Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (February 2001): 1–16 1
VERN L. BENGTSON University of Southern California
ࡗ
THE BURGESS AWARD LECTURE*
Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance
of Multigenerational Bonds
Family relationships across several generations
are becoming increasingly important in American
society. They are also increasingly diverse
in structure and in functions. In reply to the
widely debated ‘‘family decline’’ hypothesis,
which assumes a nuclear family model of 2 biological
parents and children, I suggest that
family multigenerational relations will be more
important in the 21st century for 3 reasons: (a)
the demographic changes of population aging,
resulting in ‘‘longer years of shared lives’’ between
generations; (b) the increasing importance
of grandparents and other kin in fulfilling
family functions; (c) the strength and resilience
of intergenerational solidarity over time. I also
indicate that family multigenerational relations
are increasingly diverse because of (a) changes
in family structure, involving divorce and stepfamily
relationships; (b) the increased longevity
of kin; (c) the diversity of intergenerational relationship
‘‘types.’’ Drawing on the family research
legacy of Ernest W. Burgess, I frame my
arguments in terms of historical family transiAndrus
Gerontology Center, University of Southern California,
3715 McClintock Avenue, Suite 208, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0191 (bengtson@rcf.usc.edu).
* The Ernest W. Burgess Award is given biennially by the
National Council on Family Relations to recognize career
contributions to the development of knowledge in family
research.
Key Words: aging, grandparents, intergenerational relationships,
social change and families.
tions and hypotheses. Research from the Longitudinal
Study of Generations is presented to
demonstrate the strengths of multigenerational
ties over time and why it is necessary to look
beyond the nuclear family when asking whether
families are still functional.
During the past decade, sociologists have been engaged
in an often heated debate about family
change and family influences in contemporary society.
This debate in many ways reflects the legacy
of Ernest W. Burgess (1886–1965), the pioneer
of American family sociology. It can be
framed in terms of four general hypotheses, each
of which calls attention to significant transitions
in the structure and functions of families over the
20th century.
The first and earliest hypothesis concerns the
emergence of the ‘‘modern’’ nuclear family form
following the Industrial Revolution. This transition
(suggested by Burgess in 1916 and elaborated
by Ogburn, 1932, and Parsons, 1944) proposed
that the modal structure of families had changed
from extended to nuclear, and its primary functions
had changed from social-institutional to
emotional-supportive. The second hypothesis concerns
the decline of the modern nuclear family as
a social institution, a decline said to be attributable
to the fact that its structure has been truncated
(because of high divorce rates) and its functions
further reduced (Popenoe, 1993). A third hypothesis
can be termed the increasing heterogeneity of
family forms, relations that extend beyond biolog-
2 Journal of Marriage and Family
ical or conjugal relationship boundaries. Growing
from the work of feminist scholars (Coontz, 1991;
Skolnick, 1991; Stacey, 1990), and research on
racial and ethnic minority families (Burton, 1995;
Collins, 1990; Stack, 1974), this perspective suggests
that family structures and relationships
should be redefined to include both ‘‘assigned’’
and ‘‘created’’ kinship systems (Cherlin, 1999). I
suggest a fourth hypothesis for consideration: The
increasing importance of multigenerational
bonds. I propose that relations across more than
two generations are becoming increasingly important
to individuals and families in American
society; that they are increasingly diverse in structure
and functions; and that in the early 21st century,
these multigenerational bonds will not only
enhance but in some cases replace nuclear family
functions, which have been so much the focus of
sociologists during the 20th century.
In this article, I first summarize the ‘‘Burgess legacy’’
in American family sociology and relate it to
the four hypotheses summarized above. Then I suggest
some foundations for my hypotheses concerning
the increasing importance and diversity of multigenerational
relationships, starting from a discussion
of macrosocial trends (population aging and intergenerational
family demography) and moving to microsocial
dimensions (solidarity and types of crossgenerational
relationships). I conclude with some
suggestions about future research that will be needed
to examine further the role of multigenerational
bonds in 21st century society.
THE BURGESS LEGACY: AS FAMILIES HAVE
CHANGED, HAVE THEY DECLINED IN
IMPORTANCE?
Before beginning to trace this argument—which
is a substantial departure from conventional wisdom
about the ‘‘problems’’ of American families
and their solutions today—I want first to acknowledge
my personal and intellectual debt to Ernest
W. Burgess, the namesake for this award from the
National Council on Family Relations. He was
truly a giant in the development of family sociology
in America and one of the great lights of
the ‘‘Chicago school’’ of sociology from 1915
into the 1960s (Bogue, 1974).
Burgess was briefly my teacher at the University
of Chicago, several years after his formal retirement.
I remember him as a diminutive and
courtly gentleman peering over the lectern as he
talked, apparently without notes, about the ‘‘roleless
role’’ of the aged in modern societies.
Shortly after I first met him, he became increasingly
frail and unable to live on his own. This led
to a situation of profound irony. This giant of
American family studies, who had never married
and had outlived his biological kin, had no family
to take care of his needs in his declining years.
He had lived with his sister, also unmarried, for
almost 40 years until her death. In early 1965, he
quietly checked himself into a neighborhood
board-and-care home for the elderly, which turned
out to be in deplorable condition. Discovering
this, Bernice Neugarten, Robert Havighurst, and
other University of Chicago faculty arranged for
his transfer to the Drexel Home for the Aged. He
died there in December 1966 at the age of 80,
without family except for the ‘‘fictive kin’’ represented
by the warm care of the Drexel Home
staff and his University of Chicago colleagues. It
was an ironic departure for one of the U.S. pioneers
in family sociology, a man who had no access
himself to the multigenerational family network
that is my theme in this paper.
Burgess was truly an innovator in sociology.
He inherited a tradition of 19th-century sociological
analysis based on political and moral philosophy;
he adapted this to focus on the social problems
encountered by early-20th-century
Americans—social disorganization, crime, delinquency,
urbanization, poverty—and to insist on
the importance of empirical data in analyzing
these problems. Because so little systematic social
research had preceded him, he became a pioneer
in almost every field he entered, from the methodology
of social surveys (Burgess, 1916) to the
role of the aged in Western societies (Burgess,
1960). But his most enduring legacy is reflected
in the sociology of the family.
Burgess insisted that we must consider both the
macrosocial contexts of families over time and
their microsocial dynamics if we are to understand
the increasing complexity of family life. Starting
from Burgess’ insight, I think we can identify four
major shifts in American families over the 20th
century that I will list as hypotheses, the source
for future research concerning their utility.
The Emergence of the ‘‘Modern’’ Nuclear
Family Form
Burgess’ groundbreaking analyses of the American
family started from a consideration of macrosocial
trends brought about by the Industrial Rev-
3Beyond the Nuclear Family
olution and continued with his exploration of the
microsocial dynamics within families. One of his
earliest concerns was the family as an aspect of
social organization in the context of social evolution.
His first book (Burgess, 1916) would today
be regarded as a polemic in support of the traditional
extended family and its functions because
he argued that this family form was necessary for
the socialization of children if social evolution
were to continue. Within the next decade, however,
he shifted his perspective. From the structural
‘‘functions’’ of families applied to the modernizing
societies of the early 20th century, he
turned to an emphasis on family members’ ‘‘in-
teractions.’’
Burgess’ hypothesis was that families had
changed. He broke from late-19th-century views
of the extended family structure as the bedrock of
social organization and progress to say, ‘‘The family
in historical times has been, and at present is,
in transition from an institution to a companionship’’
(Burgess, 1926, p. 104). He focused on the
nuclear family and its changing functions as the
consequence of industrialization and modernization,
arguments echoed later by Ogburn (1932),
Davis (1941), and Parsons (1944). His thesis was
that urbanization, increased individualism and
secularism, and the emancipation of women had
transformed the family from a social institution
based on law and custom to one based on companionship
and love.
