-id">10.1177_1043463107085436</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Rationality and society</title><idno type="pISSN">1043-4631</idno><idno type="eISSN">1461-7358</idno><idno type="publisher-id">RSS</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">sprss</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage UK: London, England</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008-02"></date><biblScope unit="volume">20</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="31">31</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="63">63</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2008</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>grandparents</term></item><item><term>grandchildren</term></item><item><term>rational choice</term></item><item><term>intergenerational transfer</term></item><item><term>elder care</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2008-02">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">sprss</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">RSS</journal-id><journal-title>Rationality and Society</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1043-4631</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage UK: London, England</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/1043463107085436</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_1043463107085436</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Friedman</surname><given-names>Debra</given-names></name><aff>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs,
Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685,
USA, <email xlink:type="simple">debra.friedman@asu.edu</email></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hechter</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name><aff>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University,
<email xlink:type="simple">michael.hechter@asu.edu</email></aff></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kreager</surname><given-names>Derek</given-names></name><aff>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University,
<email xlink:type="simple">dkreager@psu.edu</email></aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>02</month><year>2008</year></pub-date><volume>20</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>31</fpage><lpage>63</lpage><abstract><p>As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.</p></abstract><kwd-group>
<kwd>grandparents</kwd>
<kwd>grandchildren</kwd>
<kwd>rational choice</kwd>
<kwd>intergenerational transfer</kwd>
<kwd>elder care</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value>31
A
Theory of the Value of Grandchildren
SAGE Publications, Inc.200810.1177/1043463107085436
DebraFriedman
Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs,
Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685,
USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu
MichaelHechter
School of Global Studies, Arizona State University,
michael.hechter@asu.edu
DerekKreager
Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University,
dkreager@psu.edu
ABSTRACT
As innovations in medical
technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present
during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to
explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a
fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents
in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least
one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about
end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments
in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.
grandparents
grandchildren
rational choice
intergenerational transfer
elder care
As
longevity increases due to advances in medical technology, the potential for
sustained grandparent–grandchild relations grows apace. The data bear
this out: nearly 90% of grandchildren have two or more living grandparents
(Uhlenberg 1980). The National Survey of Families and Households in the US
reveals that roughly two-thirds of those with children of childbearing age
are grandparents and at least 80% of families contain three generations (Szinovacz
1998). As a result, more adults are having a sustained experience as grandparents
and the social salience of grandparenting increases. This article is about
this relationship. Why do parents so often encour- age their children to have
children? Once those grandchildren are born, how do grandparents invest in
them? According to the lore, grandparent- ing is a great experience because
it entails all the pleasures of parenting with few of the attendant costs.
Is this really the case? The emotional rela- tionship between grandparents
and grandchildren can be meaningful, but it usually pales in comparison to
that between parents and their children. Further, if grandchildren do well,
whatever kudos and reflected glory there might be redounds to parents, not
to grandparents. Grandchildren
32
are
under no obligation to their grandparents; although there has been much gnashing
of teeth, legal and otherwise, about the notion of grand- parental rights,
especially in the case of divorce, little, if anything, has changed. Should
grandpa or grandma have selfish genes, the mere exis- tence of grandchildren
ensures their genetic future, regardless of any investment they might choose
to make, especially since the parents of those children have the stronger
motivation for genetic protectiveness. As the later discussion will demonstrate,
nearly all studies of grandpar- ent–grandchild relationships have relied
on grandchildren for evidence. What about grandparental motivations? Anecdotal
evidence for differen- tial investment in grandchildren – the subject
of this article – abounds, but few theoretical or empirical treatments
are available (Michalski and Shackelford 2005 provides the only systematic
evidence of differential investment we have found). There are studies of inter
vivos transfers of wealth which suggest that elderly parents are not always
even-handed (see McGarry 1999 for a review). What about grandparental investments
in grandchildren? In this article, grandparents are key actors – rational
actors – and we are most interested in the cases in which they can
choose to invest among grandchildren of their different children. Parents
in agrarian societies typically were assured that their children would support
them in old age because children were dependent on their parents for access
to resources – such as land, businesses, and training – that
were vital to the children's life chances. This meant that the nature of resource
flows typically went from children to parents (e.g., children worked for parents
on the land, and as apprentices in the towns). By lessening children's dependence
on their parents, industrialization shifted the direction of resource flows
away from parents and toward children (Lee et al. 1994: 1010–11). The
usual interpretation is that the point of these resources is to bind children
to parents in their time of greatest need.1 Perhaps a similar logic might
apply to grandparents and their grandchildren. Of course, it is also possible
that grandparents are merely motivated non-instrumentally. In the absence
of further specification, this assump- tion does not provide us with much
analytical leverage, however. The more interesting question from our viewpoint
is to ask whether invest- ment in grandchildren has a basis in rationality,
and, if so, what that might be. More importantly, we wonder whether we might
be able to offer a theory to explain differential investment in grandchildren.
This theory is an extension of a theory of the value of children (Friedman
et al. 1994). As in that theory, we argue that the basis of understanding
differential investment in grandchildren is uncertainty
33
reduction.
Further, through their investments in their grandchildren, we contend that
grandparents primarily seek to affect their relationships with their children,
rather than their grandchildren. Explanations of Differential Grandparental
Solicitude The most elaborate analysis of differential investment in grandchildren
stems from evolutionary theory.2 There are also cultural explanations, however,
and, beyond these, a literature that identifies empirical corre- lates of
grandparent–grandchild interaction. We consider these various explanations
in turn. Evolutionary Explanations Grandparents share, on average, 25% of
their genes with each grand- child. According to the theory of kin selection,
this is reason enough to shower grandchildren with attention and gifts (Euler
and Weitzel 1996: 41). Becoming a grandparent marks a change in reproductive
strategy. The new reproductive task is to aid one's own child (the grandchild's
parent) in his or her reproductive strategy: helping mothers attempt to sustain
the children whom they bear (Daly and Wilson 1983), while help- ing fathers
seek to maximize the number of offspring (Symons 1979). Maternal grandparents
are expected to care more for the grandchild than paternal grandparents for
two different reasons. First, since a mother needs more help in direct childcare
than a father does, this biases caregiving to the maternal line (Euler et
al. 2001: 149). Second, parental and grandparental uncertainty about genetic
relatedness leads to the same result. Grandparents have a double chance of
possible parental uncertainty. The most uncer- tain is the paternal grandfather.
He can be certain neither of his nor of his son's pater- nity. The most certain
is the maternal grandmother, being certain of her as well as of her daughter's
maternity. In comparison, the paternal grandmother and the maternal grandfather
have both a medium chance of uncertainty of grandparenthood. (Euler and Weitzel
1996: 39–41) In turn, the implications are that: (1) grandmothers
should invest more in grandchildren than grandfathers (whose genetic relatedness
is uncertain), (2) both grandmothers and grandfathers should invest more in
their daughters' children than their sons', and (3) grandparental investment
should follow the order: maternal grandmother > maternal grandfather > paternal
grandmother > paternal grandfather (Euler and Weitzel 1996: 41).3
34
Given
the reliance on paternal uncertainty as the predominant mecha- nism, differential
investment in grandchildren should always fall to the grandchildren of daughters.
However, there are reasons to suspect that other mechanisms trump paternal
uncertainty, including strong cultural practices that favor sons over daughters
in caring for elderly parents. These imply that, under certain conditions,
the grandchildren of sons will be the favored beneficiaries of grandparental
investment, something that evolutionary the- ory does not account for. We
concur that mothers typically need more help in direct childcare than fathers
do, but we offer a different motivation for why grandparents consider this
in their investment calculation, namely that the daughter's need increases
the net return on the investment. Normative Explanations Other theorists have
relied on normative mechanisms to explain gender and lineage bias in grandparental
solicitude. Dubas (2001), for example, accounts for the greater solicitude
of female grandparents by the norm that women are `kin keepers' (derived from
Hagestad 1985, 1986 – cited in Chan and Elder 2000). A normative explanation
may also be applied to greater caregiving by maternal grandparents. In rural
Greece, for example, paternal grandparents take a greater interest in their
(especially male) grandchildren than maternal grandparents (Pashos 2000).
Ditto for the farm families studied by King and Elder (1995), who attribute
the strength of this relationship to the high level of interdependence and
patrilinearity of the farm setting. These findings suggest that grandparent–grandchild
relationships are shaped more by cultural than genetic factors. Chan and Elder
(2000: 187; see also Parrott and Bengtson 1999) suggest that `the more congenial
or friendly the relationship between parent and grandpar- ent, the more positive
the relationship between that grandparent and a grandchild'. Yet normative
explanations have their own difficulties. Agents typi- cally are subject to
conflicting norms when it comes to familial obliga- tions (Aldous 1995; cited
in Lye 1996). Norms of obligation mandate intergenerational care, whereas
norms of independence mandate free- dom from familial obligations. As a result,
`relations between adult chil- dren and their parents represent a delicate
balancing of these two norms' (Lye 1996: 95). Moreover, according to some
writers, norms of obliga- tion have been in a secular decline due to industrialization
(see citations in Lee et al. 1994: 1010–11), increased living standards
among the elderly, government programs transferring resources from younger
to older generations, and anomie produced by high levels of divorce.4
35
This
exhausts the principal explanations of differential grandparental solicitude.
However, several other theories of family relations have an indirect bearing
on our question. Theories of Intergenerational Investment Since we argue that
grandparental investment in grandchildren is an indirect investment in children,
explanations of parental investment in children are also relevant to our thesis.
Investment as Insurance From a strictly economic perspective, rational egoistic
parents will transfer resources to children in the expectation of a quid pro
quo (Cox 1987). This means that they expect earlier transfers to the child
will be unconditionally returned at a later date. Why might parents differentially
invest in their children? Probably their most rational choice, on this view,
is to invest most in the child who has the greatest capacity to rec- iprocate – the child with the greatest anticipated future income flow. Such an investment
can be considered to be a kind of insurance policy: past help by parents to
children translates into present help from chil- dren to parents (Henretta
et al. 1997; see also Parrott and Bengtson 1999). For this reason, grandparents
motivated to try to elicit this kind of insurance policy would have little
incentive to invest in grandchildren at all, let alone differentially, preferring
instead to focus resources on their exchange partners, the children. After
all, even with advances in medical technology, most grandparents cannot reasonably
expect their grandchildren to reciprocate their gifts. However, the underlying
notion of reciprocity is also at the heart of the present theory. Furthermore,
if implicit contracts of this kind are to come to fruition, serious compliance
problems – that is, the ex-post incentives for children to default
on the agreement – must be overcome. One possible solution is for the
parents to retain a valued bargaining chip – the strategic bequest
(Bernheim et al. 1985) – in reserve. By making access to this bequest
contingent on children's compliance, the parents hope to fulfill the con-
tract. Another set of solutions relies on the power of norms of reciproc-
ity (Silverstein et al. 2002). Given these norms, parents might expect their
children to honor the contract, especially in order to advance or preserve
their social status or reputation in their relevant reference group, and/or
evade shame or guilt. No matter how powerful, however,
36
compliance
with these norms cannot be assured, and there is reason to believe that the
power of these norms is diminishing. If there were credible and enforceable
insurance policies available either in the market or in the family, grandparents
would certainly avail themselves of those policies. However, because of continuing
uncer- tainty, the best that grandparents can do is to signal to their children
which one has been chosen to care for them at the end of life. This sig- nal
serves both to heighten the salience of the norm of reciprocity for that child
and to reduce uncertainty in the child about the distribution of the grandparents'
bequest. We argue, in contrast to the economic and sociological exchange theorists,
that the signaling is best done through differential investment in grandchildren,
not the children themselves, even though the signal is directed toward their
children. The present the- ory holds that herein lies the motivation for differential
investment in grandchildren. Investment from Altruism Altruism may be another
motivation for grandparents to invest in grand- children. This occurs when
grandparents provide resources to grand- children with no expectation of a
return. Grandparents, in this view, may be acting more out of love than any
form of instrumental reward (Fergusson 2004). Becker's (1974, 1991) Rotten
Kid theorem offers a prominent explanation of parent–child transfers
based on the logic of altruism (for a critique, see Bergstrom 1989). In Becker's
model, one altruistic individual (the head of household) controls most of
the family's resources, and cares about the welfare of all family members
in addition to his own. Such an individual is motivated to produce a Pareto-
efficient allocation of family resources. Becker's counterintuitive con- clusion
is that the head's altruism makes it rational for even wholly selfish family
members to contribute to the corporate welfare. Yet, it is unclear how this
theorem can explain differential parental altruism toward children, and, like
most of the previous explanations, it does not account for differential grandparental
strategies. Kin Selection A final explanation of downward flowing intergenerational
investments is based on the idea that kin investment is a reproductive strategy.