Burgess advanced his position very quietly in
a number of scholarly journal publications. These
appeared to have escaped notice by the popular
press at that time, quite unlike today’s debates
about the family. He argued that the family had
become more specialized in its functions and that
structural and objective aspects of family life had
been supplanted by more emotional and subjective
functions. This he termed the ‘‘companionship’’
basis of marriage, which he suggested had become
the underlying basis of the ‘‘modern’’ family
form.
But Burgess went further. He proposed that the
most appropriate way to conceptualize and study
the family was as ‘‘a unity of interacting personalities’’
(Burgess, 1926). By this he meant three
things: First, ‘‘the family’’ is essentially a process,
an interactional system influenced by each of its
members; it not merely a structure, or a household.
Second, the behaviors of one family member—a
troubled child, a detached father—could
not be understood except in relationship to other
family members, their ongoing patterns of interactions,
and personalities developing and changing
through such interactions. This conceptualization
provided the intellectual basis for the first
marriage and family counseling programs in the
United States. Third, the central functions of families
had changed from being primarily structural
units of social organization to being relationships
supporting individuals’ needs. Marriage was
transformed from a primarily economic union to
one based on sentiment and companionship.
Thus, Burgess represented a bridge between
19th-century conceptions of the family as a unit
in social evolution to 20th-century ideas of families
as supporting individuals’ needs. His work
also provided a bridge in sociological theory, from
structural-functionalism to symbolic interactionism
and phenomenology. But in all this, Burgess’
focus was on the nuclear family, a White, middleclass,
two-generation family; and the family forms
emerging in the 21st century will, as I argue below,
look much different than the family that Burgess
observed.
The Decline of the Modern Nuclear Family
Form
The ‘‘decline of the family’’ in American society
is a theme that has become the focus of increasingly
heated debates by politicians, pundits, and
family sociologists during the last decade. David
Popenoe (1993), the most articulate proponent of
this position, has argued that there has been a
striking decline in the family’s structure and functions
in American society, particularly since 1960.
Moreover, his hypothesis is that recent family decline
is ‘‘more serious’’ than any decline in the
past, because ’’what is breaking up is the nuclear
family, the fundamental unit stripped of relations
and left with two essential functions that cannot
be performed better elsewhere: Childrearing and
the provision to its members of affection and companionship’’
(Popenoe, p. 527). Supporters of the
family decline hypothesis have focused on the
negative consequences of changing family structure,
resulting from divorce and single parenting,
on the psychological, social, and economic wellbeing
of children. Furthermore, they suggest that
social norms legitimating the pursuit of individual
over collective goals and the availability of alternate
social groups for the satisfaction of basic human
needs have substantially weakened the social
institution of the family as an agent of socializa-
4 Journal of Marriage and Family
tion and as a source of nurturance for family
members (Popenoe).
There is much to support Popenoe’s hypothesis.
There has been a significant change in nuclear
family structure over the past 50 years, starting
with the growing divorce rate in the 1960s, which
escalated to over half of first marriages in the
1980s (Amato & Booth, 1997; Bumpass, Sweet,
& Martin, 1990). There also has been an increase
in single-parent families, accompanied by an increase
in poverty for the children living in motherheaded
families (McLanahan, 1994). The absence
of fathers in many families today has created
problems for the economic and emotional wellbeing
of children (Popenoe, 1996).
At the same time, the ‘‘family decline’’ hypothesis
is limited, and to some critics flawed, by
its preoccupation with the family as a coresident
household and the nuclear family as its primary
representation. Popenoe defined the family as ‘‘a
relatively small domestic group of kin (or people
in a kinlike relationship) consisting of at least one
adult and one dependent person’’ (Popenoe, 1993,
p. 529). Although this might be sufficient as a
demographic definition of a ‘‘family household,’’
it does not include important aspects of family
functions that extend beyond boundaries of coresidence.
There is nothing in Popenoe’s hypothesis
to reflect the function of multigenerational influences
on children—the role of grandparents in socializing
or supporting grandchildren, particularly
after the divorce of middle-generation parents
(Johnson & Barer, 1987; Minkler & Rowe, 1993).
Nor is there any mention of what Riley and Riley
(1993) have called the ‘‘latent matrix of kin connections,’’
a web of ‘‘continually shifting linkages
that provide the potential for activating and intensifying
close kin relationships’’ in times of need
by family members (Riley & Riley, p. 169). And
there is no consideration of the longer years of
shared lives between generations, now extending
into many decades, and their consequences for the
emotional and economic support for family members
across several generations (Bengtson & Allen,
1993; Silverstein & Litwak, 1993).
The Increasing Heterogeneity of Family Forms
A third hypothesis has been generated by feminist
scholars (Coontz, 1991; Osmond & Thorne, 1993;
Skolnick, 1991; Stacey, 1993, 1996; Thorne &
Yalom, 1992) and researchers studying minority
families (Burton, 1995; Collins, 1990; Stack,
1974). This hypothesis can be summarized as follows:
Families are changing in both forms and
meanings, expanding beyond the nuclear family
structure to involve a variety of kin and nonkin
relationships. Diverse family forms are emerging,
or at least being recognized for the first time, including
the matriarchal structure of many African
American families. Stacey (1996) argued that the
traditional nuclear family is increasingly ill-suited
for a postindustrial, postmodern society. Women’s
economic and social emancipation over the past
century has become incongruent with the nuclear
‘‘male breadwinner’’ family form and its traditional
allocation of power, resources, and labor.
We have also seen a normalization of divorce and
of stepparenting in recent years. Many American
families today are what Ahrons (1994) has described
as ‘‘binuclear.’’ Following divorce and remarriage
of the original marital partners and parents,
a stable, child-supportive family context may
emerge. Finally, because some four million children
in the United States are being raised by lesbian
or gay parents (Stacey & Biblarz, in press),
these and other alternative family forms ‘‘are here
. . . and let’s get used to it!’’ (Stacey, 1996, p.
105).
In responding to Popenoe, Stacey (1996) argued
that the family is indeed in decline—if what
we mean by ‘‘family’’ is the nuclear form of dad,
mom, and their biological or adopted kids. This
form of the family rose and fell with modern industrial
society. In the last few decades, with the
shift to a postindustrial domestic economy within
a globalized capitalist system and with the advent
of new reproductive technologies, the modern
family system has been replaced by what Stacey
has called ‘‘the postmodern family condition,’’ a
pluralistic, fluid, and contested domain in which
diverse family patterns, values, and practices contend
for legitimacy and resources. Stacey suggested
that family diversity and fluidity are now
‘‘normal,’’ and the postmodern family condition
opens the possibility of egalitarian, democratic
forms of intimacy, as well as potentially threatening
levels of insecurity.
The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational
Bonds
I want to suggest a fourth hypothesis about family
transitions during the 20th century that builds on
those of Burgess, Popenoe, Stack, and Stacey but
reflects the recent demographic development of
5Beyond the Nuclear Family
much greater longevity. It is this: Relations across
more than two generations are becoming increasingly
important to individuals and families in
American society. Considering the dramatic increase
in life expectancy over the past half century,
this is not a particularly radical departure
from conventional wisdom. But I suggest a corollary
to this hypothesis, which I hope will lead
to spirited debate: For many Americans, multigenerational
bonds are becoming more important
than nuclear family ties for well-being and support
over the course of their lives.
I will attempt to provide a foundation for this
hypothesis in the remainder of this article. First, I
argue that changes in intergenerational demography
(changing societal and family age structures,
creating longer years of ‘‘shared lives’’) have resulted
in increased opportunities—and needs—for
interaction, support, and mutual influence across
more than just two generations. Second, I will
note the strength of intergenerational solidarity
over time and the diversity of cross-generational
types. Third, because the increase in marital instability
and divorce over the last several decades
has weakened the ability of nuclear families to
provide the socialization, nurturance, and support
needed by family members, I argue that kin across
several generations will increasingly be called
upon to provide these essential family functions
in 21st-century society.
THE MACROSOCIOLOGY OF INTERGENERATIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS
The demographic structure of American families
has changed significantly in recent years. We hear
most about two trends: The increase in divorce
rates since the 1960s, with one out of two first
marriages ending in divorce (Cherlin, 1992); and
the increasing number of children living in singleparent
households, often accompanied by poverty
(McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Walker & McGraw,
2000). But there is a third trend that has
received much less attention: The increased longevity
of family members and the potential resource
this represents for the well-being of younger
generations in the family.
Multigenerational Family Demography: From
Pyramids to Beanpoles
First consider how much the age structure of the
U.S. population has changed over the past 100
years. Treas (1995b) provided a valuable overview
of these changes and their consequences for
families. In 1900, the shape of the American population
structure by age was that of a pyramid,
with a large base (represented by children under
age 5) progressively tapering into a narrow group
of those aged 65 and older. This pyramid characterized
the shape of the population structure by
age in most human societies on record, from the
dawn of civilization through the early Industrial
Revolution and into the early 20th century (Laslett,
1976; Myers, 1990). But by 1990, the age
pyramid for American society had come to look
more like an irregular triangle. By 2030, it will
look more like a rectangle, with strikingly similar
numbers in each age category starting from children
and adolescents through those above the age
of 60. The story here is that because of increases
in longevity and decreases in fertility, the population
age structure of the United States, like most
industrialized societies, has changed from a pyramid
to a rectangle in just over a century of human
historical experience.
Second, consider the implications of these macrosocietal
changes in age distribution for the generational
structure of families in American society.
At the same time, there have been increases in life
expectancy over the 20th century, decreases in
fertility have occurred, and the population birthrate
has decreased from 4.1 in 1900 to 1.9 in 1990
(Cherlin, 1999). This means that the age structure
of most American families has changed from a
pyramid to what might be described as a ‘‘beanpole’’
(Bengtson, Rosenthal, & Burton, 1990), a
family structure in which the shape is long and
thin, with more family generations alive but with
fewer members in each generation. Whether the
‘‘beanpole’’ structure adequately describes a majority
of families today has been debated (Farkas
& Hogan, 1995; Treas, 1995a). Nevertheless, the
changes in demographic distribution by age since
1900 are remarkable, and the progression ‘‘from
pyramids to beanpoles’’ has important implications
for family functions and relationships into
the 21st century.
The changing ‘‘kin supply’’ structure across generations.
What might be lost in a review of macrosocial
demographic trends are the consequences
for individual family members and their
chances of receiving family support. For example,
the ‘‘family decline’’ hypothesis of Popenoe
(1993) suggests that U.S. children are at greater
risk today because of the breakdown of the nu-
6 Journal of Marriage and Family
clear family structure and the too-frequent disappearance
of fathers. The decrease in mortality
rates over the last century suggests a more optimistic
story, however: The increasing availability
of extended intergenerational kin (grandparents,
great-grandparents, uncles, and aunts) has become
a resource for children as they grow up and move
into young adulthood.
Peter Uhlenberg (1996) examined the profound
effects that mortality changes over the 20th century
have had on the ‘‘supply’’ of kin available for support
of family members in American society. He
noted that for children born in 1900, the chances of
being an orphan (both parents dying before the child
reached age 18) were 18%. But for children born in
2000, 68% will have four grandparents still living
by the time they reach 18. Further along the life
course, by the time these children are themselves
facing the responsibilities of rearing children, the effects
of mortality declines on the availability of older
kin for support are even more substantial. For those
born in 1900, by age 30 only 21% had any grandparent
still living. For those born in 2000, by age
30, 76% will still have at least one grandparent alive.
Today it is more likely that 20-year-olds will have a
grandmother still living (91%) than 20-year-olds
alive in 1900 had a mother still living (83%; Uhl-
enberg).
Another perspective on this issue is provided by
Wachter (1997) in computer simulations about availability
of kin for 21st century family members. He
examined implications of longevity, fertility, and divorce
for the future. He noted that although low
fertility rates in the late 20th century will lead to a
shortage of kin for those reaching retirement around
2030, the effects of divorce, remarriage, and family
blending are expanding the numbers and types of
stepkin, ‘‘endowing the elderly of the future with kin
networks that are at once problematic, rich, and varied’’
(Wachter, p. 1181). The implication is that stepkin
are increasing the kin supply across generations,
becoming potential sources of nurture and support
for family members in need, and that this may compensate,
in part, for lower fertility rates (Amato &
Booth, 1997).
Longer years of ‘‘shared lives’’ across generations.
Other implications of these demographic
changes over the 20th century should be noted.
First, we now have more years of ‘‘cosurvivorship
between generations’’ than ever before in human
history (Bengtson, 1996; Goldscheider, 1990).
This means that more and more aging parents and
grandparents are available to provide for family
continuity and stability across time (Silverstein,
Giarrusso, & Bengtson, 1998). This also means a
remarkable increase in multigenerational kin representing
a ‘‘latent network’’ (Riley & Riley,
1993) who can be activated to provide support and
well-being for younger family members. The increased
longevity of parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents,
and other older family members in
recent decades represents a resource of kin available
for help and support that can be, and frequently
is, activated in times of need (King, 1994;
Silverstein, Parrott & Bengtson, 1995). These
older kin will also be in better health (Hayward
& Heron, 1999).
At the same time, there are potentially negative
consequences of the ‘‘longer years of shared lives’’
across generations. One involves protracted years of
caregiving for dependent elders (Bengtson, Rosenthal,
& Burton, 1995). A second involves protracted
conflict—what a 84-year-old mother in the Longitudinal
Study of Generations termed a ‘‘life-long
lousy parent-child relationship.’’ Family researchers
have not adequately addressed intergenerational conflicts
throughout the adult years (Clarke, Preston,
Raskin, & Bengtson, 1999). Because of longer years
of shared lives, intergenerational relationships—in
terms of help given or received, solidarity or conflict
or both—will be of increasing importance for family
life in the future.
Finally, to the story of multigenerational family
demography and its changes over the 21st century
must be added a recognition of ‘‘alternative
family forms,’’ reflected in gay and lesbian couples
raising children (Kurdek & Schmidt, 1987),
never-married singles and couples raising children
(Smock & Manning, 1997), and other nonbiological
but socially significant family forms. We
know little about the intergenerational relationships
of these variations beyond the White, middle-class,
two-generation household in America
today. What they represent in ‘‘latent kin support
networks’’ or ‘‘cosurvivorship across generations’’
must be a focus of future research.
When Parenting Goes Across Several
Generations
A function not addressed by Burgess was the importance
of grandparents to family members’
well-being, an understandable oversight given the
historical period when he was writing, when the
expected life span of individuals was almost 3 decades
shorter than today. Popenoe (1993) also did
not discuss the importance of grandparents in the
7Beyond the Nuclear Family
potential support they represent for younger generation
members.
Grandparents provide many unacknowledged
functions in contemporary families (Szinovacz,
1998). They are important role models in the socialization
of grandchildren (Elder, Rudkin, &
Conger, 1994; King & Elder 1997). They provide
economic resources to younger generation family
members (Bengtson & Harootyan, 1994). They
contribute to cross-generational solidarity and
family continuity over time (King, 1994; Silverstein
et al., 1998). They also represent a bedrock
of stability for teenage moms raising infants
(Burton & Bengtson, 1985).