On this view, individuals are motivated to attain reproductive success by
efforts such as caregiving of children and grandchildren. Then, differential
37
parental
and grandparental nurturance could also be due to genetic relat- edness. There
may be evolved emotional dispositions affecting differential parental solicitude
according to the perceived fitness benefit to the (grand)parent(s) (Daly and
Wilson 1980; Trivers 1972, 1985). Grown Children and Aging Parents Another
body of potentially relevant literature speaks to the investments that grown
children make in their parents. Differential Child–Elderly Parent Caregiving
Reciprocity/Social Exchange If adult children provide care to aging parents
based on past parental investment or expected future return, children who
receive greater inter vivos transfers from parents would be more likely to
return this investment with parental support (Cox and Rank 1992; Henretta
et al. 1997; Silverstein et al. 2002; Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Normative
Explanations On a normative view, responsibilities for elder care follow gender
divi- sions within the family due to socialized role expectations. In the
United States, women are socialized to the role of caregiver while men are
socialized to be providers. This translates into women fulfilling more of
the daily caregiving tasks for elderly parents (Hagestad 1986; Horowitz 1985; Matthews and Rosner 1988; Stoller 1990). Alternatively, men may be slightly
more likely to provide financial assistance (Montgomery and Kamo 1989). In
some other cultures, these norms are not present (see Lin et al. 2003 for
the example of Taiwan). Competing Demands Alternatively, help provided to
aging parents may come from those children with the fewest competing demands
and highest time avail- ability. This implies that adult children who are
unmarried would be more likely to aid elderly parents than those who are married.
Employed children would also be less likely to provide assistance than those
who are unemployed (Laditka and Laditka 2001; Lang and Brody 1983; Matthews
et al. 1989). Once again, this may not hold in other cultures (Hermalin et
al. 1996; Lin et al. 2003).5
38
Structural
Determinants of Intergenerational Solidarity Finally, structural constraints
that affect the opportunity for family inter- action are associated with closer
intergenerational relations (Bengtson and Roberts 1991; Lye 1996: 97 for cites).
Thus regular contact is a cor- relate of intergenerational exchanges of assistance
(Lye 1996: 97). While there are theoretical and empirical reasons to suggest
that there is considerable differential investment in grandchildren, the focus
is pri- marily on gender, either of the child (not the grandchild) or the
grand- parent. Our theory attempts to provide an explanation that includes,
but goes beyond, gender relations. Rational Grandparents Recently, we asked
a veteran grandmother – with 10 grandchildren – why she paid
attention to her grandchildren at all. Not a second passed before her reply:
`Because it means so much to their parents.' The fun- damental insight of
this reply is also the kernel of the explanation pro- posed here. Whereas
grandparenting might yield considerable emotional benefits for grandparents
and grandchildren, the present theory holds that the motivation for the investment
of time and resources – emotional and financial – does not emanate
from affect, but rather from rational calculation. This calculation focuses
not so much on the grandchild, but on the child. In our theory, the relationship
with the grandchild is a con- duit to a more solidary relationship with the
child, and one which increases the probability that the child, not the grandchild,
will recipro- cate in investment decisions. In short, the grandparent will
favor those grandchildren attached to the child who is most likely to care
for the grandparent as the end of life nears. We aim to build a theory of
grandparental investment in grandchil- dren which explains differential investment
in grandchildren. To do so, we rely on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty
reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find
it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. This approach
leads to a number of expectations that – especially in combination – are different from those of existing theories of the grandparent–grandchild
relation- ship. For instance, in contrast to evolutionary theories, we argue
that grandparents are fundamentally indifferent between daughters' and sons'
children, biological and adopted children, and biological and stepchildren,
unless there are normative factors that increase the proba- ble return on
investment for one category over another.
39
There
is perhaps no greater uncertainty than that associated with the end of life.
Will one die slowly of a long illness or merely drop dead? Will one spend
years requiring care? Will one lose one's sight, hearing, mind? Not knowing
the answers to these questions, how is one to make decisions or plan? Decision
making under uncertainty is, by definition, decision making without being
able to assess the consequences of alter- native courses of action. This is
to be distinguished from decision making under risk, in which one can attach
probabilities to alternative courses of action. Both decision making under
uncertainty and decision making under risk can have poor outcomes, but the
probability of poor outcomes can be predicted in the case of risk and not
in the case of uncertainty. Rational actors always prefer risk to uncertainty.
However, when uncer- tainty cannot be turned to risk – for example,
by gathering additional information – the actor is left to pursue global
strategies of uncertainty reduction. In the case of end of life, short of
planned suicide, there is little in the way of additional information to make
that future state more certain. There are also few available global strategies
for reducing uncer- tainty, especially for the old. Children are available
as an uncertainty- reducing mechanism (Friedman et al. 1994), but not in the
same way as for young parents. For young parents, having children represents
a set of irreversible binding commitments. For elders, these now-grown children
represent a possible source of uncertainty reduction. Of course children cannot
resolve the uncertainties about length of life, but they can poten- tially
reduce the uncertainty regarding quality of life. Yet elders face a problem
when turning to their children for support in waning years. What incentives
can they offer their children to induce them to care for their parents? In
some societies (think Japan) children were honor-bound to care for their parents,
but these norms have atten- uated significantly in the United States and beyond.
Without a set of social ties and norms, enforced by the community, what impetus
do chil- dren have to care for their parents? Very little. A social exchange
per- spective might suggest that earlier investments in their children would
bestir the norm of reciprocity and compel those children to care for them
in old age. Empirically, this is clearly not the case! Theoretically it misses
the mark: reciprocity is a beast that requires constant feeding. The grandparents'
dilemma of how best to provide for themselves at the end of life is exacerbated
by their diminishing power in the relation- ship with their children. Most
grown children are at the nadir of their dependency on their parents. The
children are at or near the height of their earning power and are likely to
be in marital relationships in which emotional support emanates from their
spouses. Thus, the usual currency
40
of
parent–child relations is significantly reduced as earning power of
parents declines relative to their children, and children find alternative
sources of reliable emotional support. In other words, the marginal investment
necessary to make a difference to children is likely to be pro- hibitively
expensive. For these reasons direct investment in children – in order
to try to compel future reciprocity – is likely to be especially inef-
fective. The vividness of the transfer (Tversky and Kahneman 1973) – necessary for the power of signaling to the children – is far greater
when it is focused on grandchildren who are at the apex of their dependency.6
Investment can refer to money, time, and affection. Whereas other theories
tend to prefer one or another of these forms of investment, ours is indifferent
among types of investment. We argue that grandparents will choose that form
of investment in grandchildren most valued by the target child, subject to
the usual constraints. Given uncertainty about the end of life and children
with diminished dependency, elders must pursue an alternative strategy to
achieve uncer- tainty reduction. Grandchildren provide one avenue of increasing
a sol- idary relationship with the child most likely to care for the grandparent
in old age, and therefore a pathway to uncertainty reduction.7 Caregiving
in this context refers to that which is required but for which there is no
adequate market substitute.8 The value of investing in grandchildren derives
from their capacity to alter the probability that children will care for their
parents at the end of life. Parents are unable to compel their children to
provide them with end of life care. The best they can do is to activate the
norm of reci- procity with respect to their children, and to increase the
probability that it will come into play. As with the market for elder care,
this strategy, too, is imperfect. Given this perspective, decisions about
variations in investment in grandchildren result from the grandparents' perception
that such investment will pay off in the form of later investments by their
own children. On this view, even when grandparents perceive that they will
need care from their children, and favor one of those children for this task,
they will invest nonetheless in those grandchildren who stand to benefit most
from their largesse. There is one important issue to discuss before drawing
out the impli- cations of this theory. In most investment situations, the
rational strategy is to diversify one's investments. In this particular case,
in which it would mean that the grandparent's investments are spread across
the grandchil- dren, it is also the seemingly nicer or more ethical approach.
Why not do so in this case, as well? The answer lies in the phenomenon of
the diffu- sion of responsibility (Latané and Darley 1970). The worst-case
scenario
41
Figure
1. A model of the value of grandchildren would be for the grandparent to have
spread the wealth of time and money and end up with a fight among children
as to whose responsibil- ity caregiving might be, and ultimately have no child
who considers it to be his/her primary responsibility. This is much more
likely in the case of equivalent investments among grandchildren. Therefore,
not only are
42
those
investments differential, in order to overcome the problem of diffusion of
responsibility, they must be demonstrably and publicly differential. It is
in the grandparents' interest to make sure that the cho- sen child knows well
that he or she has been chosen and to feel the weight of that election.9&10
Hypotheses The following hypotheses are derived from the assumption of uncer-
tainty reduction. Some of these hypotheses are not unique to this per- spective
and might derive from other theories, particularly evolutionary ones. However,
our claim is that the set of hypotheses is unique and relies on a single logic
from which compelling and testable implications can be derived. To see the
relationships among hypotheses, see Figure 1. Differential Investment in Grandchildren
DI-1 Grandparents are more likely to invest in the grandchildren of the child
most likely to care for them in old age. Which child is most likely to do
so? Factors which increase this likeli- hood are numerous. For instance: DI-1.1
In societies where the normative obligation for elder care rests primarily
with daughters, grandparents are more likely to invest in the grandchildren
of female than male children. In societies where the normative obligation
for elder care rests primarily with sons, grandparents are more likely to
invest in the grandchildren of male than female children. In societies where
there is no governing norm, grandparents will be indif- ferent among the grandchildren
of daughters and sons. In most societies, female children are, ceteris paribus,
more likely to care for their elder parents than male children (see Lye 1996
for a review). However, in our theory, this is dynamic and may well change
over time as traditional norms and practices attenuate. DI-1.2 Grandparents
are more likely to invest in the grandchildren of children who are geographically
closest to them. Propinquity lowers the cost of interaction and increases
the probability that children will receive social benefit from caring for
their parents.
43
The
lower the cost of interaction, the higher the net benefit of the investment.
DI-2 Grandparental investment will be independent of the needs of grandchildren.
Differential grandparental investment results from the grandparents' estimation
of the probability that their children will care for them in old age. This
may be associated with economic well-being, but need not be. On the one hand,
a child who is better off may have more resources that lower the cost of taking
care of their parents and therefore make it more likely. On the other hand,
a child who is worse off may have more time and less opportunity cost in taking
care of their parents. This is the rel- evant calculation. That grandchildren
have differential needs and access to resources has no effect on that calculation.
DI-3 The more children the grandparents have, the more exagger- ated will
be the differential investment in their grandchildren. As noted above, diffusion
of responsibility among children with respect to elderly parents is a serious
potential problem. For the grandparents to achieve their desired outcome,
they must overcome this problem. They will do so by exaggerating the difference
in the investments among grandchildren so that their choice is clear to all; the more children, the greater the importance of doing so.11 In the case of
only children, we would expect lavish investment (rel- ative to financial
circumstance) in the grandchildren of that only child, since the grandparents
are wholly dependent on that child. DI-3.1 Where there are considerable differences
among children's ages, the grandchildren of younger children are less likely
to be targeted for investment than the grandchildren of older children. Given
uncertainty about the course of the end of life, older children – who
are more likely to have achieved marital and income stability than their younger
counterparts – are more likely to be in a position to care for their
elderly parents than are younger children. DI-4 The marital status of the
child will have an indirect effect on grandparental investment decisions.
Children who are divorced or widowed (with grandchildren) would seem to be
especially attractive for grandparental investment, due to the increased dependency
that might result from their unexpected unmarried state.