Perhaps most dramatic is the case in which
grandparents (or great-grandparents) are raising
grandchildren (or great-grandchildren). Over four
million children under age 18 are living in a
grandparent’s household. Frequently this is because
these childrens’ parents are incapacitated
(by imprisonment, drug addiction, violence, or
psychiatric disorders) or unable to care for their
offspring without assistance (Minkler & Rowe,
1993). Research by Harris (2000) indicates that
about 20,000 children in Los Angeles County
alone are now the responsibility of grandparents
or great-grandparents because of recent court decisions
concerning the parents’ lack of competence.
In Harris’ study, one grandmother had been
assigned by the court as guardian to 13 of her
grandchildren, born to two of her daughters, each
of whom had been repeatedly imprisoned on crack
cocaine charges (Harris & Pedersen, 1997). Similar
instances are related by Minkler and Rowe in
their study of crack-addicted parents in the San
Francisco area.
When Parents Divorce and Remarry, Divorce
and Remarry
The rising divorce rate over the last half of the
20th century has generated much concern about
the fate of children (McLanahan & Sandefur,
1994). The probability that a marriage would end
in divorce doubled between the 1960s and the
1970s, and half of all marriages since the late
1970s ended in divorce (Cherlin, 1992). About
40% of American children growing up in the
1980s and 1990s experienced the breakup of their
parents’ marriages (Bengtson, Rosenthal, &
Burton, 1995; Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991), and
a majority of these also experienced their parents’
remarriage and the challenges of a ‘‘blended fam-
ily.’’
In the context of marital instability, the breakup
of nuclear families, and the remarriage of parents,
it is clear that grandparents and step-grandparents
are becoming increasingly important
family connections (Johnson & Barer, 1987). Two
fifths of divorced mothers move during the first
year of the divorce (McLanahan, 1983), and most
of these move in with their parents while they
make the transition to single parenting (Goldscheider
& Goldscheider, 1993).
When Help Flows Across Generations, It Flows
Mostly Downward
An unfortunate stereotype of the older generation
today is of ‘‘greedy geezers’’ who are spending
their children’s inheritance on their own retirement
pleasures (Bengtson, 1993). This myth is not
in accord with the facts. Intergenerational patterns
of help and assistance flow mostly from the older
generations to younger generations in the family.
For example, McGarry and Schoeni (1995) have
shown that almost one third of U.S. parents gave
a gift of $500 or more to at least one of their adult
children during the past year; however, only 9%
of adult children report providing $500 to their
aging parents. Similar results are reported by
Bengtson and Harootyan (1994) and Soldo and
Hill (1993).
Silverstein et al. (1995) noted that intergenerational
support patterns ebb and flow over time.
Multigenerational families represent ‘‘latent kin
networks’’ of support (Riley & Riley, 1993) that
often are enacted only in times of crisis. This is
similar to Hagestad’s (1996) notion of elders as
the ‘‘Family National Guard’’: Although remaining
silent and unobserved for the most part, grandparents
(and great-grandparents) muster up and
march out when an emergency arises regarding
younger generation members’ well-being.
THE MICROSOCIOLOGY OF INTERGENERATIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS
Although there have been important changes in
the demography of intergenerational relationships
since the 19th century, population statistics about
family and household structure tell only one part
of the story. At the behavioral level, these changes
have more immediate consequences in the ways
family members organize their lives and pursue
their goals in the context of increasing years of
intergenerational ‘‘shared lives.’’ How to conceptualize
and measure these intergenerational inter-
8 Journal of Marriage and Family
actions has become increasingly important since
Burgess (1926) put forth his definition of the family
as ‘‘a unity of interacting personalities.’’
The Solidarity Model: Dimensions of
Intergenerational Relationships
In discussing these social-psychological approaches
to intergenerational relations, I should first
identify the study from which my colleagues and
I have examined them, the Longitudinal Study of
Generations (LSOG). This study began as a crosssectional
survey of more than 2,044 three-generational
family members, sampled from more than
840,000 members of the primary HMO serving
Southern California at that time (see Bengtson,
1975 and 1996, for details of the sampling procedures).
It has continued as a longitudinal study
with data collected at 3-year intervals, adding the
great-grandchild generation in 1991.
A concern in the LSOG since it began 3 decades
ago has been the conceptualization and
measurement of intergenerational relationships.
We use the theoretical construct of intergenerational
solidarity as a means to characterize the
behavioral and emotional dimensions of interaction,
cohesion, sentiment, and support between
parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren,
over the course of long-term relationships.
We define six conceptual dimensions of intergenerational
solidarity (Bengtson & Mangen, 1988;
Bengtson & Schrader, 1982; Roberts, Richards, &
Bengtson, 1991).
1. Affectual solidarity: the sentiments and evaluations
family members express about their relationship
with other members (How close do
you feel to your father or mother? How well
do you get along with your child or grandchild?
How much affection do you feel from
them?)
2. Associational solidarity: the type and frequency
of contact between intergenerational family
members
3. Consensual solidarity: agreement in opinions,
values, and orientations between generations
4. Functional solidarity (assistance): the giving
and receiving of support across generations, including
exchange of both instrumental assets
and services as well as emotional support
5. Normative solidarity: expectations regarding
filial obligations and parental obligations, as
well as norms about the importance of familistic
values
6. Structural solidarity: the ‘‘opportunity structure’’
for cross-generational interaction reflecting
geographic proximity between family
members
The theoretical rationale for these six dimensions
and the adequacy (or limitations) of their
measurement in survey research have been described
at length in a volume by Mangen, Bengtson,
and Landry (1988) and in subsequent articles
(Roberts & Bengtson, 1990; Roberts et al., 1991;
Silverstein et al., 1995). The solidarity paradigm
has proven useful in research by other investigators
(Amato & Booth, 1997; Lee, Netzer, & Coward,
1994; Marshall, Matthews & Rosenthal,
1993; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). It can be seen as
exemplifying an operational definition of the life
course theoretical perspective (Bengtson & Allen,
1993; Elder, Rudkin, & Conger, 1994).
The Strength of Intergenerational Relationships
Over Time
Using longitudinal data from the LSOG, we have
been able to chart the course of intergenerational
solidarity dimensions over time. Our design allows
consideration of the development and aging
of each of the three and now four generations in
our sample, as well as the sociohistorical context
of family life as it has changed over the years of
the study (Bengtson et al., in press).
One consistent result concerns the high levels
of affectual solidarity (reflecting the emotional
bonds between generations) that have been found
over six times of measurement, from 1971 to 1997
(Bengtson et al., 2000). Three things should be
noted. We find that the average solidarity scores
between grandparents and parents, parents and
youth, grandparents and grandchildren are high,
considerably above the expected midpoint of the
scale. Second, these scores are remarkably stable
over the 26 years of measurement; there are no
statistically significant differences by time of measurement,
and the scores are correlated over time
between .5 and .8. Third, there is a ‘‘generational
bias’’ in these reports: Parents consistently report
higher affect than their children do over time, as
do grandparents compared with grandchildren.
This supports the ‘‘intergenerational stake’’ hypothesis
first proposed 30 years ago (Bengtson &
Kuypers, 1971; Giarrusso, Stallings, & Bengtson,
1995). The older generation has a greater psychosocial
investment, or ‘‘stake,’’ in their joint relationship
than does their younger generation, and
9Beyond the Nuclear Family
TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTING A TYPOLOGY OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS USING FIVE SOLIDARITY VARIABLES
Types of Relationships
Affect
(Close)
Consensus
(Agree)
Structure
(Proximity)
Association
(Contact) Gives Help Receives Help
Tight-knit
Sociable
Intimate but distant
Obligatory
Detached
ϩ
ϩ
ϩ
Ϫ
Ϫ
ϩ
ϩ
ϩ
Ϫ
Ϫ
ϩ
ϩ
Ϫ
ϩ
Ϫ
ϩ
ϩ
Ϫ
ϩ
Ϫ
ϩ
Ϫ
Ϫ
(ϩ)
Ϫ
ϩ
Ϫ
Ϫ
(ϩ)
Ϫ
this influences their perceptions and evaluations of
their common intergenerational relationships.
These results indicate the high level of emotional
bonding across generations and the considerable
stability of parent-child affectual relationships
over long periods of time.
At the same time, it should be noted that not
all intergenerational relationships display such
high levels of emotional closeness. We find that
about one in five relationships are characterized
by either significant conflict (Clarke et al., 1999)
or detachment (as discussed next).
The Diversity of Intergenerational Relationships
To gain a better understanding of the complexity
and contradictions of cross-generational relationships,
we employed latent class analysis (LCA) to
examine the typological structure underlying measurements
of intergenerational solidarity in a nationally
representative sample (Silverstein &
Bengtson, 1997). This methodology allowed us to
simultaneously contrast five solidarity dimensions,
some congruent, others incongruent, in a multidimensional
framework. We found five types or
classes of intergenerational family relationships
(see Table 1). One type we labeled ‘‘Tight-Knit,’’
characterized by high emotional closeness, living
fairly close to each other, interacting frequently,
and having high levels of mutual help and support.
This seems similar to what Parsons (1944)
described as the ideal ‘‘modern family’’ type of
relationship. At the other extreme is the ‘‘Detached’’
type, with low levels of connectedness in
all of the observed measures of solidarity. This
appears similar to what would be predicted by the
‘‘decline of the family’’ hypothesis. Between the
Tight-Knit and the Detached are three classes
which we called variegated types (Silverstein &
Bengtson, p. 442). The ‘‘Sociable’’ and ‘‘Intimatebut-Distant’’
types seem similar to what Litwak
(1960a) described as the ‘‘modified extended family’’
in which functional exchange is low or absent,
but there are high levels of affinity that suggest
the potential for future support and exchange.
The ‘‘Obligatory’’ type suggests a high level of
structural connectedness (proximity and interaction)
with an average level of functional exchange,
but a low level of emotional attachment.
We next assessed the distribution of the five
types using a nationally representative sample
from the American Association of Retired People
Study of Intergenerational Linkages (see Bengtson
& Harootyan, 1994, for details). The results suggest
considerable diversity of intergenerational relationships
in contemporary American society,
particularly in terms of gender. When we examined
responses from adult children concerning
their interactions with parents (older fathers and
mothers combined), we found surprisingly similar
distributions across the five types of intergenerational
relationships. The Tight-Knit and Sociable
types each represented 25% of the sample; the
Obligatory and Intimate-but-Distant types are
each 16%; and the Detached type constitutes 17%
(Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). No one type is
dominant, demonstrating the diversity of American
family forms and styles.
We then looked at gender differences in these
distributions—how relationships with older mothers
compared with those with older fathers. Here
we found significant contrasts, as indicated in Figure
1. At one extreme, relations with mothers
were more likely to be Tight-Knit (31%) than
were relations with fathers (20%). At the other,
relations with fathers were 4 times as likely to be
Detached (27%) that those with mothers (7%). In
fact, the Detached represented the second most
frequent type of relationship between older fathers
and their adult children.
Next, we examined other predictors of differences
in the distribution of intergenerational
types: ethnicity and race, income (socioeconomic
status), age, and gender of the child. There were
no differences by income levels, nor were the results
different in terms of the age or gender of the
child. Nevertheless, we found important racial and
ethnic variations. Blacks and Hispanics were less
10 Journal of Marriage and Family
FIGURE 1. TYPES OF INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, BY GENDER OF PARENT
likely than non-Hispanic Whites to have obligatory
relationships with mothers, and Blacks were
less likely than Whites to have Detached relationships
with mothers. This corresponds to other
studies that have found stronger maternal attachments
in Black and Hispanic families than within
White families.
These results suggest the folly of using a ‘‘one
size fits all’’ model of intergenerational relationships.
There is considerable diversity among the
types; there is no one modal type. Our findings
reinforce the message of Burton (1995) in her
enumeration of 16 structural types of relationships
between teenage mothers and older generation
family members: Diversity and complexity are inherent
features of family networks across gener-
ations.
The Effects of Changing Family Forms on
Intergenerational Influence
Situating multigenerational families in sociohistorical
context allows us to broaden our inquiry
about their importance and functionality. How
have intergenerational influences changed over recent
historical time? Are families still important
in shaping the developmental outcomes of its
youth? What have been the effects of changing
family structures and roles, the consequences of
divorce and maternal employment, on intergenerational
influences? We used the 30-year LSOG
to explore these issues.
An important feature of the LSOG is that
enough time has elapsed since its start in 1971
that the ages at which members of different generations
were assessed have begun to overlap.
This provides what we call a generation-sequential
design. A limitation of existing data sets has
been that researchers could not track changes
across generations within specific families over
decades of time, nor draw conclusions about the
relationship between historical change in family
structures and intergenerational influence and socialization
outcomes. The LSOG is unique because
of its accumulation of parallel longitudinal
assessments for multiple generations within the
same families in different historical periods.
Within a life course framework that focuses on
the interplay of macroeconomic and microrelational
processes, Bengtson, Biblag, and Roberts
(in press) examined the development and cultivation
of youth’s achievement orientations: Their
educational and occupation career aspirations,
their values, and their self-esteem. Achievement
orientations are viewed as personal attributes that
may be passed down, or ‘‘transmitted,’’ from generation
to generation in families, promoting continuity
over multiple generational lines across
many decades of history. We also know that parent-child
affectual bonds can mediate this process.
It is therefore useful to study these intergenerational
transmission processes. In so doing, we can
empirically examine the hypotheses concerning
family decline or intergenerational family importance
and diversity.
Our analysis (Bengtson et al., in press) contrasted
the achievement orientations of Generation
X youth (18- to 22-year-olds) today with their
baby-boomer parents when they were about the
same age in 1971. We know that Generation Xers
have grown up in families that were quite different
in structure than their parents’ families were.
How has this affected their achievement orientations:
their aspirations, values, and self-esteem?
Figure 2 illustrates just how different the family
context of these two successive generations has
been. Generation Xers were much more likely
than their baby-boomer parents to have grown up
in a family with less than two siblings, with a
father and mother who were college graduates,
with a mother who was working full time, and,
above all, in a divorced household (40% for Gen-
11Beyond the Nuclear Family
FIGURE 2. HISTORICAL CHANGES IN FAMILY STRUCTURE AND PARENTAL ATTRIBUTES: ‘‘GENERATION X’’ COMPARED
WITH THEIR BABY-BOOMER PARENTS AT THE SAME AGE
eration Xers, 20% for their baby boomer parents).
Given these differences, how do the two generations
compare in terms of family solidarity and
achievement orientations?
Our analysis suggests that today’s Generation
Xers are surprisingly similar to what their babyboomer
parents were on these measures at the
same age, almost 30 years ago. This suggests that
despite changes in family structure and socioeconomic
context, intergenerational influences on
youths’ achievement orientations remain strong.
Generation Xers whose parents divorced were
slightly less advantaged in terms of achievement
orientations than Generation Xers who came from
nondivorced families but were nevertheless higher
on these outcome measures than were their babyboomer
parents at the same age, regardless of
family structure. We also found that maternal employment
has not negatively affected the aspirations,
values, and self-esteem of youth across
these two generations, despite the dramatic increase
in women’s labor force participation over
the past 3 decades. Finally, we found that Generation
Xer women have considerably higher educational
and occupational aspirations in 1997
than did their baby-boomer mothers almost 30
years before. In fact, Generation X young women’s
aspirations were higher than Generation X
young men’s.