44
However,
that expectation needs to be tempered by issues of stability, both marital
and financial. Moreover, divorced and widowed children are likely to have
fewer resources – both time and money – to give. For these reasons,
a divorced or widowed child might be a poorer risk than other children. The
relationship between marital status and grandparental investment is therefore
mediated by the grandparents' per- ceptions of the child's caregiving potential.
DI-4.1 To the extent that children distinguish between their own children
and stepchildren, so too will grandparents. If children demonstrate equivalent
favoritism toward their children and stepchildren, so too will grandparents.
This may be a rare case, but it serves to illustrate the theory. Whereas grandparents
may appear to dis- tinguish between their biological and nonbiological grandchildren,
in the present theory this is because they are merely following the lead of
their children. Should their children demonstrate a rare even hand, we expect
grandparents to follow suit. DI-5 Grandparents will be indifferent as to whether
their grand- children are the biological or adopted children of their chil-
dren in making investment decisions. Following the logic of DI-4.1, and further
distinguishing this theory from evolutionary theories, we argue that grandparents
will do as their children do. In the grandparents' differential investment
strat- egy, the highly prized adopted grandchild of the target child serves
the grandparent just as effectively as a highly prized biological grandchild
does. DI-6 The more grandparents the grandchildren have, the more exaggerated
will be the differential investment by grand- parents in common grandchildren; common grandchildren are unlikely to be the object of investment of both sets
of grandparents. Each grandchild potentially has four grandparents, and perhaps
more in cases in which there have been divorces and remarriages. As a married
couple, children are dealing with two sets of parents. This complexity is
multiplied by the number of children-in-law, and the family dynamics of the
in-laws. For example, consider a situation in which the youngest child in
a family of four has her first child who is the sixth grandchild on her family's
side. Her spouse is, in contrast, the oldest child of his parents.
45
That
grandchild is much more likely to benefit from the investments of the husband's
parents than her own: for the husband's parents, the child is the eldest; for the wife's parents, there are three older children. As grandpar- ents
seek to maximize their chances that they will be cared for in old age, they
must select carefully among the available targets of opportunity. These hypotheses
emphasize the primacy of the grandparent–child relationship in our
theory. In order to inspire the most favorable rela- tionship with their children – the motivation for differential investment in grandchildren – grandparents
will take their cues as to the treatment of grandchildren directly from their
children. However, grandparents not only make differential investment decisions
among grandchildren, they also make investment decisions across a port- folio
of alternatives beyond children and grandchildren. Differential investments
in grandchildren take place in the context of these alterna- tives, resulting
in proportional investments in grandchildren. Proportional Level of Investment
in Grandchildren PI-1 Grandparents with greater financial resources will invest
proportionally less in their grandchildren than grandparents with fewer financial
resources. There is a market for taking care of elders. Those grandparents
with the least capacity to participate in that market (e.g., those with fewer
dis- cretionary resources) will invest proportionately more of their resources
in the grandchildren of the child most likely to care for them. However, this
does not imply that grandparents with unlimited resources will eschew grandparental
investment altogether. This is because the market for taking care of the elderly
is highly imperfect (Rosenau 2001), as evi- denced by many older adults' preferences
for informal care even in the face of formal alternatives (Pinquart and Sorensen
2002; Cantor 1991). Additionally, when they do invest, we would expect grandparents
with greater financial resources to invest money rather than time; conversely,
those with fewer resources are more likely to invest time. This is a straightforward
result of varying opportunity costs. PI-2 Grandparents with strong social
networks will tend to invest proportionately less in their grandchildren than
grandparents with weaker social ties. Being cared for by one's children, while
not substitutable ultimately, can be attenuated by the benefits of participation
in strong social networks. Friends
46
can
provide support of all sorts, and may be preferable to children for a number
of reasons. In strong social networks there can be a very well- developed
system of social exchange, nurtured over a long history of friend- ship. It
tends to be more balanced, and to require less extraordinary invest- ment.
Mutual obligations are purely voluntary, and so the kind of emotional high
tension that can arise between parents and children is often absent. PI-2.1
As social networks weaken, due especially to the infirmity and death of their
members, grandparents are more likely to turn to investment in their grandchildren.
Also of relevance is the nature of the relationship between the grand- parents
themselves. For instance: PI-2.2 The greater the age difference between grandparents,
the less likely they are to invest in their grandchildren. Just as in the
case of social networks, a younger spouse, particularly if that spouse is
a woman, is a more reliable source of care than adult chil- dren. The greater
the age difference, the more likely that the younger spouse will be able to
care for the older one. This is, however, ultimately an unstable situation.
There is a resulting gender difference because the majority of women outlive
their husbands. Consequently, men can expect to be taken care of by their
spouses, but women must turn elsewhere, to children or oth- ers. This is an
alternative explanation – to that provided by evolutionary theory – of the observation that grandmothers, compared with grandfa- thers, are more
involved with their grandchildren. PI-3 Grandparents who are widowed or single
are more likely to invest in their grandchildren than those with spouses.
This follows the same logic as above. To the extent that grandparents have
alternatives to their children for caregiving, they are likely to rely on
those alternatives. Widowed or single grandparents cannot rely on a spouse
and so are more heavily dependent on children. In most cases, grandparents
will become widowed or single in the course of life and so will step up their
investments in grandchildren. The foregoing hypotheses about differential
and proportional invest- ment in grandchildren all are predicated on the premise
that grandparents are seeking to reduce their uncertainty about the end of
life. Uncertainty also varies, however, and modifies investment decisions,
both propor- tional and differential.
47
End
of Life Uncertainty U-1 As the market for elder care improves, there will
be a cor- responding decline in the absolute levels of investment in grandchildren.
U-1.1 In countries with relatively more generous welfare benefits for the
elderly, on average there will be a lower level of investment in grandchildren.
So far we have assumed that the situation of all grandparents is essen- tially
equivalent. The grandparents' own situation makes investment in their grandchildren
more or less likely. U-2 Both age and health status of grandparents are related
to end of life uncertainty. The older the grandparents and the poorer their
health, the more salient this uncertainty. Many people become grandparents
before the age of 50 (Szinovacz 1998). Yet most adults do not consider themselves
old until they have a disabling illness or until they are into their seventies
and eighties. One indicator of the growing salience of uncertainty is the
increase in church attendance of the elderly (Azzi and Ehrenberg 1975). Long-term
care insurance patterns are also related. As recently as 1994, the market
for long-term care insurance in the United States was practically nonexis-
tent (Norton and Newhouse 1994). Only 2% of nursing home costs were covered
by private insurance in 1986 (Pauly 1990). Of the few people who do purchase
long-term care insurance, most wait until they are already ill or are in their
seventies or eighties, and even then many let their payments lapse.12 These
failures to plan and the tendency to dis- count the future have the effect
of increasing end of life uncertainty. Relatively young grandparents may change
their investment strate- gies over time in response to the child's life situation.
A child who changes his or her marital status or income profile also changes
the probability that he or she will be a probable caretaker. As with all investors,
grandparents are seeking to maximize their net return and will respond to
changing conditions. Indeed, researchers have noted that the relationship
with grandchildren indeed changes over time: `That older grandparents, on
average, have stronger levels of affection for grandchildren than younger
grandparents further suggests that grandchildren may take on added salience
among the oldest-old' (Silverstein and Long 1998: 921).
48
Taken
together, these hypotheses suggest the complexity of grand- parental investment
in grandchildren, as well as the value of grandchildren in mitigating end
of life uncertainty. The implied empirical picture of the grandparent–grandchild
tie is far from the fantasy of the adoring grand- parent fawning – with equal generosity to all – over precious grandchil- dren. Indeed,
if the theory holds sway, time, money, affection, and gifts are distributed
not equitably among grandchildren, but rather based on an implicit calculation
of probable return. Grandparental Investment in Grandchildren: the Empirical
Evidence The past two decades have witnessed a dramatic increase in intergen-
erational research. Researchers have been particularly concerned with how
demographic trends, such as extended life expectancies and increasingly complex
family structures, have affected intergenera- tional ties. Although few of
these studies focus on differential grand- parental investment in grandchildren,
we draw on findings from the broader grandparenting literature to explore
the empirical validity of our hypotheses. No study to date has explicitly
tested the mechanisms or set of hypotheses underlying our perspective. Therefore,
our strategy for evaluating the theory's promise consists of separately examining
the results pertaining to each of our derived hypotheses. In doing so, we
are often forced to rely on measures that are not ideal for assessing the
theory. A major limitation of prior grandparenting research is its general
reliance on grandchild self-reports to measure grandchild–grandparent
relationships. Grandchild self-reports limit our ability to evaluate many
of our stated hypotheses because our theory primarily focuses on the perceived
utility of grandchild investment from the grandparents' per- spectives. Notwithstanding
this limitation, we believe that the existing evidence does suggest the value
in pursuing future empirical tests of the theory. Evidence Pertaining to Differential
Investment in Grandchildren Hypotheses To our knowledge, Chan and Elder (2000)
provide the only direct test of our primary hypothesis (DI-1), namely that
grandparents are likely to invest in the grandchildren of the child most likely
to care for them in old
49
Table
1. Evidence supporting and opposing the proposed hypotheses
(continued)
50
Table
1. (continued)
Notes
(indirect evidence): a. Studies finding that female children are more likely
than male children to assist elderly parents. b. Comparative evidence suggesting
that sons are primary caregivers in some cultural set- tings (Taiwan, Greece,
rural, etc.) c. Children with higher human capital (education, wages, etc.)
are less likely to aid elderly parents. d. Child's human capital (education,
wages, etc.) not associated with elderly care. e. Propinquity increased frequency
of contact but was unrelated to relationship quality. f. Found that grandparent
church involvement increased investment in grandchildren. g. Divorce increased
frequency of contact and financial support for maternal grandparents to grandchildren,
opposite found for paternal side. h. Evidence suggests that, overall, grandparental
investment decreases with age (Aldous 1995), although this relationship may
be nonlinear and pick up very late in life (Silverstein and Long 1998). i.
Evidence that single children are more likely to assist elderly parents than
unmarried children. age (see Table 1). These authors find that social support
(material and emotional) provided by parents to a set of grandparents increases
the quality of the tie between the grandparents and a grandchild. They also
find that much of this effect is mediated by the closeness or congeniality
between the parent and the grandparent. The latter finding is suggestive of
an indirect effect of social support on the grandparent–grandchild
tie through increased parent–grandparent closeness. As mentioned above,
51
however,
a limitation of Chan and Elder's (2000) study lies in their use of grandchildren's
self-reports to measure intergenerational ties. Based upon this measure, it
remains unclear what the grandparents' perceptions of the relationships are
or to what extent they differentially invest in their sets of grandchildren.
Numerous studies provide support for our hypothesis that extant caregiving
norms increase the likelihood that grandparents will invest more heavily in
the grandchildren of daughters than sons (DI-1.1). As with Chan and Elder
(2000), the majority of this research relies on self- reports from the third
generation (i.e., the grandchildren), typically when they are of college age.
Most of these studies find that grandchil- dren have closer ties with maternal
grandparents, as measured by fre- quency of contact (Eisenberg 1988; Hartshorne
and Manaster 1982; Salmon 1998), emotional closeness (Dubas 2001; Elder and
Conger 2000; Euler and Weitzel 1996; Hodgson 1992; Hoffman 1979; Matthews
and Sprey 1985; Michalski and Shackelford 2005; Mills et al. 2001), and `favorite'
grandparent (Kahana and Kahana 1970). In one of the few studies failing to
find evidence of a matrilineal advantage in grand- parental solicitude, Pashos
(2000) finds that grandchildren in rural Greece are more likely to rate paternal
grandparents as higher in care- giving than maternal grandparents. He explains
this effect as arising from the patrilateral culture of rural Greece, where
paternal grandpar- ents tend to assume grandchild caregiving duties, especially
for their sons who will inherit family property. More recently, King et al.