These findings challenge the hypothesis that
families are declining in function and influence
and that ‘‘alternative’’ family structures spell the
downfall of American youth. Multigenerational
families continue to perform their functions in the
face of recent social change and varied family
forms.
Implications for Multigenerational Family
Research
The intergenerational solidarity research model
represents only a start at understanding the processes
and dynamics of multigenerational relationships
over time. Nevertheless, it is a start, and the
research that my colleagues and I have been pursuing
over the past 2 decades suggests several
things about family relationships.
First, intergenerational relationships are complex
(Amato & Booth 1997; Szinovacz, 1998).
They involve not only demographic configurations
(the number and availability of kin) but also
opportunity structures for interaction (geographic
proximity). They reflect not only behaviors (frequency
of contact, help given and received) but
also emotional-cognitive dimensions (feelings of
closeness and bonding, similarity of values and
opinions). They concern not only intergenerational
exchanges that can be counted (the amount of
financial support given to or received from other
generation members) but also normative issues
(filial obligations and values about the importance
of family relationships) that may lead to help given
or received in the future. In short, there are
multiple dimensions of intergenerational relation-
12 Journal of Marriage and Family
ships. Most research to date has focused only on
the demography of intergenerational relationships
(family structures and the proximity of family
members to each other) or on behaviors such as
contacts and exchanges of tangible assets between
generations. Emotional-cognitive and normative
dimensions of intergenerational relations deserve
equal attention in research, however (Rossi &
Rossi, 1990).
Second, our studies suggest that the multifaceted
nature of intergenerational relationships can
be summarized with a relatively small number of
concepts. For example, the five solidarity measures
can be examined simultaneously; this results
in five multidimensional types ranging from the
Tight-Knit to the Detached. Interestingly, these
types appear to be distributed fairly evenly across
a sample of U.S. adults. No one type predominates:
With one fourth of the intergenerational relationships
categorized as Tight-Knit and another
one sixth categorized as Detached, this suggests
considerable diversity in family intergenerational
relationships today.
Third, if these data were used to test Popenoe’s
‘‘family decline’’ hypothesis, there is little to support
it here. In contrast, there is support for the
views advanced by feminist scholars concerning
significant gender contrasts in family relationships:
Relations of adult children with older fathers
are much more likely to be Detached, whereas
those with mothers are more likely to be
Tight-Knit. Moreover, we found that U.S. families
continue to perform their socialization function
across successive generations, transmitting aspirations,
values, and self-esteem, even when parents
are divorced.
There are other issues that should be pursued.
For example, we must recognize that conflict is
another important dimension in intergenerational
relationships (Clarke et al., 1999) and the ‘‘paradox
between conflict and solidarity’’ (Bengtson et
al., 1995, p. 351) is characteristic of most parentchild
relations. Others have termed this ‘‘intergenerational
ambivalence’’ (Luescher & Pillemer,
1998). Regardless of how we label it, we need
more research on the nature and sources of intergenerational
conflict, in the context of the extensive
solidarity that many families seem to exhibit
over time (Richlin-Klonsky & Bengtson, 1996).
Finally, our research paradigm is primarily
based on survey data and quantitative analyses.
These are ideal for examining central tendencies
and distributions over a large sample but mask
nuances and individual variation in responses. In
addition, survey results are limited to dyads (a
parent and a child), making the analysis of
‘‘whole’’ multigenerational families problematic
(Hagestad, 1996). We have conducted qualitative
studies that parallel our development of the solidarity
paradigm, and these have revealed important
themes in multigenerational family progress
over time. One is the ‘‘drifting apart, coming together’’
history of one multigenerational family
over time (Richlin-Klonsky & Bengtson, 1996). A
second story is the contrast between ‘‘collectivistic
and individualistic’’ family caregiving strategies
in 20 multigenerational families (Pyke &
Bengtson, 1996). A third story is the contrasting
‘‘family narratives’’ in four-generational families
examined over decades of time (Gardner, Preston,
& Bengtson, 1998). The insights from these studies
suggest to me that the further exploration of
multigenerational family issues will be advanced
best by a combination of methods: qualitative
studies focusing on a few families leading the way
in generating new hypotheses, which can then be
tested using large-scale survey data.
MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILY BONDS: MORE
IMPORTANT THAN EVER BEFORE?
My hypothesis is that multigenerational family
bonds are important, more so than family research
has acknowledged to date. I have argued that demographic
changes over the 20th century (‘‘from
pyramids to beanpoles’’ and ‘‘longer years of
shared lives’’) have important implications for
families in the 21st century, particularly with regard
to the ‘‘latent network’’ of family support
across generations. I have suggested that multigenerational
relationship are increasingly diverse
in structure and functions within American society.
I propose that because the increase in marital
instability and divorce have weakened so many
nuclear families, these multigenerational bonds
will not only enhance but in some cases replace
some of the nuclear family functions that have
been the focus of so much recent debate.
To test this hypothesis concerning the increasing
importance of multigenerational bonds will require
research such as the following: First, we will
need to examine longitudinal data to trace the salience
over time of the multigenerational model.
My argument (following Riley & Riley 1993) is
that multigenerational relations represent a ‘‘latent
kin network’’ that may be inactive and unacknowledged
for long periods of time, until a family
crisis occurs. Such is the case when grandpar-
13Beyond the Nuclear Family
ents are called to help in the raising of
grandchildren; when family elders become incapacitated
and adult children and other kin provide
caregiving support. Fortunately, by now we have
several large ongoing longitudinal studies (such as
the National Survey of Families and Households,
Health and Retirement Survey, Analysis of
Household Economics and Demography, etc.) that
can be used to examine the activation of latent kin
networks over time.
We will need trend data so as to examine
whether multigenerational families are indeed interacting
more and fulfilling more functions for
members in the 21st century than in the past. We
need to explore how trends in longevity, elder
health, the bean pole intergenerational structure,
and the aging of baby boomers are affecting intergenerational
solidarity and support.
Third, we need more data on the ethnic and
racial diversity of American family forms. We
need to examine multigenerational influences
across and within special populations, such as minority
families and first- and second-generation
immigrants. For example, considerable evidence
shows that for many African Americans, extended
kin relationships are more salient than they are for
White families (Burton, 1995). As has been observed
so many times in our recent history, minority
patterns can signal changes on the horizon
for White majority families.
We also need data reflecting the increasing diversity
of American family forms beyond biological
and conjugal relationships. We need to examine
the multigenerational relationships of gay
and lesbian families and of never-married parents.
We need cross-national data to examine how
multigenerational relations are changing and the
implications of these changes. For example, in the
face of rapid industrialization and population aging,
we are seeing changes in the meaning and
expression of ‘‘filial piety’’ in Asian societies. In
Korea and Japan, for example, multigenerational
household sharing is becoming less prevalent
(Bengtson & Putney, 2000). What does this imply
in terms of Confucian norms about caring for
one’s parents? We need also to examine the
changing mix between state and family provisions
for the elderly. Paradoxically, it appears that Eastern
societies are becoming more dependent on
state provisions for the elderly, whereas Western
societies are facing declining governmental resources
and placing more responsibilities on families
(Bengtson & Putney).
Finally, we need to focus on policy implications
of the growing importance of multigenerational
bonds. What can be done to strengthen multigenerational
family supports? Grandparent
visitation rights have been challenged recently in
the U.S. Supreme Court; what does this mean in
light of other court decisions to place more responsibility
on grandparents as court-mandated
guardians of grandchildren?
CONCLUSION: BEYOND THE NUCLEAR FAMILY
Are families declining in importance within
American society? Seven decades ago, Ernest W.