(2003) demonstrated similar results when comparing rural and urban American
intergenerational ties. These authors find rural Iowan grandchildren to be
in greater contact and receive more support from paternal rather than maternal
grandparents. This pattern is reversed for urban grandchildren living in Los
Angeles. Both Pashos (2000) and King et al. (2003) point to alternative cultural
contexts as shaping grandparent–grandchild rela- tions. These results
support our hypothesis (DI-1.1) and contradict evo- lutionary ideas that intergenerational
investments should always favor a maternal line. As with the matrilineal advantage,
abundant evidence exists for a pos- itive relationship between geographic
distance and grandparental invest- ment (DI-1.2). Research generally demonstrates
that increased distance between grandparents and grandchildren reduces frequency
of intergen- erational contact (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986; Hodgson 1992; Uhlenberg and Hammill 1998), relationship quality (Chan and Elder 2000; Euler
and Weitzel 1996; Pashos 2000), and patterns of assistance (Kivett 1985).
Of the few studies finding opposing evidence, Salmon (1998) finds no correlation
between distance and frequency of contact,
52
while
Silverstein and Marenco (2001) find no relationship between living within
one hour's drive and grandparent–grandchild emotional closeness. In
addition, King and Elder (1995) and Whitbeck et al. (1993) find a more nuanced
relationship between distance and intergenerational ties, such that proximity
is significantly related to frequency of intergen- erational contact but is
a much weaker predictor of grandparent–grand- child emotional closeness.
In support of our hypothesis that grandparental investment is indepen- dent
of grandchildren's needs (DI-2), Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986) find that
grandparent involvement (closeness, contact, and style of grand- parenting)
is not associated with the grandchild's level of emotional dis- tress or problems
at school. Contrary to our expectations, Mills (1999) finds that role transitions
in adult grandchildren's lives (e.g., marriage, getting laid off, parenthood)
affect their levels of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents. This
suggests that changes in grandchil- dren's situations provoke differential
responses from grandparents. However, Mills (1999) does not control for the
grandparent–parent rela- tionship, making it unclear if this tie is
responsible for changes in grand- parental solicitude. Elder and Conger (2000)
also find that supportive grandparents reduce the school problems of vulnerable
youth, but again this finding is difficult to interpret without controls for
the parent–grand- parent relationship. Finally, the abundant literature
of grandparents as surrogate parents may also contradict our hypothesis. Grandparents
often step in to raise grandchildren when their parents are unavailable or
over- whelmed (see Pebley and Rudkin 1999 for a review), suggesting that the
needs of the grandchildren are driving grandparental support (Riley and Riley
1993). However, again it is unclear from these studies what the grandparents'
motives are for such caregiving behavior. It may be that the motives are founded
on the belief that such help increases the likelihood of future reciprocity.
It may also be that grandparents would choose not to invest in needy grandchildren
if other courses of action were not socially sanctioned (e.g., putting an
abandoned child into foster care would illicit negative responses from others).
Lacking evidence for the grandparents' motivations or their perceptions of
their children as poten- tial caregivers, this literature is viewed by us
as inconclusive in assessing our hypothesis. There is no conclusive evidence
regarding the exaggeration of selec- tive grandparental investment with increases
in the number of grandchil- dren (DI-3). Uhlenberg and Hammill (1998) find
that grandparents with more grandchildren tend to invest less in each grandchild.
As with the above analyses, we are unable to determine from this study if
preferential
53
treatment
becomes more exaggerated with more grandchildren. No study to date has examined
this issue. To our knowledge, only one study has examined the relationships
between birth order and grandparental solicitude (DI-3.1). Contrary to our
hypothesis, Salmon (1998) finds that the third generation children of lastborn
parents do not receive less grandparental investment than other grandchildren.
In fact, she finds that the children of lastborn and firstborn parents receive
equal amounts of grandparental solicitude, with the children of middleborn
parents receiving significantly less. There are several unequivocal findings
regarding grandparental invest- ment in the grandchildren of divorced parents
(DI-4). First, most studies find that grandparental involvement, caregiving,
and financial investment tend to rise following a divorce in the middle generation
(Fergusson 2004; Johnson 1988; Kennedy and Kennedy 1993). However, this increase
in investment is disproportionately assumed by maternal rather than paternal
grandparents, and primarily the maternal grandmother rather than the maternal
grandfather (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986; Fergusson 2004; Smith 1991). These
findings suggest that, at least for maternal grandparents, parental divorce
directly increases grandparental investment, contradicting our hypothesized
indirect relationship. However, we should be cautious in interpreting these
findings. Studies also demonstrate considerable variation in grandparents'
responses to a child's divorce. Many grandparents report that norms of noninterference
or the costs of increased caregiving reduce their willingness to intercede
(Fergusson 2004; Johnson 1988). If this variation in caregiving is related
to the grandparents' rational assessments of the child as a future caregiver,
then our hypothesis is supported. Studies also find that unmarried children
are more likely than married children to provide support for elderly parents
(Laditka and Laditka 2001; Lee and Aytac 1998). Thus, the higher intergenerational
dependence between unmarried children and their parents may outweigh the insecurity
associ- ated with the child's marital status. Evidence Pertaining to Proportional
Investment in Grandchildren We find limited support for our hypothesis that
greater financial resources decrease grandparents' investments in their grandchildren
(PI-1). Uhlenberg and Hammill (1998) find that grandparents with higher edu-
cation levels are more likely to have increased contact with grandchil- dren.
They interpret this finding as indicating that grandparents with higher SES
are more likely to have the resources necessary to visit children and grandchildren.
Elder and Conger (2000) also find that grandparents with
54
greater
financial resources are more likely to be involved and form closer relationships
with their grandchildren. In contrast to these stud- ies, Cherlin and Furstenberg
(1986) find no relationship between grand- parents' social class or educational
level and frequency of intergenerational contact or exchange of services.
Fingerman (2004) also finds an insignif- icant relationship between grandparent
education and quality of ties with grandchildren. Finally, Silverstein and
Marenco (2001) find mixed results for the relationship between income and
intergenerational ties. These authors find grandparents' income a positive
and significant pre- dictor of monetary gifts to grandchildren, frequency
of contact, and number of shared fun activities and social gatherings. Grandparent
income was not, however, related to emotional closeness, salience of the grandpar-
ent role, or shared personal concerns. The next hypothesis for which we have
evidence concerns our expec- tation that grandparents with strong social bonds
should invest less in grandchildren than those with weaker social ties (PI-2).
Although not directly measuring social ties, Elder and Conger (2000) and King
and Elder (1995) find that grandparents who are more involved in religious
activities are more likely to contact and have close relationships with their
grandchildren. We would not expect this result given that church membership
should increase social bonds and simultaneously reduce the uncertainty of
future caregiving. Although no studies have directly tested our hypothesis
that weak- ened social networks result in increased differential investment
in grand- children (PI-2.1), research does suggest that advancing age (Aldous
1995) and decreasing health (Cherlin and Furstenberg 1986) weaken grandparent–grandchild
ties. These results appear to contradict our hypothesis. However, as stated,
none of these studies measures changes in grandparental favoritism. We would
expect that ties with all grand- children are reduced due to physical deterioration
and advanced age. What remains untested is if these declining investments
become more concentrated in particular sets of grandchildren. This is what
we suspect occurs. We find mixed results for our hypothesis that grandparent
divorce or spousal death increases grandparents' investments in grandchildren
(PI- 3). On the one hand, Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986) find grandparents'
marital status unrelated to the frequency of grandparent–grandchild
con- tact. King and Elder (1995) also find grandparent divorce unrelated to
fre- quency of contact and the quality of relations between grandchildren
and paternal grandparents. For maternal grandparents, however, the authors
find that divorce reduces the quality of the intergenerational bond. On the
55
other
hand, Uhlenberg and Hammill (1998) find that married grandpar- ents tend to
have more frequent contact with their grandchildren than their unmarried counterparts.
In perhaps the most detailed look at the subject, King (2003) also finds that
grandparents' divorce generally reduces the saliency of the grandparent role
and limits intergenerational contact, particularly for grandfathers and paternal
grandparents. King explains these changes in relationships as resulting primarily
from divorced grandparents moving greater distances away from their grand-
children. In addition, the negative impact of grandparent divorce is mediated
by the quality of the ties between parents and grandparents. As with the effects
of age and declining health, we suspect that the negative impacts of divorce
are selective and do not capture increases in differential treatment between
sets of grandchildren. Evidence Pertaining to End of Life Uncertainty Hypotheses
To our knowledge, no empirical studies have focused on the effects of changing
elder care policies on grandparental–grandchild investments (U-1).
If we assume that improvements in Medicare and Medicaid have decreased the
dependence of elderly Americans on children for care, then some evidence exists
that contradicts our hypotheses. Using 30 years of intergenerational data,
Bengtson (2001) finds that solidarity between generations has not changed
significantly, despite dramatic changes in family structure, socioeconomic
contexts, and elderly care policies. He argues that the reason for continuing
strong intergenerational bonds is the increased `shared lives' across generations
and the increased support required by divorced and single parents. He asserts
that these factors raise the importance of intergenerational bonds beyond
the nuclear family and into the extended family of grandparents and great-grandparents.
It is unclear from this analysis, however, what effect elderly care markets
have had on grandparents' investments in grandchildren. In the absence of
a study specifically focusing on changes in elderly care policies and the
perceptions of grandparents regarding grandchild investments, it is impossible
to dismiss our proposed hypotheses. The evidence discussed above concerns
differential patterns of grand- parental investment in grandchildren. There
is, however, no evidence that sheds light on our contention that the target
of grandparental invest- ment is the child rather than the grandchild. However,
if the theory holds, there is a way to discern the object of investment: if
grandparents have initially invested in the grandchildren associated with
a designated child and the life situation of that child changes (see hypotheses
U-2 and
56
DI-2,
for instance), grandparents will also change their investment strategy. If
the target is, however, the grandchild, then no such alteration in invest-
ment pattern will be found. Conclusion Recent innovations in medical technology
are responsible for the greater salience that grandparents have in the life
course of residents in post- industrial societies. As such, their dispositions
toward, and investments in, grandchildren are gaining in significance. Individuals
who benefit from grandparental resources have better opportunities to attend
college, to travel, and to engage in other forms of personal development – all fostering subsequent status attainment. But are grandparents better off?
These same medical technologies do not improve end of life uncertainty and
may, in fact, exacerbate it. Whereas there is a fairly large body of empirical
research describing the nature of grandparent/grandchild interaction in the
United States and else- where, much of this work is descriptive. This article
offers a new theory of the relationship based on the behavioral assumption – novel in this lit- erature – of uncertainty reduction. If markets could
substitute for children in providing emotional and financial support at the
end of life, or if the end of life were more predictable, then the nature
of grandparent–grandchild relationships would no doubt be very different.
As insurance markets for long-term care become more rationalized, these relationships
are likely to change, but not entirely: there is no effective market substitute
for emo- tional support, the demand for which looms large at the end of life.
We have advanced numerous hypotheses, but this is by no means an exhaustive
list of the possible hypotheses derived from our theory. Our survey of the
relevant empirical literature suggests that a good deal of evidence is consistent
with our theoretical expectations. This gives us confidence in the plausibility
of the uncertainty-reduction mechanism. But some of the evidence is apparently
inconsistent, as well. Since intergenerational relations are inherently ambiguous,
complex, and multifactorial, no single behavioral assumption can be expected
to explain all of the variance in these relationships. It would be folly to
deny that grandparents may have different kinds of motives to invest in their
grandchildren, including purely altruistic ones. For this reason, we are neither
surprised nor dismayed to find evidence that, on the face of it, disconfirms
some of our hypotheses.
57
To
adequately assess the empirical validity of the present theory, research designs
are required in which grandparents are the key actors and data are collected
not from a random sample of grandchildren, but from a random sample of grandparents.
Along with careful measures of the entire network of familial relationships,
future research will better ascertain the extent of, and motivations for,
grandparents' differential investments in grandchildren. If our theory is
correct, such research will identify substantial inequities in grandparent–grandchild
investment, and these differences will be explained – at least in part – as the byprod- uct of the rational actions of grandparents who are attempting
to resolve end of life uncertainties. Acknowledgments We are grateful for
the comments of participants in the University of Washington Seminar in Institutional
Analysis, especially those of Becky Pettit, and to the two anonymous reviewers.
NOTES
1. This idea has a distinguished
provenance in the history of social theory. Thus Mauss ([1925]1967) argues
that ostensibly altruistic gifts are based on obligation and self-interest.
That is, gifts establish and maintain interdependence within a group, demarcating
members from non-members and establishing reciprocal obligations.