Burgess addressed this question from the standpoint
of family transformations across the 19th
and 20th centuries. His hypothesis was that families
and their functions had changed from a social
institution based on law and custom to a set of
relationships based on emotional affect and companionship
(Burgess, 1926). But this did not mean
a loss of social importance. He suggested that the
modern family should be considered as ‘‘a unity
of interacting personalities’’ (Burgess) and that future
research should focus on the interactional dynamics
within families. In all this, Burgess’ focus,
and that of those who followed him (Ogburn,
1932; Parsons, 1944), was on the nuclear family
form.
Seven decades later, this question—are families
declining in importance?—has resurfaced.
Some family experts have hypothesized that families
have lost most of their social functions along
with their diminished structures because of high
divorce rates and the growing absence of fathers
in the lives of many children (Popenoe, 1993). A
contrasting hypothesis is that families are becoming
more diverse in structure and forms (Skolnick,
1991; Stacey, 1996).
In this article, I have suggested another hypothesis,
one that goes beyond our previous preoccupation
with the nuclear or two-generation
family structure. This concerns the increasing importance
of multigenerational bonds and the multigenerational
extension of family functions. I
want to be clear about this hypothesis because it
differs from contemporary wisdom about the most
pressing problems of American families today and
because I hope it will generate much debate. I
have proposed that (a) multigenerational relationships
(these involving three or more generations)
are becoming increasingly important to individuals
and families in American society; (b) these
multigenerational relationships are increasingly
diverse in structure and functions; and (c) for
14 Journal of Marriage and Family
many Americans, multigenerational bonds are becoming
more important than nuclear family ties
for well-being and support over the course of their
lives.
Burgess was right, many decades ago: The
American family is in transition. But it is not only
in transition ‘‘from institution to companionship,’’
as he argued. Over the century, there have been
significant changes in the family’s structure and
functions. Prominent among them has been the
extension of family bonds, of affection and affirmation,
of help and support, across several generations,
whether these be biological ties or the
creation of kinlike relationship. But as families
have changed, they have not necessarily declined
in importance. The increasing prevalence and importance
of multigenerational bonds represents a
valuable new resource for families in the 21st cen-
tury.
NOTE
I want to acknowledge my debt for this award to Roseann
Giarrusso, Merril Silverstein, Robert Roberts, and
Timothy Biblarz, my coinvestigators in the Longitudinal
Study of Generations over many years. I also want to
thank my students at the University of Southern California,
particularly Stephen Conroy, Mary Gardner, Susan
Harris, Anne Marenco, Betty Oswald, Norella Putney,
Maria Schmeeckle, Brent Taylor, Ynes
Wilson-Hirst, and Dr. Beth Mabry who (with Danielle
Zucker from Stanford) have helped me through several
drafts of this paper. I appreciate the suggestions of Paul
Amato, Alan Booth, Arlene Skolnick, Judith Stacey, and
Peter Uhlenberg, from whose work I have learned a
great deal. Finally, I want to acknowledge the assistance
of Linda Hall and Deborah Weisberg in the preparation
of the paper and the administration of our research program.
The Longitudinal Study of Generations has been
supported for many years by the National Institute on
Aging (Grant AG07977), and I want to thank NIA social
science administrators Matilda White Riley, Ron
Abeles, Jared Jobe, and Richard Suzman for their support
at crucial times in this longitudinal investigation.
Thanks also to the Spencer Foundation and The James
Irvine Foundation for funding some portions of this re-
search.
REFERENCES
Ahrons, C. R. (1994). The good divorce. New York:
Harper Collins
Amato, P., & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk:
Growing up in an era of family upheaval. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard.
Bengston, V. L. (1975). Generations and family effects
in value socialization. American Sociological Review,
40, 358–371.
Bengtson, V. L. (1993). Is the ‘‘contract across generations’’
changing? Effects of population aging on obligations
and expectations across age groups. In V. L.
Bengtson & W. A. Achenbaum (Eds.), The changing
contract across generations (pp. 3–24). New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Bengtson, V. L. (1996). Continuities and discontinuities
in intergenerational relationships over time. In V. L.
Bengtson (Ed.), Adulthood and aging: Research on
continuities and discontinuities. New York: Springer.
Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course
perspective applied to families over time. In P. Boss,
W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods:
A contextual approach (pp. 469–498). New York:
Plenum Press.
Bengtson, V. L., Biblarz, T., Clarke, E., Giarrusso, R.,
Roberts, R. E. L., Richlin-Klonsky, J., & Silverstein,
M. (2000). Intergenerational relationships and aging:
Families, cohorts, and social change. In J. M. Claire
& R. M. Allman (Eds.), The gerontological prism:
Developing interdisciplinary bridges. Amityville,
NY: Baywood.
Bengtson, V. L., Biblarz, T. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (in
press). Generation X and their elders. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bengtson, V. L., & Harootyan, R. (Eds.) (1994). Intergenerational
linkages: Hidden connections in American
society. New York: Springer.
Bengtson, V. L., & Kuypers, J. A. (1971). Generational
difference and the ‘‘developmental stake.’’ Aging and
Human Development, 2, 249–260.
Bengtson, V. L., & Mangen, D. J. (1988). Family intergenerational
solidarity revisited. In D. J. Mangen, V.
L. Bengtson, & P. H. Landry (Eds.), Measurement of
intergenerational relations (pp. 222–238). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage
Bengtson, V. L., & Putney, N. (2000). Who will care fir
the elderly? Consequences of population aging East
and West. In K. D. Kim, V. L. Bengtson, G. C. Meyers,
and K. S. Eun (Eds.), Aging in East and West:
Families, states and the elderly. New York: Springer.
Bengtson, V. L., Rosenthal, C. J., & Burton, L. M.
(1990). Families and aging: Diversity and heterogeneity.
In R. Binstock & L. George (Eds.), Handbook
of aging and the social sciences (3rd ed., pp. 263–
287). New York: Academic Press.
Bengtson, V. L., Rosenthal, C. J., & Burton, L. M.
(1995). Paradoxes of families and aging. In R. H.
Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging
and the social sciences (4th ed., pp. 253–282). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bengtson, V. L., & Schrader, S. S. (1982). Parent-child
relations. In D. Mangen & W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook
of research instruments in social gerontology,
(Vol. 2, pp., 115–185). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Bogue, D. J. (1974). The basic writing of Ernest W.
Burgess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bumpass, L. L., Sweet, J.,& Martin, C. (1990). Changing
patterns of remarriage. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 52, 747–756.
Burgess, E. W. (1916). The function of socialization in
social evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting
personalities. The Family, 7, 3–9.
Burgess, E. W. (1960). Aging in western culture. In E.
15Beyond the Nuclear Family
W. Burgess (Ed.), Aging in western societies (pp. 3–
28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burton, L. (1995). Intergenerational patterns of providing
care in African-American families with teenage
childbearers: Emergent patterns in an ethnographic
study. In V. L. Bengtson, K. W. Schaie, & L. M.
Burton (Eds.), Adult intergenerational relations
(pp.79–97). New York: Springer.
Burton, L. M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1985). Black grandmothers:
Issues of timing and continuity in roles. In
V. Bengtson & J. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood
(pp. 304–338). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage
(rev. and enlarged ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Public and private families. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Clarke, E., Preston, M., Raksin, J., & Bengtson, V. L.
(1999). Types of conflicts and tensions between older
parents and adult children. Gerontologist, 39, 261–
270.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought. New
York: Routledge.
Coontz, S. (1991). The way we never were. New York:
Basic Books.
Davis, K. (1941). Family structure and functions. American
Sociological Review, 8, 311–320.
Elder, G. H., Rudkin, L., & Conger, R. D. (1994). Intergenerational
continuity and change in rural America.
In K. W. Schaie, V. Bengtson, & L. Burton (Eds.),
Societal impact on aging: Intergenerational perspectives.
New York: Springer.