2. Note that evolutionary
theorists attempt to explain why grandparents who are not co-resident (e.g.,
in extended families, as remains relatively common in East Asian societies)
and do not assume parental responsibilities for their grandchildren nonetheless
provide resources to them. This restriction is important because in the United
States grandparents (especially grandmothers) often assume parental responsibilities
when their young daughters conceive out of wedlock.
3. Paternity uncertainty
is equal for the maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother (i.e., both
have one uncertain link). However, Euler and Weitzel (1996) assert that the
maternal grandparents should invest more in grandchildren than paternal grandparents
because a daughter's reproductive strategy is to care for children, whereas
a son's strategy would be to mate with additional partners. Recently, Laham
et al. (2005) advanced an alternative hypothesis for the same phenomenon
by suggesting that the relationship is conditional on the number and gender
composition of the second generation children. If a paternal grandmother has
daughters as well as a son, then her strategy is to invest in the daughters'
grandchildren due to assured lineage. If, however, the paternal grandmother
has only a male child, then investments in grandchildren should be equal
for the maternal grandfather and the paternal grandmother.
58
4. Further, Rossi and Rossi
(1990) argue that maternal bias in solicitude may be due not to norms, as
suggested by the kin-keeping theory, but instead to increasing levels of
divorce. Since child custody is almost always awarded to mothers, grandparents
are more certain of maintaining ties with the children of their daughters
as against those of sons. This argument implies that the variation in solicitude
between maternal and paternal grandparents should vary with the divorce rate,
but no such relationship is found in Euler et al. (2001: 150—151).
5. Lin et al. (2003) also
mention the following as theories of child—parent caregiving, but it
is unclear how they add anything beyond the above arguments. Hierarchical
role expectations: A hierarchy of preferred caregivers may be established
within families, where spouses are first caregivers, daughters are preferred
over sons, and sons substitute for daughters when they are unavailable. In
other cultures, these norms may be altered, where firstborn sons are traditionally
the primary care providers for elderly parents (Lin et al. 2003). External
resources: Children with greater educational and economic resources may
use their power to exempt themselves from parent caregiving responsibilities
or provide financial instead of daily assistance. There has been little empirical
support for this hypothesis (Finley 1989).
6. One reviewer wonders why
a direct transfer to children is insufficient to increase the probability
of reciprocity. While we are unconcerned with the method of the investment — a direct transfer to children to help pay for a grandchild's tuition is in
the spirit of this theory — the investment must be clearly specified
for the grandchild, not as discretionary resources for the child. The reasons
for this again are that adult children are typically at the height of their
earning power and that signaling is enhanced by a clear earmark of the investment
to benefit the grandchild.
7. Our argument focuses
on grandparents as the decision makers. We recognize that children are not
likely to be passive bystanders in this selection process. A far more complex
approach would be to model this as a negotiated exchange, open to refusal
on the part of the selected child, with implications for grandparental investments.
This is intriguing and we leave it for others to explore.
8. The liabilities of elder
care in nursing homes are the stuff of legend.
9. Note that our claim
differs from that made by several economists. In their view, public displays
of favoritism decrease the utility of altruistic parents if comparisons of
unequal distributions give rise to feelings of dissatisfaction or dismay among
sibling children (Bernheim and Severinov 2003; Stark 1998). If correct, this
assumption suggests that private exchanges, such as gifts, should be the preferred
mechanism for parents to show partiality. This line of reasoning has been
used to explain the tendency for parents to leave equal bequests but provide
unequal inter vivos transfers.
10. Admittedly, we cannot
exclude the possibility that grandparents invest in particular grandchildren
because the associated adult children show their support for them first.
Although this is not inconsistent with the present theory, it is relatively
difficult to distinguish this explanation from ours in empirical analyses.
11. A question might arise
about the implications of this theory for childless children. Assuming that
grandparents have a choice, our theory suggests that they will prefer the
investment in grandchildren. If the childless children are successful, their
dependence will be low. If the childless children are unsuccessful, however,
they are unreliable insurers. 12. Indeed, one possible explanation for the
pervasive reluctance to purchase long-term care insurance is that the elderly
fear that such insurance might give their children an incentive to institutionalize
them, since it would be relatively costless, especially compared to the cost
of giving personal attention (Pauly 1990).
59
REFERENCES
Aldous, J.
1995. `New Views of Grandparents in Intergenerational
Context .' Journal of Family Issues 16: 104—22.
Altonji, Joseph G., Fumio Hayashi
and Laurence J. Kotlikoff . 1997. `Parental Altruism and Inter
Vivos Transfers: Theory and Evidence.' Journal of Political
Economy 105(6): 1121—66.
Azzi, Corry
and Ronald Ehrenberg.
1975. `Household Allocation of Time and Church Attendance .' Journal of Political Economy 83: 27—56.
Becker, Gary S.
1974. `A Theory of Social Interactions.' Journal of Political Economy 82: 1063—93.
Becker, Gary S.
1991. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bengtson, Vern L.
2001. `Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance
of Multigenerational Bonds.' Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(1): 1—16.
Bengtson, Vern L.
and Robert E. L. Roberts. 1991. `Intergenerational
Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction.'
Journal of Marriage and the Family 53: 856—70.
Bergstrom, Theodore.
1989. `A Fresh Look at the Rotten-Kid Theorem — and Other Household Mysteries.' Journal of Political Economy 97: 1138—59.
Bernheim, B. Douglas
and Sergei Severinov.
2003. `Bequests as Signals: An Explanation for the Equal
Division Puzzle.' Journal of Political Economy 111(4): 733—64.
Bernheim, B. Douglas, Andrei Shleifer, and Lawrence H.
Summers. 1985. `The Strategic Bequest Motive.'
Journal of Political Economy 93: 1045—76.
Cantor, Marjorie. 1991.
`Family and Community, Changing Roles in an Aging Society.'
The Gerontologist 31: 337—46.
Chan, Christopher G.
and Glen H. Elder . 2000. `Matrilineal Advantage in
Grandchild—Grandparent Relations.' The Gerontologist 40(2): 179—90.
Cherlin, Andrew J.
and Frank F. Furstenberg . 1986. The New American Grandparent:
A Place in the Family, a Life Apart. New York:
Basic Books.
Cox, Donald.
1987. `Motives for Private Transfers.' Journal of Political Economy 95(3): 508—46.
Cox, Donald
and Mark R. Rank . 1992. `Inter-Vivos Transfers and
Intergenerational Exchange.' Review of Economics and Statistics 72: 305—14.
Daly, Martin
and Margo Wilson. 1980. `Discriminative Parental Solicitude:
A Biological Perspective.' Journal of Marriage and the Family 42(2): 277—88.
Dench, G., J. Ogg,
and K. Thomson. 1999. `The Role of Grandparents.'
In British Social Attitudes Survey, the 16th Report, ed. R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, and K. Thompson , pp. 127—35. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate .
Dubas, Judith S.
2001. `How Gender Moderates the Grandparent—Grandchild
Relationship: A Comparison of Kin-Keeper and Kin-Selector Theories.'
Journal of Family Issues 22(4): 478—92.
Dunn, Thomas A.
and John W. Phillips . 1997. `The Timing and Division
of Parental Transfers to Children.' Economic Letters 54: 135—37.
Eisenberg, Ann R.
1988. `Grandchildren's Perspectives on Relationships
with Grandparents: The Influence of Gender across Generations.' Sex Roles 19(3): 205—17.
Elder, Glen H.
and Rand D. Conger . 2000. Children of the Land: Adversity
and Success in Rural America. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Euler, Harald A.
and Barbara Weitzel.
1996. `Discriminative Grandparental Solicitude as Reproductive
Strategy.' Human Nature 7(1): 39—59.
Euler, Harald A., Sabine Hoier, and Percy
A. Rohde. 2001. ` Relationship-specific Closeness of Intergenerational Family Ties.' Journal
of Cross-cultural Psychology 32(2): 147—58.
60
Fergusson, Neil.
2004. Grandparenting in Divorced Families. Bristol, UK : The Policy Press.
Fingerman, Karen L.
2004. `The Role of Offspring and In-laws in Grandparents'
Ties to Their Grandchildren.' Journal of Family Issues 35(8): 1026—49.
Finley, Nancy J.
1989. `Theories of Family Labor as Applied to Gender
Differences in Caregiving for Elderly Parents.' Journal of
Marriage and the Family 51: 79—86.
Friedman, Debra, Michael Hechter,
and Satoshi Kanazawa . 1994. `A Theory of the Value of
Children.' Demography 31(3): 375—401.
Hagestad, Guinheld O.
1985. `Continuity and Connectedness.' In Grandparenthood, ed. V. L. Bengtson and J.
F. Robertson, pp. 31—48. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hagestad, Guinheld O.
1986. `The Family: Women and Grandparents as Kin-Keepers .' In Our Aging Society: Paradox and Promise, ed. A. Pifer and L. Bronte , pp. 141—60. New York: Norton .
Hartshorne, Timothy S.
and Guy J. Manaster . 1982. `The Relationship with Grandparents:
Contact, Importance, Role Conception.' International Journal
of Aging and Human Development 15(3): 233—45.
Henretta, John C., Martha S. Hill, Wei Li, Beth J. Soldo,
and Douglas A. Wolf . 1997. `Selection of Children to
Provide Care: The Effect of Earlier Parental Transfers.' The Journals of Gerontology Series B 52B: 110—19.
Hermalin, A.I., M.B. Ofstedal,
and M.C. Chang. 1996. `Types of Supports for the Aged and
Their Providers in Taiwan.' In Aging and Generational Relations
over the Life Course: A Historical and Cross-cultural Perspective,
ed. T. K. Hareven, pp. 400—37. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Hodgson, Lynne G.
1992. `Adult Grandchildren and Their Grandparents: The
Enduring Bond.' International Journal of Aging and Human Development 34(3): 209—25.
Hoffman, E.
1979. `Young Adults' Relations with Their Grandparents:
An Exploratory Study.' International Journal of Aging and
Human Development 10(3): 299—310.
Horowitz, Amy
1985. `Sons and Daughters as Caregivers to Older Parents:
Differences in Role Performance and Consequences.' Gerontologist 25: 612—16.
Johnson, Collean L.
1988. Ex Familia: Grandparents, Parents, and Children
Adjust to Divorce. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Kahana, Boaz
and Eva Kahana. 1970. `Grandparenthood from the Perspective of the Developing
Grandchild.' Developmental Psychology 3(1): 98—105.
Kennedy, Gregory
and C.E. Kennedy. 1993. `Grandparents: A Special Resource for
Children in Stepfamilies.' Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 19: 45—68.
King, Valarie.
2003. `The Legacy of a Grandparent's Divorce: Consequences
for Ties between Grandparents and Grandchildren.' Journal
of Marriage and the Family 65: 170—83.
King, Valarie
and Glen H. Elder . 1995. `American Children View
Their Grandparents: Linked Lives across Three Rural Generations.'
Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 165—78.
King, Valarie, Merril Silverstein, Glen H. Elder , Vern L.
Bengtson, and Rand
D. Conger. 2003. ` Relations with Grandparents: Rural Midwest versus Urban Southern California .' Journal of Family Issues 24(8): 1044—69.
Kivett, Vira R.
1985. `Grandfathers and Grandchildren: Patterns of Association,
Helping, and Psychological Closeness.' Family Relations 34: 565—71.
Laditka, James N.
and Sarah B. Laditka . 2001. `Adult Children Helping
Older Parents.' Research on Aging 23(4): 429—56.
Laham, Simon M., Karen Gonsalkorale,
and William von Hippel . 2005. `Darwinian Grandparenting:
Preferential Investment in More Certain Kin.' Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(1): 63—72.
61
Lang, Abigail M.
and Elaine M. Brody . 1983. `Characteristics of Middle-aged
Daughters and Help to Their Elderly Mothers.' Journal of Marriage
and the Family 45: 193—202.
Latané, Bibb
and John M. Darley . 1970. The Unresponsive Bystander:
Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Lee, Yean-Ju
and Isik A. Aytac . 1998. `Intergeneration Financial
Support among Whites, African Americans, and Latinos.' Journal
of Marriage and the Family 60: 426—41.
LeeYean-JuParishWilliam L.,WillisRobert J., 1994`Sons, Daughters, and Intergenerational Support in Taiwan' . The American Journal of Sociology 99(4): 1010—41.
Lin, I-Fen, Noreen Goldman, Maxine Weinstein, Yu-Hsuan Lin, Tristan Gorrindo,
and Teresa Seeman. 2003. `Gender Differences in Adult Children's
Support of Their Parents in Taiwan.' Journal of Marriage and
the Family 65(1): 184—200.
Lye, Diane N.
1996. `Adult Child—Parent Relationships.'
Annual Review of Sociology 22: 79—102.
McGarry, Kathleen.
1999. `Inter Vivos Transfers and Intended Bequests.'
Journal of Public Economics 73: 321—51.
Matthews, Sarah H.
and Tena T. Rosner . 1988. `Shared Filial Responsibility:
The Family as a Primary Caregiver.' Journal of Marriage and
the Family 50: 185—96.
Matthews, Sarah H.
and Jetse Sprey. 1985. `Adolescents' Relationships with Grandparents: An Empirical
Contribution to Conceptual Clarification.' Journal of Gerontology 40(5): 621—6.
Matthews, Sarah H., J.E. Werkner,
and P.J. Delaney. 1989. `Relative Contributions of Help by
Employed and Nonemployed Sisters to Their Elderly Parents.' Journal of Gerontology 44: S36—S44.
Mauss, Marcel.
[1925]1967. The Gift: Forms and Functions
of Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York:
Norton.
Michalski, Richard L.
and Todd K. Shackelford . 2005. `Grandparental Investment
as a Function of Relational Uncertainty and Emotional Closeness with Parents .' Human Nature 16(3): 293—305.
Mills, Terry L.
1999. `When Grandchildren Grow up: Role Transition and
Family Solidarity among Baby Boomer Grandchildren and Their Grandparents.'
Journal of Aging Studies 13(2): 219—35.
Mills, Terry L., M.A. Wakeman,
and C.B. Fea. 2001. `Adult Grandchildren's Perceptions
of Emotional Closeness and Consensus with Their Maternal and Paternal Grandparents .' Journal of Family Issues 22(4): 427—55.
Montgomery, Rhonda J. B.
and Yoshinori Kamo.
1989. `Parent Care by Sons and Daughters.' In Aging Parents and Adult Children , ed. Jay A. Mancini, pp. 213—30. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Norton, E.C.
and J.P. Newhouse. 1994. `Policy Options for Public Long-Term-Care
Insurance.' Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 1520—4.
Parrot, Tonya M.
and Vern L. Bengtson . 1999. `The Effects of Earlier
Intergenerational Affection, Normative Expectations, and Family Conflict on
Contemporary Exchanges of Help and Support.' Research on Aging 21(1): 73—105.
Pashos, Alexander.
2000. `Does Paternal Uncertainty Explain Discriminative
Grandparental Solicitude? A Cross-cultural Study in Greece and Germany.' Evolution
and Human Behavior 21: 97—109.
Pauly, M.V.
1990. `The Rational Nonpurchase of Long-Term-Care Insurance .' Journal of Political Economy 98: 153—68.
62
Pebley, Anne R.
and Laura L. Rudkin . 1999. `Grandparents Caring for
Grandchildren: What Do We Know?' Journal of Family Issues 20(2): 218—42.
Pinquart, Martin
and Silvia Sorensen.
2002. `Older Adults' Preferences for Informal, Formal,
and Mixed Support for Future Care Needs: A Comparison of Germany and the United
States .' International Journal of Aging and Human Development 54(4): 291—314.
Riley, Matilda W.
and John W. Riley , Jr. 1993. `Connections: Kin and
Cohort.' In The Changing Contract across Generations,
ed. Vern L. Bengtson and W. Andrew Achenbaum, pp. 169—90. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rosenau, Pauline V.
2001. `Market Structure and Performance: Evaluating the
U.S. Health System Reform.' Journal of Health and Social Policy 13(1):41—72.
Rossi, Alice S.
and Peter H. Rossi . 1990. Of Human Bonding: Parent—Child
Relations across the Life Course. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Salmon, Catherine A.
1998. `On the Impact of Sex and Birth Order on Contact
with Kin.' Human Nature 10(2):183—97.
Shuey, Kim
and Melissa Hardy. 2003. `Assistance to Aging Parents and Parents-in-Law: Does
Lineage Affect Family Allocation Decisions?' Journal of Marriage
and the Family 65(2): 418—31.
Silverstein, Merril
and Jeffrey D. Long . 1998. `Trajectories of Grandparents'
Perceived Solidarity with Adult Grandchildren: A Growth Curve Analysis over
23 Years.' Journal of Marriage and the Family 60(4): 912—23.
Silverstein, Merril
and Anne Marenco. 2001. `How Americans Enact the Grandparent Role across the Family
Life Course.' Journal of Family Issues 22(4): 493—522.
Silverstein, Merril, Stephen J. Conroy, Haitao Wang, Roseann Giarrusso , and Vern L. Bengtson. 2002. ` Reciprocity in Parent—Child Relations over the Adult Life Course.' The Journals of Gerontology 57B: S3—S13.
Smith, M.S.
1991. `An Evolutionary Perspective on Grandparent—Grandchild
Relationships.' In The Psychology of Grandparenthood: An International
Perspective, ed. P. K. Smith.
London: Routledge.
Stark, Oded.
1998. `Equal Bequests and Parental Altruism: Compatibility
or Orthogonality?' Economics Letters 60: 167—71.
Stoller, Eleanor P.
1990. `Males as Helpers: The Role of Sons, Relatives
and Friends .' The Gerontologist 30: 228—35.
Symons, Donald.
1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Szinovacz, Maximiliane E.
1998. `Grandparents Today: A Demographic Profile.'
The Gerontologist 38(1): 37—52.
Thibaut, J.W.
and H.H. Kelley. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups.
New York: Wiley.
Trivers, R.L.
1972. `Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.'
In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871—1971,
ed. B. Campbell, pp. 136—79. Chicago : Aldine.
Trivers, R.L.
1985. Social Evolution. Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin/Cummins Publishing.
Tversky, A.
and D. Kahneman. 1973. `Availability: A Heuristic for Judging
Frequency and Probability.' Cognitive Psychology 5: 207—32.
Uhlenberg, P.
1980. `Death and the Family.' Journal
of Family History 5: 313—20.
63
Uhlenberg, Peter
and Bradley G. Hammill . 1998. `Frequency of Grandparent
Contact with Grandchild Sets: Six Factors That Make a Difference.'
The Gerontologist 38(3): 276—85.
Whitbeck, L.B., D.R. Hoyt,
and S.M. Huck. 1993. `Family Relationship History, Contemporary
Parent—Grandparent Relationship Quality, and the Grandparent—Grandchild
Relationship.' Journal of Marriage and the Family 55: 1025—35.
DEBRA
FRIEDMAN (corresponding author) is dean of the College of Public Programs
and professor of public affairs at Arizona State University. Her research
interests include institutional design and deci- sion making. She is leading
a study on the social implications of growth in the Phoenix area and is presently
working on a book with Gail Dubrow, A Principled Approach to Higher Education
Administration.
MICHAEL
HECHTER is foundation professor of Global Studies at Arizona State University,
and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Washington. An elected
fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he was Founding Chair
of the Section on Rational Choice of the American Sociological Association.
Presently he is beginning work on a book on Alien Rule and Its Discontents.
DEREK
KREAGER is assistant professor of sociology and crime, law, and justice at
the Pennsylvania State University. His research interests include juvenile
delinquency, rational choice, the life course, and social network analysis.
He is currently working on a project with Ross Matsueda and David Huizinga
that analyzes life course trajectories of drug use and crime. His prior work,
focusing on decision making and delinquent friendships, has been published
in Social Forces and ASR (with Matsueda and Heizinga).</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p><list list-type="order"><list-item><p>1. This idea has a distinguished provenance in the history of social theory. Thus Mauss ([1925]1967) argues that ostensibly altruistic gifts are based on obligation and self-interest. That is, gifts establish and maintain interdependence within a group, demarcating members from non-members and establishing reciprocal obligations.</p></list-item><list-item><p>2. Note that evolutionary theorists attempt to explain why grandparents who are not co-resident (e.g., in extended families, as remains relatively common in East Asian societies) and do not assume parental responsibilities for their grandchildren nonetheless provide resources to them. This restriction is important because in the United States grandparents (especially grandmothers) often assume parental responsibilities when their young daughters conceive out of wedlock.</p></list-item><list-item><p>3. Paternity uncertainty is equal for the maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother (i.e., both have one uncertain link). However, Euler and Weitzel (1996) assert that the maternal grandparents should invest more in grandchildren than paternal grandparents because a daughter's reproductive strategy is to care for children, whereas a son's strategy would be to mate with additional partners. Recently, Laham et al. (2005) advanced an alternative hypothesis for the same phenomenon by suggesting that the relationship is conditional on the number and gender composition of the second generation children. If a paternal grandmother has daughters as well as a son, then her strategy is to invest in the daughters' grandchildren due to assured lineage. If, however, the paternal grandmother has only a male child, then investments in grandchildren should be equal for the maternal grandfather and the paternal grandmother.</p></list-item><list-item><p>4. Further, Rossi and Rossi (1990) argue that maternal bias in solicitude may be due not to norms, as suggested by the kin-keeping theory, but instead to increasing levels of <italic> divorce</italic>. Since child custody is almost always awarded to mothers, grandparents are more certain of maintaining ties with the children of their daughters as against those of sons. This argument implies that the variation in solicitude between maternal and paternal grandparents should vary with the divorce rate, but no such relationship is found in Euler et al. (2001: 150—151).</p></list-item><list-item><p>5. Lin et al. (2003) also mention the following as theories of child—parent caregiving, but it is unclear how they add anything beyond the above arguments. <italic>Hierarchical role expectations</italic>: A hierarchy of preferred caregivers may be established within families, where spouses are first caregivers, daughters are preferred over sons, and sons substitute for daughters when they are unavailable. In other cultures, these norms may be altered, where firstborn sons are traditionally the primary care providers for elderly parents (Lin et al. 2003). <italic>External resources</italic>: Children with greater educational and economic resources may use their power to exempt themselves from parent caregiving responsibilities or provide financial instead of daily assistance. There has been little empirical support for this hypothesis (Finley 1989).</p></list-item><list-item><p>6. One reviewer wonders why a direct transfer to children is insufficient to increase the probability of reciprocity. While we are unconcerned with the method of the investment — a direct transfer to children to help pay for a grandchild's tuition is in the spirit of this theory — the investment must be clearly specified for the grandchild, not as discretionary resources for the child. The reasons for this again are that adult children are typically at the height of their earning power and that signaling is enhanced by a clear earmark of the investment to benefit the grandchild.</p></list-item><list-item><p>7. Our argument focuses on grandparents as the decision makers. We recognize that children are not likely to be passive bystanders in this selection process. A far more complex approach would be to model this as a negotiated exchange, open to refusal on the part of the selected child, with implications for grandparental investments. This is intriguing and we leave it for others to explore.</p></list-item><list-item><p>8. The liabilities of elder care in nursing homes are the stuff of legend.</p></list-item><list-item><p>9. Note that our claim differs from that made by several economists. In their view, public displays of favoritism decrease the utility of altruistic parents if comparisons of unequal distributions give rise to feelings of dissatisfaction or dismay among sibling children (Bernheim and Severinov 2003; Stark 1998). If correct, this assumption suggests that private exchanges, such as gifts, should be the preferred mechanism for parents to show partiality. This line of reasoning has been used to explain the tendency for parents to leave equal bequests but provide unequal <italic>inter vivos</italic> transfers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>10. Admittedly, we cannot exclude the possibility that grandparents invest in particular grandchildren because the associated adult children show their support for them first. Although this is not inconsistent with the present theory, it is relatively difficult to distinguish this explanation from ours in empirical analyses.</p></list-item><list-item><p>11. A question might arise about the implications of this theory for childless children. Assuming that grandparents have a choice, our theory suggests that they will prefer the investment in grandchildren. If the childless children are successful, their dependence will be low. If the childless children are unsuccessful, however, they are unreliable insurers. 12. Indeed, one possible explanation for the pervasive reluctance to purchase long-term care insurance is that the elderly fear that such insurance might give their children an incentive to institutionalize them, since it would be relatively costless, especially compared to the cost of giving personal attention (Pauly 1990).</p></list-item></list></p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aldous, J.</surname></name>
<year>1995</year>. `<article-title>New Views of Grandparents in Intergenerational Context</article-title> .' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>16</volume>: <fpage>104</fpage>—<lpage>22</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Altonji, Joseph G.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Fumio Hayashi</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Laurence J. Kotlikoff .</surname></name>
<year>1997</year>. `<article-title>Parental Altruism and Inter Vivos Transfers: Theory and Evidence</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>105</volume>(<issue>6</issue>): <fpage>1121</fpage>—<lpage>66</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Azzi, Corry</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Ronald Ehrenberg.</surname></name>
<year>1975</year>. `<article-title>Household Allocation of Time and Church Attendance</article-title> .' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>83</volume>: <fpage>27</fpage>—<lpage>56</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Becker, Gary S.</surname></name>
<year>1974</year>. `<article-title>A Theory of Social Interactions</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>82</volume>: <fpage>1063</fpage>—<lpage>93</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Becker, Gary S.</surname></name>
<year>1991</year>. <source>A Treatise on the Family</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bengtson, Vern L.</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. `<article-title>Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>63</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>1</fpage>—<lpage>16</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bengtson, Vern L.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Robert E. L. Roberts.</surname></name>
<year>1991</year>. `<article-title>Intergenerational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>53</volume>: <fpage>856</fpage>—<lpage>70</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bergstrom, Theodore.</surname></name>
<year>1989</year>. `<article-title>A Fresh Look at the Rotten-Kid Theorem — and Other Household Mysteries</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>97</volume>: <fpage>1138</fpage>—<lpage>59</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bernheim, B. Douglas</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Sergei Severinov.</surname></name>