Farkas, J., & Hogan, D., (1995). The demography of
changing intergenerational relationships. In V. L.
Bengtson, K. Warner Schaie, & L. M. Burton (Eds.),
Adult intergenerational relations: Effects of societal
change (pp. 1–19). New York: Springer.
Furstenberg, F., & Cherlin, A. (1991). Divided families:
What happens to children when parents part. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Gardner, M., Preston, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1998, August).
For better or worse: A longitudinal comparison
of family well-being in two four-generation families.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Giarrusso, R., Stallings, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995).
The ‘‘intergenerational stake’’ hypothesis revisited:
Parent-child differences in perceptions of relationships
20 years later. In V. L. Bengtson, K. W. Schaie,
& L. M. Burton (Eds.), Adult intergenerational relations:
Effects of societal change (pp. 227–263).
New York: Springer.
Goldscheider, F. K. (1990). The aging of the gender revolution:
What do we know and what do we need to
know? Research on Aging, 12, 531–545.
Goldscheider, F. K., & Goldscheider, C. (1993). Leaving
home before marriage: Ethnicity, familism, and generational
relationships. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Hagestad, G. O. (1996). On-time, off-time, out of time?
Reflections on continuity and discontinuity from an
illness process. In V. L. Bengtson (Ed.), Adulthood
and aging: Research on continuities and discontinuities
(pp. 204–222). New York: Springer.
Harris, S. C. (2000). Grandmothers raising grandchildren:
An ethnography of family life and life in ‘‘The
System’’. Dissertation in progress: University of
Southern California, Los Angeles.
Harris, S. C., & Pedersen, H. L. (1997, October).
Grandparents who parent. Paper presented at the
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists,
Atlanta, GA.
Hayward, M. D., & Heron, M., (1999). Racial inequality
in active life among adult Americans. Demography,
36, 77–91.
Johnson, C. L., & Barer, B. M., (1987). Marital instability
and the changing kinship networks of grandparents.
Gerontologist, 27, 330–335.
King, V. (1994). Variation in the consequences of nonresident
father involvement for children’s well-being.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 963–972.
King, V., & Elder G. H. Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting:
Childhood experiences with grandparents
and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 59, 848–859.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmidt, J. P. (1987). Perceived emotional
support from family and friends in members of
homosexual, married, and heterosexual cohabiting
couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 57–68.
Laslett, P. (1976). Societal development and aging. In
R. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging
and the social sciences (pp. 87–116). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Lee, G. R., Netzer, J. K., & Coward, R. T. (1994). Filial
responsibility expectations and patterns of intergenerational
assistance. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56, 559–565.
Litwak, E. (1960a). Geographic mobility and extended
family cohesion. American Sociological Review, 25,
385–394.
Luescher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational
ambiguity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60,
413–425.
Mangen, D. J., Bengtson, V. L., & Landry, P. H. Jr.
(Eds.). (1988). The measurement of intergenerational
relations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marshall, V. W., Matthews, S. H., & Rosenthal, C. J.
(1993). Elusiveness of family life: A challenge for
the sociology of aging. In G. L. Maddox, & M. P.
Lawton (Eds.). Kinship, aging, and social change.
Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, Vol. 13
(pp. 39–74). New York: Springer.
McGarry, K., & Schoeni, R. F. (1995). Transfer behavior
in the health and retirement study. Journal of Human
Resources, 30 (Suppl.),S184–S226.
McLanahan, S. S. (1983). Family structure and stress:
A longitudinal comparison of two-parent and femaleheaded
families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
45, 347–357.
McLanahan, S. S. (1994). The consequences of single
motherhood. American Prospect, 18, 94–58.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up
with a single parent: What helps, what hurts. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Minkler, M., & Roe, J. (1993). Grandparents as caregivers.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Myers, G. (1990). Demography of aging. In R. Binstock
& L. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social
sciences (3rd ed., pp. 19–44). New York: Academic
Press.
Ogburn, W. F. (1932). The family and its functions. In
16 Journal of Marriage and Family
W. F. Ogburn’s, Recent social trends. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories:
The social construction of gender in families and
society. (pp. 591–623). In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty,
R. La Rossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz ,
Sourcebook of family methods and theories. New
York. Plenum Press.
Parsons, T. (1944). The social structure of the family.
In R. N. Anshen (Ed.), The family: Its function and
destiny (pp. 173–201). New York: Harper.
Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–
1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 55, 527–555.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling
new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable
for the good of children and society. New
York: Free Press.
Pyke, K. D., & Bengtson, V. L. (1996). Caring more or
less: Individualistic and collectivist systems of family
eldercare. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58,
1–14.
Richlin-Klonsky, J., & Bengtson, V. L. (1996). Pulling
together, drifting apart: A longitudinal case study of
a four-generation family. Journal of Aging Studies,
10, 255–279.
Riley, M. W., & Riley, J. W. (1993). Connections: Kin
and cohort. In V. L. Bengtson & W. A. Achenbaum
(Eds.), The changing contract across generations.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Roberts, R. E. L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1990). Is intergenerational
solidarity a unidimensional construct? A
second test of a formal model. Journal of Gerontology:
Social Sciences, 45, S12–S20.
Roberts, R. E. L., Richards, L. N., & Bengtson, V. L.
(1991). Intergenerational solidarity in families: Untangling
the ties that bind. In S. K. Pfeifer & M. B.
Sussman (Eds.), Marriage and Family Review, Vol.
16 (pp. 11–46). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Rossi, A., & Rossi, P. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child
relations across the life course. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational
solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent
relationships in American families. American Journal
of Sociology, 103, 429–460.
Silverstein, M., & Litwak, E. (1993). A task-specific
typology of intergenerational family structure in later
life. Gerontologist, 33, 256–264.
Silverstein, M., Giarrusso, R., & Bengtson, V. L.,
(1998). Intergenerational solidarity and the grandparent
role. In M. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandparenthood
(pp. 144–158). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press
Silverstein, M., Parrott, T. M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995).
Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters
to provide social support to older parents. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 57, 465–475.
Skolnick, A. 1991. Embattled paradise: The American
family in an age of uncertainty. New York: Basic
Books.
Smock, P. J., & Manning, W. D. (1997). Nonresident
parents; characteristics and child support. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 59, 798–808.
Soldo, B. J., & Hill, M. S. (1993). Intergenerational
transfers: Economic, demographic, and social perspectives.
Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics,
13, 187–216.
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic
upheaval in late twentieth century America.
New York: Basic Books
Stacey, J. (1993). Is the sky falling? Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 55, 555–559.
Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking
family values in the postmodern age. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. (in press). How does the sexual
orientation of parents matter? American Sociological
Review.
Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in
a Black community. New York: Harper and Row.
Szinovacz, M. (1998). Handbook on grandparenthood.
Westport CT: Greenwood Press.
Thorne, B., & Yalom, M. (1992) Rethinking the family:
Some feminist questions. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Treas, J. (1995a). Commentary: Beanpole or beanstalk?
Comments on ‘‘The Demography of Changing Intergenerational
Relations.’’ In V. L. Bengtson, K W.
Schaie, & L. M. Burton (Eds.), Adult intergenerational
relations (pp. 26–29). New York: Springer.
Treas, J. (1995b). Older Americans in the 1990s and
beyond. Population Bulletin, 50, 2–46.
Troll, L. (1985). The contingencies of grandparenting.
In V. L. Bengtson & J. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood
(pp. 135–150). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Uhlenberg, P. (1996). Mutual attraction: Demography
and life-course analysis. Gerontologist, 36, 226–229.
Wachter, K. W. (1997). Kinship resources for the elderly.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of
London, 352, 1811–1817.
Walker, A. J., & McGraw, L. A. (2000). Who is responsible
for responsible fathering? Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 563–569.