<year>2003</year>. `<article-title>Bequests as Signals: An Explanation for the Equal Division Puzzle</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>111</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>733</fpage>—<lpage>64</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bernheim, B. Douglas</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Andrei Shleifer</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Lawrence H.</surname></name> Summers. <year>1985</year>. `<article-title>The Strategic Bequest Motive</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>93</volume>: <fpage>1045</fpage>—<lpage>76</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cantor</surname></name>, Marjorie. <year>1991</year>. `<article-title>Family and Community, Changing Roles in an Aging Society</article-title>.' <source>The Gerontologist</source>
<volume>31</volume>: <fpage>337</fpage>—<lpage>46</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chan, Christopher G.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Glen H. Elder .</surname></name>
<year>2000</year>. `<article-title>Matrilineal Advantage in Grandchild—Grandparent Relations</article-title>.' <source>The Gerontologist</source>
<volume>40</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>179</fpage>—<lpage>90</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cherlin, Andrew J.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Frank F. Furstenberg .</surname></name>
<year>1986</year>. <source>The New American Grandparent: A Place in the Family, a Life Apart</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Basic Books</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cox, Donald.</surname></name>
<year>1987</year>. `<article-title>Motives for Private Transfers</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>95</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>508</fpage>—<lpage>46</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cox, Donald</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Mark R. Rank .</surname></name>
<year>1992</year>. `<article-title>Inter-Vivos Transfers and Intergenerational Exchange</article-title>.' <source>Review of Economics and Statistics</source>
<volume>72</volume>: <fpage>305</fpage>—<lpage>14</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Daly, Martin</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Margo Wilson.</surname></name>
<year>1980</year>. `<article-title>Discriminative Parental Solicitude: A Biological Perspective</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>42</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>277</fpage>—<lpage>88</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dench, G.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>J. Ogg</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>K. Thomson.</surname></name>
<year>1999</year>. `<source>The Role of Grandparents</source>.' In <source>British Social Attitudes Survey, the 16th Report</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>R. Jowell</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>J. Curtice</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>A. Park</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>K. Thompson</surname></name> , pp. <fpage>127</fpage>—<lpage>35</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Aldershot</publisher-loc>, UK: <publisher-name>Ashgate</publisher-name> .</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dubas, Judith S.</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. `<article-title>How Gender Moderates the Grandparent—Grandchild Relationship: A Comparison of Kin-Keeper and Kin-Selector Theories</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>22</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>478</fpage>—<lpage>92</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dunn, Thomas A.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>John W. Phillips .</surname></name>
<year>1997</year>. `<article-title>The Timing and Division of Parental Transfers to Children</article-title>.' <source>Economic Letters</source>
<volume>54</volume>: <fpage>135</fpage>—<lpage>37</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Eisenberg, Ann R.</surname></name>
<year>1988</year>. `<article-title>Grandchildren's Perspectives on Relationships with Grandparents: The Influence of Gender across Generations</article-title>.' <source>Sex Roles</source>
<volume>19</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>205</fpage>—<lpage>17</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Elder, Glen H.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Rand D. Conger .</surname></name>
<year>2000</year>. <source>Children of the Land: Adversity and Success in Rural America</source>. <publisher-loc>Chicago, IL</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Euler, Harald A.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Barbara Weitzel.</surname></name>
<year>1996</year>. `<article-title>Discriminative Grandparental Solicitude as Reproductive Strategy</article-title>.' <source>Human Nature</source>
<volume>7</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>39</fpage>—<lpage>59</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Euler, Harald A.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Sabine Hoier</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Percy A. Rohde.</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. ` <article-title>Relationship-specific Closeness of Intergenerational Family Ties.' Journal of Cross-cultural</article-title>
<source>Psychology</source>
<volume>32</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>147</fpage>—<lpage>58</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fergusson, Neil.</surname></name>
<year>2004</year>. <source>Grandparenting in Divorced Families. Bristol, UK</source> : <publisher-name>The Policy Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fingerman, Karen L.</surname></name>
<year>2004</year>. `<article-title>The Role of Offspring and In-laws in Grandparents' Ties to Their Grandchildren</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>35</volume>(<issue>8</issue>): <fpage>1026</fpage>—<lpage>49</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Finley, Nancy J.</surname></name>
<year>1989</year>. `<article-title>Theories of Family Labor as Applied to Gender Differences in Caregiving for Elderly Parents</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>51</volume>: <fpage>79</fpage>—<lpage>86</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Friedman, Debra</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Michael Hechter</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Satoshi Kanazawa .</surname></name>
<year>1994</year>. `<article-title>A Theory of the Value of Children</article-title>.' <source>Demography</source>
<volume>31</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>375</fpage>—<lpage>401</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hagestad, Guinheld O.</surname></name>
<year>1985</year>. `<source>Continuity and Connectedness</source>.' In <name name-style="western"><surname>Grandparenthood</surname></name>, ed. <source>V. L. Bengtson and J. F</source>. <publisher-name>Robertson</publisher-name>, pp. <fpage>31</fpage>—<lpage>48</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Beverly Hills, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hagestad, Guinheld O.</surname></name>
<year>1986</year>. `<source>The Family: Women and Grandparents as Kin-Keepers</source> .' In <source>Our Aging Society: Paradox and Promise</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>A. Pifer</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>L. Bronte</surname></name> , pp. <fpage>141</fpage>—<lpage>60</lpage>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Norton</publisher-name> .</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hartshorne, Timothy S.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Guy J. Manaster .</surname></name>
<year>1982</year>. `<article-title>The Relationship with Grandparents: Contact, Importance, Role Conception</article-title>.' <source>International Journal of Aging and Human Development</source>
<volume>15</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>233</fpage>—<lpage>45</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Henretta, John C.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Martha S. Hill</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Wei Li</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Beth J. Soldo</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Douglas A. Wolf .</surname></name>
<year>1997</year>. `<article-title>Selection of Children to Provide Care: The Effect of Earlier Parental Transfers</article-title>.' <source>The Journals of Gerontology</source> Series B <volume>52B</volume>: <fpage>110</fpage>—<lpage>19</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hermalin, A.I.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>M.B. Ofstedal</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>M.C. Chang.</surname></name>
<year>1996</year>. `<source>Types of Supports for the Aged and Their Providers in Taiwan</source>.' In <source>Aging and Generational Relations over the Life Course: A Historical and Cross-cultural Perspective</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>T. K. Hareven</surname></name>, pp. <fpage>400</fpage>—<lpage>37</lpage>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Walter de Gruyter</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hodgson, Lynne G.</surname></name>
<year>1992</year>. `<article-title>Adult Grandchildren and Their Grandparents: The Enduring Bond</article-title>.' <source>International Journal of Aging and Human Development</source>
<volume>34</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>209</fpage>—<lpage>25</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hoffman, E.</surname></name>
<year>1979</year>. `<article-title>Young Adults' Relations with Their Grandparents: An Exploratory Study</article-title>.' <source>International Journal of Aging and Human Development</source>
<volume>10</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>299</fpage>—<lpage>310</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Horowitz, Amy</surname></name>
<year>1985</year>. `<article-title>Sons and Daughters as Caregivers to Older Parents: Differences in Role Performance and Consequences</article-title>.' <source>Gerontologist</source>
<volume>25</volume>: <fpage>612</fpage>—<lpage>16</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Johnson, Collean L.</surname></name>
<year>1988</year>. <source>Ex Familia: Grandparents, Parents, and Children Adjust to Divorce</source>. <publisher-loc>New Brunswick</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Rutgers University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kahana, Boaz</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Eva Kahana.</surname></name>
<year>1970</year>. `<article-title>Grandparenthood from the Perspective of the Developing Grandchild</article-title>.' <source>Developmental Psychology</source>
<volume>3</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>98</fpage>—<lpage>105</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kennedy, Gregory</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>C.E. Kennedy.</surname></name>
<year>1993</year>. `<article-title>Grandparents: A Special Resource for Children in Stepfamilies</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Divorce and Remarriage</source>
<volume>19</volume>: <fpage>45</fpage>—<lpage>68</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>King, Valarie.</surname></name>
<year>2003</year>. `<article-title>The Legacy of a Grandparent's Divorce: Consequences for Ties between Grandparents and Grandchildren</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>65</volume>: <fpage>170</fpage>—<lpage>83</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>King, Valarie</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Glen H. Elder .</surname></name>
<year>1995</year>. `<article-title>American Children View Their Grandparents: Linked Lives across Three Rural Generations</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>57</volume>: <fpage>165</fpage>—<lpage>78</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>King, Valarie</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Merril Silverstein, Glen H. Elder</surname></name> , <name name-style="western"><surname>Vern L. Bengtson</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Rand D. Conger.</surname></name>
<year>2003</year>. ` <article-title>Relations with Grandparents: Rural Midwest versus Urban Southern California</article-title> .' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>24</volume>(<issue>8</issue>): <fpage>1044</fpage>—<lpage>69</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kivett, Vira R.</surname></name>
<year>1985</year>. `<article-title>Grandfathers and Grandchildren: Patterns of Association, Helping, and Psychological Closeness</article-title>.' <source>Family Relations</source>
<volume>34</volume>: <fpage>565</fpage>—<lpage>71</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Laditka, James N.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Sarah B. Laditka .</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. `<article-title>Adult Children Helping Older Parents</article-title>.' <source>Research on Aging</source>
<volume>23</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>429</fpage>—<lpage>56</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Laham, Simon M.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Karen Gonsalkorale</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>William von Hippel .</surname></name>
<year>2005</year>. `<article-title>Darwinian Grandparenting: Preferential Investment in More Certain Kin</article-title>.' <source>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</source>
<volume>31</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>63</fpage>—<lpage>72</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lang, Abigail M.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Elaine M. Brody .</surname></name>
<year>1983</year>. `<article-title>Characteristics of Middle-aged Daughters and Help to Their Elderly Mothers</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>45</volume>: <fpage>193</fpage>—<lpage>202</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Latané, Bibb</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>John M. Darley .</surname></name>
<year>1970</year>. <source>The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help?</source>
<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Appleton-Century Crofts</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lee, Yean-Ju</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Isik A. Aytac .</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>Intergeneration Financial Support among Whites, African Americans, and Latinos</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>60</volume>: <fpage>426</fpage>—<lpage>41</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>LeeYean-Ju</surname></name><name name-style="western"><surname>ParishWilliam L.</surname></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname>WillisRobert J.</surname></name>, <year>1994</year><article-title>`Sons, Daughters, and Intergenerational Support in Taiwan'</article-title> . <source>The American Journal of Sociology</source>
<volume>99</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>1010</fpage>—<lpage>41</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lin, I-Fen</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Noreen Goldman</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Maxine Weinstein</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Yu-Hsuan Lin</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Tristan Gorrindo</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Teresa Seeman.</surname></name>
<year>2003</year>. `<article-title>Gender Differences in Adult Children's Support of Their Parents in Taiwan</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>65</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>184</fpage>—<lpage>200</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lye, Diane N.</surname></name>
<year>1996</year>. `<article-title>Adult Child—Parent Relationships</article-title>.' <source>Annual Review of Sociology</source>
<volume>22</volume>: <fpage>79</fpage>—<lpage>102</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>McGarry, Kathleen.</surname></name>
<year>1999</year>. `<article-title>Inter Vivos Transfers and Intended Bequests</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Public Economics</source>
<volume>73</volume>: <fpage>321</fpage>—<lpage>51</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Matthews, Sarah H.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Tena T. Rosner .</surname></name>
<year>1988</year>. `<article-title>Shared Filial Responsibility: The Family as a Primary Caregiver</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>50</volume>: <fpage>185</fpage>—<lpage>96</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Matthews, Sarah H.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Jetse Sprey.</surname></name>
<year>1985</year>. `<article-title>Adolescents' Relationships with Grandparents: An Empirical Contribution to Conceptual Clarification</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Gerontology</source>
<volume>40</volume>(<issue>5</issue>): <fpage>621</fpage>—<lpage>6</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Matthews, Sarah H.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>J.E. Werkner</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>P.J. Delaney.</surname></name>
<year>1989</year>. `<article-title>Relative Contributions of Help by Employed and Nonemployed Sisters to Their Elderly Parents</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Gerontology</source>
<volume>44</volume>: <fpage>S36</fpage>—<lpage>S44</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mauss, Marcel.</surname></name> [<year>1925</year>]<year>1967</year>. <source>The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Norton</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michalski, Richard L.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Todd K. Shackelford .</surname></name>
<year>2005</year>. `<article-title>Grandparental Investment as a Function of Relational Uncertainty and Emotional Closeness with Parents</article-title> .' <source>Human Nature</source>
<volume>16</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>293</fpage>—<lpage>305</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mills, Terry L.</surname></name>
<year>1999</year>. `<article-title>When Grandchildren Grow up: Role Transition and Family Solidarity among Baby Boomer Grandchildren and Their Grandparents</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Aging Studies</source>
<volume>13</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>219</fpage>—<lpage>35</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mills, Terry L.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>M.A. Wakeman</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>C.B. Fea.</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. `<article-title>Adult Grandchildren's Perceptions of Emotional Closeness and Consensus with Their Maternal and Paternal Grandparents</article-title> .' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>22</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>427</fpage>—<lpage>55</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Montgomery, Rhonda J. B.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Yoshinori Kamo.</surname></name>
<year>1989</year>. `<source>Parent Care by Sons and Daughters</source>.' In <name name-style="western"><surname>Aging Parents</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Adult Children</surname></name> , ed. <source>Jay A. Mancini</source>, pp. <fpage>213</fpage>—<lpage>30</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Lexington, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Lexington Books</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Norton, E.C.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>J.P. Newhouse.</surname></name>
<year>1994</year>. `<article-title>Policy Options for Public Long-Term-Care Insurance.' Jama-Journal of the</article-title>
<source>American Medical Association</source>
<volume>271</volume>: <fpage>1520</fpage>—<lpage>4</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Parrot, Tonya M.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Vern L. Bengtson .</surname></name>
<year>1999</year>. `<article-title>The Effects of Earlier Intergenerational Affection, Normative Expectations, and Family Conflict on Contemporary Exchanges of Help and Support</article-title>.' <source>Research on Aging</source>
<volume>21</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>73</fpage>—<lpage>105</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pashos, Alexander.</surname></name>
<year>2000</year>. `<article-title>Does Paternal Uncertainty Explain Discriminative Grandparental Solicitude? A Cross-cultural Study in Greece and Germany.' Evolution and</article-title>
<source>Human Behavior</source>
<volume>21</volume>: <fpage>97</fpage>—<lpage>109</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pauly, M.V.</surname></name>
<year>1990</year>. `<article-title>The Rational Nonpurchase of Long-Term-Care Insurance</article-title> .' <source>Journal of Political Economy</source>
<volume>98</volume>: <fpage>153</fpage>—<lpage>68</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pebley, Anne R.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Laura L. Rudkin .</surname></name>
<year>1999</year>. `<article-title>Grandparents Caring for Grandchildren: What Do We Know?</article-title>' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>20</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>218</fpage>—<lpage>42</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pinquart, Martin</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Silvia Sorensen.</surname></name>
<year>2002</year>. `<article-title>Older Adults' Preferences for Informal, Formal, and Mixed Support for Future Care Needs: A Comparison of Germany and the United States</article-title> .' <source>International Journal of Aging and Human Development</source>
<volume>54</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>291</fpage>—<lpage>314</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Riley, Matilda W.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>John W. Riley , Jr.</surname></name>
<year>1993</year>. `<source>Connections: Kin and Cohort</source>.' In <source>The Changing Contract across Generations</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>Vern L. Bengtson</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>W. Andrew Achenbaum</surname></name>, pp. <fpage>169</fpage>—<lpage>90</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Hawthorne, NY</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Aldine de Gruyter</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rosenau, Pauline V.</surname></name>
<year>2001</year>. `Market <article-title>Structure and Performance: Evaluating the U.S. Health System Reform</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Health and Social Policy</source>
<volume>13</volume>(<issue>1</issue>):<fpage>41</fpage>—<lpage>72</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rossi, Alice S.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Peter H. Rossi .</surname></name>
<year>1990</year>. <source>Of Human Bonding: Parent—Child Relations across the Life Course</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Aldine</publisher-name>
<publisher-name>de Gruyter</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Salmon, Catherine A.</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>On the Impact of Sex and Birth Order on Contact with Kin</article-title>.' <source>Human Nature</source>
<volume>10</volume>(<issue>2</issue>):<fpage>183</fpage>—<lpage>97</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shuey, Kim</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Melissa Hardy.</surname></name>
<year>2003</year>. `<article-title>Assistance to Aging Parents and Parents-in-Law: Does Lineage Affect Family Allocation Decisions?</article-title>' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>65</volume>(<issue>2</issue>): <fpage>418</fpage>—<lpage>31</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Silverstein, Merril</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Jeffrey D. Long .</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>Trajectories of Grandparents' Perceived Solidarity with Adult Grandchildren: A Growth Curve Analysis over 23 Years</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>60</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>912</fpage>—<lpage>23</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Silverstein, Merril</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Anne</surname></name> Marenco. <year>2001</year>. `<article-title>How Americans Enact the Grandparent Role across the Family Life Course</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Family Issues</source>
<volume>22</volume>(<issue>4</issue>): <fpage>493</fpage>—<lpage>522</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Silverstein, Merril</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Stephen J. Conroy</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Haitao Wang, Roseann Giarrusso</surname></name> , and <name name-style="western"><surname>Vern L. Bengtson.</surname></name>
<year>2002</year>. ` <article-title>Reciprocity in Parent—Child Relations over the Adult Life Course.' The</article-title>
<source>Journals of Gerontology</source>
<volume>57B</volume>: <fpage>S3</fpage>—<lpage>S13</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Smith, M.S.</surname></name>
<year>1991</year>. `<source>An Evolutionary Perspective on Grandparent—Grandchild Relationships</source>.' In <source>The Psychology of Grandparenthood: An International Perspective</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>P. K. Smith.</surname></name>
<publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stark, Oded.</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>Equal Bequests and Parental Altruism: Compatibility or Orthogonality?</article-title>' <source>Economics Letters</source>
<volume>60</volume>: <fpage>167</fpage>—<lpage>71</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stoller, Eleanor P.</surname></name>
<year>1990</year>. `<article-title>Males as Helpers: The Role of Sons, Relatives and Friends</article-title> .' <source>The Gerontologist</source>
<volume>30</volume>: <fpage>228</fpage>—<lpage>35</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Symons, Donald.</surname></name>
<year>1979</year>. <source>The Evolution of Human Sexuality</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Szinovacz, Maximiliane E.</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>Grandparents Today: A Demographic Profile</article-title>.' <source>The Gerontologist</source>
<volume>38</volume>(<issue>1</issue>): <fpage>37</fpage>—<lpage>52</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thibaut, J.W.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>H.H. Kelley.</surname></name>
<year>1959</year>. <source>The Social Psychology of Groups</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Trivers, R.L.</surname></name>
<year>1972</year>. `<source>Parental Investment and Sexual Selection</source>.' In <source>Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871—1971</source>, ed. <name name-style="western"><surname>B. Campbell</surname></name>, pp. <fpage>136</fpage>—<lpage>79</lpage>. <publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc> : <publisher-name>Aldine</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Trivers, R.L.</surname></name>
<year>1985</year>. <source>Social Evolution</source>. <publisher-loc>Menlo Park, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Benjamin/Cummins</publisher-name> Publishing.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tversky, A.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>D. Kahneman.</surname></name>
<year>1973</year>. `<article-title>Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability</article-title>.' <source>Cognitive Psychology</source>
<volume>5</volume>: <fpage>207</fpage>—<lpage>32</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Uhlenberg, P.</surname></name>
<year>1980</year>. `<article-title>Death and the Family</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Family History</source>
<volume>5</volume>: <fpage>313</fpage>—<lpage>20</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Uhlenberg, Peter</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Bradley G. Hammill .</surname></name>
<year>1998</year>. `<article-title>Frequency of Grandparent Contact with Grandchild Sets: Six Factors That Make a Difference</article-title>.' <source>The Gerontologist</source>
<volume>38</volume>(<issue>3</issue>): <fpage>276</fpage>—<lpage>85</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Whitbeck, L.B.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>D.R. Hoyt</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>S.M. Huck.</surname></name>
<year>1993</year>. `<article-title>Family Relationship History, Contemporary Parent—Grandparent Relationship Quality, and the Grandparent—Grandchild Relationship</article-title>.' <source>Journal of Marriage and the Family</source>
<volume>55</volume>: <fpage>1025</fpage>—<lpage>35</lpage>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Debra</namePart><namePart type="family">Friedman</namePart><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: debra.friedman@asu.edu</affiliation><affiliation>Arizona State University, Dean, College of Public Programs, Mail Code 3520, 411 N Central Ave, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004- 0685, USA, debra.friedman@asu.edu</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michael</namePart><namePart type="family">Hechter</namePart><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: michael.hechter@asu.edu</affiliation><affiliation>School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, michael.hechter@asu.edu</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Derek</namePart><namePart type="family">Kreager</namePart><affiliation></affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: dkreager@psu.edu</affiliation><affiliation>Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, dkreager@psu.edu</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage UK: London, England</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008-02</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">As innovations in medical technology extend average longevity, grandparents become increasingly present during the lives of their grandchildren. We propose a theory that seeks to explain differential investment in grandchildren. The theory relies on a fundamental assumption of uncertainty reduction to explain why grandparents in post-industrial societies might find it rational to invest in at least one of their grandchildren. We advance numerous illustrative hypotheses about end of life uncertainty, as well as proportional and differential investments in grandchildren, and discuss the relevance of existing empirical literature.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>grandparents</topic><topic>grandchildren</topic><topic>rational choice</topic><topic>intergenerational transfer</topic><topic>elder care</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Rationality and society</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1043-4631</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1461-7358</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">RSS</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">sprss</identifier><part><date>2008</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>20</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>31</start><end>63</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/M70-4X7236FV-J</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/1043463107085436</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_1043463107085436</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-0J1N7DQT-B">sage</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/BernheimV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000553 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000553 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= BernheimV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:6979ADEBDC4EE952D14406B1F02F44FDE7D2FD8C
|texte= A Theory of the Value of Grandchildren
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |