The Intergenerational Solidarity Systems in Lithuania: Quantitative and Qualitative Insights

2009–2010

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Ensuring Income Security and Welfare in Old Age

The Intergenerational Solidarity Systems in Lithuania: Quantitative and Qualitative Insights Margarita GedvilaitÄ—

Margarita Gedvilaitė-Kordušienė. The intergenerational solidarity systems in Lithuania: quantitative and qualitative insights INTRODUCTION The word „generation“ in everyday language usually is a way to understand the differences between the age groups or an attempt to link these groups with socio-historical contexts. However, the question of generations lately gains more importance not only in everyday language, but also between social researches as well as policy makers.

Because of the demographic factors, which have caused the imbalances allocating the recourses between generations, the question of generations became especially sharp in the countries, experiencing the consequences of second demographic transition. Lithuania is not an exception. In Lithuania a continuation of the long-term trend toward population aging has been observed and the demographic history of Lithuania the first decade of 21st century is noted for the reversal of the proportions of youngest and oldest generations (Mikulioniene 2006). Though Lithuanian population is characterised with the concepts of aging and very low fertility rates – there were no systematic attempts to analyze intergenerational transfers and solidarity systems between generations.

Researches (Véron, Pennec 2007) emphasize that due to society ageing, increased spending for social welfare of elderly in individualistic society seems even sharper. However, besides the macro level problems, population aging inevitably affects intergenerational relationships in micro level. The verticalization of family relationships raises a question – how the family is adjusting, what effects it has on personal relationships? It is also important to emphasize the changing attitudes and norms which create contradictions in society. The pluralization of family forms, changing family formation strategies enable to speak about the shift from traditional to modern family. In the context of lone parent families, remarriages, cohabitating partnerships the question of intergenerational relationships gains new colours.

This article aims to analyze the questions of intergenerational relationships in micro level.

Based on solidarity, ambivalence and conflict approaches the forms and predictors of solidarity between parents and adult children are analysed, the motives of intergenerational support are revealed.

The theoretical part of the paper is devoted for the multidimensional nature of intergenerational relationships: the approaches of intergenerational relationships and the predictors of solidarity are revealed, the literature on the motives of intergenerational support are analysed. In the second part the methodology and procedures are explained. In the third part, based on qualitative data, different forms and predictors of intergenerational solidarity are examined. The forth part, based on quantitative data, extends the qualitative analysis and is devoted towards understanding the motives of intergenerational support. Different forms of intergenerational support and the ways how it is perceived by the receivers and providers are analysed.

1. Theoretical approaches on intergenerational relationships 1.1. Solidarity, conflict and ambivalence There are many ways to look at intergenerational relationships in the family, yet the concepts of solidarity, conflict and ambivalence are among the most common in theoretical literature. The solidarity approach, elaborated by Bengston and colleagues, is used in this article in order to distinguish different solidarity dimensions. The essence of solidarity approach, according to Bengston (2001), is an attempt to reveal the nature of the bonds of cohesion that hold family members together. The model of intergenerational solidarity is comprised by six conceptual dimensions (Bengston, Richards, Roberts 1991, Bengston 2001): 1

1. Affectual solidarity refers to sentiments between intergenerational family members, like understanding, respect, warmth etc., 2. Associational solidarity refers to the type and frequency of contacts between family members, 3. Consensual solidarity refers to agreement in opinions, values and orientations, 4. Functional solidarity refers to support given and received across generations, 5. Normative solidarity refers to expectations regarding filial and parental obligations, 6. Structural solidarity – opportunity structure for interaction between intergenerational family members.

The solidarity model is advantageous as it incorporates the behavioural as well as emotional elements. Despite the opportunities the model gives for the analysis, it is worth mentioning the critical responses and alternative theoretical approaches. Two conceptual questions were raised as critique of solidarity model: if the model can be considered the only construct explaining intergenerational relationships and if the solidarity approach should not incorporate other concepts, such as conflict?

(Hammarström 2005). Most of critique was diverted to a considerable emphasis mostly on positive feelings and emotions (Hammarström 2005, Luescher, Pillemer 1998, Connidis, McMullin 2002).

The authors, criticizing this aspect, admit that intergenerational relationships are more complex and colourful than the “sunshine picture” of relationships given by the solidarity model (Hammarström 2005). Some authors provided empirical evidences of asymmetries and disbalances in intergenerational relationships. They tend to incorporate the concept of conflict and emphasize not only positive, but also negative aspects of relationships. For example, Silverstein et al. (1996) argue that excessive support from adult children may be even harmful for elderly parents because might cause a feeling of dependency. According to Szydlic (2005), there is amount of literature with the evidence about the conflicts of adult children with their elderly parents. The authors of solidarity approach replied to the critique recognising the importance of conflict. They argue that each dimension of solidarity model represents dialectics: intimacy and distance (affectual solidarity), agreement and dissent (consensual solidarity) etc. (Bengston et al. 2002).

Finally, the concept of ambivalence was introduced as advantageous model for the studies of intergenerational relationships. According to the founders of ambivalence approach (Luescher, Pillemer 1998, Connidis, McMullin 2002), the interpretation of intergenerational relationships based only on solidarity or conflict approaches is too narrow frame to reveal complex relationships in the family. Luescher and Pillemer (1998: 416) define the intergenerational ambivalence as „contradictions in relationships between parents and adult offspring that cannot be reconciled“ and by contradictions they mean the dimension of social structure, as well as dimension of subjective level. Connidis and Mcmullin (2002: 559), similarly, conceptualized the ambivalence as “structurally created contradictions that are experienced by individuals in their interaction with others”. The concept of “socially structured ambivalence” allowed to distinguish their insights from Luescher and Pillemer. Moreover, the authors admit that the possibilities to overcome ambivalent situations depend on class, age, race, ethnicity, gender. In this sense, inclusion of pluralism relates the ambivalence approach to post-modern angle and can be evaluated as an innovative attitude towards intergenerational relationships. Bengston and his colleagues (2002) acknowledged that the ambivalence, solidarity and conflict are not competing approaches to family relationships, but rather a “lens through which to look at family relationships” (p.575). Hence, Bengston’s and his colleagues’ position is that ambivalence and conflict approaches are the complementary rather than alternative constructs of solidarity model.

In this article, we take the position that the combination of different theoretical approaches is most helpful for the analysis of relationships between parents and adult children. Thus the dimensions of solidarity model and the concepts of critical theory (conflict and ambivalence) are included into analysis. The analysis of quantitative data allows applying solidarity approach, while in the analysis of qualitative data the critical approaches are taken into account.

2

1.2. The predictors of intergenerational solidarity There is a number of studies on predictors of each solidarity dimension (Rossi, Rossi 1990, Bengston et al 1991, Connidis 2001), but in this section only the dimensions which will be analysed in empirical section, will be discussed. In general, the solidarity depends on parent and adult children characteristics. Higher levels of solidarity are observed when children are female, married and have offspring, have higher education and income, and parents have better health (White 1994, Rossi, Rossi 1990).

Some authors agree that a residential proximity between parents and children is the strongest predictor of associational solidarity (Bengston et al, 1991, Rossi, Rossi 1990, Connidis 2001). The higher levels of affectional and normative solidarity also lead to more frequent contacts (Bengston et al. 1991). Intergenerational interaction is also determined by characteristics of family structure, health of older parents and their socio-demographic characteristics: age, urban residence, gender, marital status, education (Ibid.). The probabilities for a parents who are divorced, have higher education and live in urban setting are lower to contact frequently their children (Ibid.).

The affectual solidarity is strongly influenced by age of parents and children (Bengston et al 1991, Rossi and Rossi 1990). Generally, older generations express more positive feeling about intergenerational relationships (Rossi ir Rossi 1990, Aquilino 1999). Gender also may influence the level of affectual solidarity: higher levels are measured between mothers and daughters (Rossi, Rossi 1990). Characteristics of children, related to attainment of adult status: establishment of separate household (Fisher 1981), becoming parent (Rossi, Rossi 1990) also determine more positive level of affectual solidarity.

The structural solidarity is determined by macro and micro level predictors. According to Bengston et al (1991), the structural solidarity is effected on changes in birth and mortality rates, the gender composition and mobility of labour force. Speaking about micro level factors, Connidis (2001) distinguished the factors influencing the greater proximity from parents home to nearest child: family size (the more children a parent and a child has, the closer the nearest child lives), health of parent (healthier parents are more geographically distant), age of parents (parents over 80 live nearer by), age of child (increasing age increases geographic distance from parent(s)‘, marital status (married parents live nearer to the most proximate child‘ (p. 122).

In conclusion, the characteristics of parents and children effect on higher or lower level of solidarity. Between the most consistent predictors’ age and gender, urban residence, marital status, occupational and education statuses of parents and children can be distinguished.

1.3. The motives of intergenerational solidarity: exchange, altruism and norms According to Kohli and Kunemund (2003), a lack of clarity about the motives for transfer giving still can be observed despite the fact that full explanation of intergenerational relationships requires encompassing the level of action. Thus, analysis what orientations social actors bring to their situations is essential in order to fully understand intergenerational relationships. The literature on motives of intergenerational support includes contradictory arguments: intergenerational support as exchange, norms, altruism and attachment.

Exchange motive. The exchange motive can be found in sociological and economical texts.

Though the exchange motive in these disciplines is based on different principles, it uses the same premise: the social relationships are structured by norm of reciprocity. The essence of reciprocity norm is very well acknowledged by Kohli ir Kunemund (2003): “it is assumed that giving places an obligation to get something back in return for what was given, and that the values exchanged should be broadly equivalent“(p. 129).

Some applications of this model in economic literature focus on bequest as a motivating factor for adult children to provide social support to their elderly parent (Bernheim et al. 1986). Other applications also emphasize egocentric motives. Cox and Stark (1994) propose demonstration 3

effect: adult children have an incentive support to their aging parents to demonstrate to their own children the importance of such support. If the focus of microeconomics is mostly on the exchange transactions themselves, social exchange theory extends the scope of analysis incorporating the relationship between exchange partners, history of transaction etc. The example could be the forms of exchanges, summarised by Kaljimin (2005). The delayed exchange is the most common form of exchange when parents invest in children until they become independent and later adult children “pay back” by giving parents support and attention. The second form – prospective exchange – is portrayed as situation when children give support to elderly parents in order to receive money or property when their parents die (Kaljimin 2005). The third form is direct exchange when parents and children exchange different goods at the same time. Only few applications of exchange motive were discussed in this article, but it is clear that common link between all the research that incorporate exchange motive is strong emphasis on self-interest. No wonder that exchange theory attained critique for such approach.

Altruism and attachment. The alternative theory of altruism the interpersonal relationships interprets according to their type: the affective relationship guide people to behave altruistically, while non-affective – egoistically (Altonji et. al. 1992). So in affective relationships the intergenerational exchanges are driven unconditionally by the needs of potential support recipients.

Some authors noted that the concept of pure altruism is not the dominant motive, altruism may also be associated with “joy of giving”, what is labed as “impure altruism” (Andreoni 1989). Some sociologist find the operation of norms when dealing with the motive of altruism. For example, Klauss (2009) states that altruism is another form of strategic behaviour and helping behaviour is only superficially altruistic. Yet the other sociologists find the examples of pure altruism.

Silverstein et al. (2002) argue that pure altruism can be observed when adult children provide social support for elderly parents despite the fact they did not attained any support from their parents.

Even if the previous relationships were bad, children react to parents‘ needs in their elderly age.

Hence, these authors speak about the possibility of unconditional help existence. Bengston and Parrot (1999) similarly suggest that previous conflicts between parents and children have no effect on the contemporary support provided by adult children to elderly parents.

Norms/ normative approach. The argument of norms emphasizes unconditionally rules about how to behave, internalized during socialization process (Kalmijn 2005). In case of intergenerational relationships, the most common examples of such norms could be the obligation toward children and filial obligation. This approach corresponds to the normative dimension of solidarity model. Usually a positive dependency is designated between stronger normative attitudes and behaviour in individual level. Lee et al. (1994) estimated that parents whom kept stronger familial normative obligations provided more support for adult children than parents with weaker normative obligations. Whitbeck et al. (1994) identify the same relation for the opposite flow.

So the agreement on the motives of intergenerational support does not exist. The exchange and norms approaches can be considered as sociological, while altruism and attachment – more psychological appraches.

2. Methodology and procedures For the quantitative analysis, in order to reveal the determinants of solidarity between parents and children, the database from Generation and Gender survey (GGS, N=10000, conducted in 2006), was used. Two statistical methods were applied: multiple regression and descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics was used for the common frequencies of solidarity dimensions. The chosen hierarchical model of regression enabled to include variables, based on literature of previous research on determinants of solidarity and also consider additional factors.

The multiple regression was employed on three dependent variables:

4

a.

A trip duration from parent‘s to child(ren)‘s home (the structural solidarity). The respondents could indicate the minutes and hours. For the multiple regression a recoded variable, measuring the distance by hours, was constructed. b.

A frequency of contacts (the assosiational solidarity). The respondents could choose to reply how many times per week/ month/ year they meet their relatives.

The recoded variable measuring the frequency of contacts per year was included into the model. c.

An evaluation of the relationship (the affectual solidarity). The respondents could evaluate their relationship with family members in the evaluation scale from 0 to 10.

The independent variables can be grouped into four groups: a. The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents: gender, age, education, partnership status, occupation status, household income, number of children (up to 14 years), type of the family (nuclear or extended), place of residence and health status.

The variable “health status” was constructed of two questions: “How is your health in general?” and “Are you limited in your ability to carry out normal everyday activities, because of a physical or mental health problem or a disability?”

The variable place of residence was recoded into three categories: cities (more than 100000 inhabitants), towns (10 – 100000 inhabitants) and rural areas (up to 10000 inhabitants). b. The characteristics of parents: age, living arrangement, health status.

Parents‘ health was measured with the question “Is your father/mother limited in his/her ability to carry out normal everyday activities because of a physical or mental health problem or a disability?”. All possible living arrangements were grouped into those who live alone, with partner/spouse and other living arrangements. c. The characteristics of children: age, gender, time-period since children left parents‘home, if child is biological or adopted. d. Additional variables: three depended variables discussed above, evaluation of relationship between respondents‘ parents up to the time when respondent was 15 years of age.

As multiple regression is a method used for quantitative variables, the qualitative variables (nominal scale) were recoded into dummies. The comparable group was recoded into 0, other groups – into 1.

The respondents, who have children, could answer about each child in a separate field and for multiple regression we needed to measure the characteristics of all children. For that reason, in order to form a new database, the SPSS VARTOCASES function was employed to analyse the predictors of solidarity with children.

For the qualitative analysis, 50 semi-structured interviews with providers and receivers of intergenerational support, unfamiliar for the interviewer, were conducted. The interviewees were selected by diversity principle according to the type of support provided for each other (the dyads parent – adult child were interviewed). The belonging to parents or children generation is marked in brackets. In this way the position in dyadic relationship is distinguished in the analysis of qualitative data. The names of the interviewees has been changed.

3. The results of qualitative data: solidarity and its’ predictors from perspectives of children and parents 3.1. The solidarity and its’ predictors between children and parents (“upward flow”) At first, we are going to expose the results on solidarity of the younger generations, after that – the opposite direction of solidarity. The aim is not only to describe, but also to compare the solidarity of both directions and reveal the factors determining the solidarity level. It is important to 5

locate the analysis of solidarity between children and parents into specific situations and contexts.

In this part only the cases when adult children live separately from their parents are analysed (they comprise more than 80% of all respondents). We are going to discuss the solidarity with parents, when parents live together and later - when they live apart. The results of multiple regression are presented in Annex 1.

3.1.1. The solidarity with together living parents The respondents, having both parents who were never separated, comprise about one third of all respondents.

Trip duration. The result shows very favourable opportunity structure for interaction for the children whose parents live together: for almost a half of respondents (men and women) the trip to parents’ home takes less than half an hour (Annex 2). The shortest trips (up to 15 min) are for 2529 years men and women. This tendency might be explained by the fact that in reproductive years parents are being helpful with the childcare. However, the statistical differences of respondents’ trip duration by age and gender are very insignificant. The results of multiple regression show that neither respondents’ gender, nor age are significant predictors of trip duration. The most important predictor determining the trip duration is place of residence. The respondents from rural areas and smaller towns take shorter trips than the respondents from bigger cities. Education and occupational status, number of children are other factors predicting the trip duration.

The group of respondents with lower than secondary education significantly differs from the group of respondents who attained secondary education (p<0,01 to father‘s and p<0,001 to mother‘s home). The trip lasts shorter for respondents who have lower than secondary education compared to respondents with secondary education. Yet the trip duration could not be predicted on that basis of higher education (compared to respondents with secondary education). The variable of occupational status has following effect: the trip lasts longer for students compared to employed respondents, as other city is often chosen for studies. The number of children is negatively associated with trip duration: the more children respondents have, the less time it takes to reach parents‘ home. Again, this tendency could be related to parents‘ help with the childcare. Though in theoretical literature the age and health of parents are found to be predictors of residential proximity, the results of regression model do not indicate significant impact of these predictors in Lithuania.

Contact frequency. Similar predictors impact the frequency of contact with mother and father. The principal predictor of contact frequency is the trip duration. This variable accounts for 21% of variance in contact frequency with parents (while other variables account for 7% of variance with mother and 6 % with father). Accordingly, in rural areas and smaller towns the contacts with parents are more frequent than in bigger cities. If the trip lasts one hour longer, the frequency of contact declines for 40 contacts per year.

The significant predictors of associational solidarity are gender and age of the respondents. The frequency of contact with parents is significantly higher for women rather than for men. Especially significant impact of respondents‘ gender is observed in the evaluation of relationships with mother. The descriptive statistics illustrates that a bigger part of women meet with their parents very often (few times a week and more frequent), what is especially visible in the analysis of frequency of contact with mother (Annex 3). Men meet their mothers less frequently: one third of men see their mothers on average frequency (not less that 1 time in 2 weeks).

The age of respondents with the frequency of contacts correlate negatively (R= -,09, p<0,001 with mother, R=-,03, p<0,05 with father). Referring to the results of multiple regression we can predict that while the age of respondents increase, the frequency of contact decreases. Though older parents require more attention and care, neither parent’s health nor their age are the predictors of contact frequency. The results of descriptive statistics show that sons and daughters most often

6

meet their father in the age between 25 and 35 years; their mother – when sons are of younger age (18–29) and daughters – in years of higher reproduction (25–39) (Annex 3) The number of children, family type, partnership status and relationship evaluation are other predictors of contact frequency: The number of children has a positive effect: every next child increases the frequency of contacts with parents up to 10 contacts per year. Most likely this effect is due to parents help in childcare.

The respondents from the extended family meet their parents more often than respondents form nuclear families.

The respondents who gave a higher relationship evaluation meet their parents more often. If we raise a relationship evaluation at one point, the frequency of contact increases by three contacts per year.

Living apart together and not married respondents meet their mothers less often than married respondents. Living apart together respondents meet their fathers less often than married.

Relationship evaluation. All the factors included into multiple regression account for 42 % variation of the relationship evaluation with a father and 27 % variation of the relationship evaluation with a mother. This finding was unexpected. From the psychological point of view the connection between children and mother in Lithuania acquires more attention and research than between children and father, thus seems like relationships with father would be more difficult to explain and interpret. Psychotherapist Ruksaite (2008: 136) admit that in Lithuania „the topic of relationships with father is still secondary, presented contradictory and confusing; father is often perceived as „subsidiary“, an „annex“.

Other intriguing result concerns the most important predictor of affectual solidarity - the relationship evaluation between respondents‘ parents up to time when respondent was 15 yeas of age accounts for 22 % data variation with mother and even 41 % with father. The higher parents’ relationships were assessed, the more positive relationship evaluation between children and parents were noticed. If to remember the ideas of consensual solidarity, that parents transmit the values, attitudes, the assumption that harmonious relationship between parents accordingly condition better relationship between parents and children can be made.

Gender of respondents‘ is significant predictor of relationships with mother: women gave more positive evaluations than men, however gender has no significant affect on the relationship evaluations of with father. The table of frequencies illustrates that the mean of women’s’ relationship evaluation with mother in some age groups is higher than with father (Annex 4). It is worth highlighting that even if the relationship evaluation is very high, it is not necessarily mean very close relationships. The relationship evaluation is very sensitive question so the possibility that a nicer or more neutral picture of reality was given, remains. This fact is also validated by the concentration of answers around neutral number 8 (neither very high, nor low). In this case the ideas of ambivalence come into question, as the relationship might be very diverse and many-sided.

The frequency of contact has a positive effect on the relationship evaluation with mother, though the influence is not very high. The studying respondents evaluate the relationships with father better than employed respondents. Unemployed, oppositely, gave worse relationship evaluations with parents. The occupational status especially affects the relationship with father. Obviously, the unemployment is responsible for the tension in the family. We allow ourselves to make a premise that the reason why the occupational status is more important to the father might be rooted in the psychological insights about conditional father’s love and unconditional mother’s love (Fromm 1985, Chaudhuri 1987). From sociological point of view, this situation could explained by the specifics of father‘s role: Differently from mother, the father‘s success depends not only on how he behaves with child, but also how he acts in society, and the rules of communication in these spheres differs – the father has to combine affection, love and power. It

7

is expected that the father will teach the child the art of communication in society. The child wills that his father would be a powerful man who knows how to win, yet in private sphere it is expected that the father is tender and caring.

(Rukšaitė 2008: 140)

This inconsistence of men‘s roles by Lithuanian sociologists is often called the crisis of masculinity (Tereškinas 2004). The prevailing model of masculinity, according to Tereškinas, corresponds to traditional perception of masculinity: independent, active, winning and persistent.

Yet women also designate other characteristics as sensible and understanding, able to do childcare and educate. This information allows concluding that relationships with father – arena for the appearance of ambivalent situations.

Hence, 2 groups of independent variables – ‘characteristics of respondents’ and ‘additional variables’ allow predicting the solidarity with together living parents. The characteristics of parents – their health and age – have no significant influence on structural, associational and affective solidarity.

3.1.2. The solidarity with separately living parents Respondents, whose parents live separately, comprise less than one third of all respondents.

The results of multiple regression on factors predicting solidarity with separately living parents are presented in Annex 5.

Trip duration. Though the results of regression do not present age and gender influence on the trip duration, it is worth checking the common frequencies. For the biggest part of respondents the trip to father’s home lasts from 15 min up to an hour (6 annex), thus slightly longer than for respondents whose parents live together. Those who live the closest from father’s home are 40-49 years sons and 25-39 years daughters. The trip to women’s home lasts shorter – up to 30 min, shorter than for other age groups it takes for sons of age 30–49 and daughters of age 25–39. In general, the structural opportunities for interaction are rather positive both for women and men.

The same as when respondents‘ parents live together, the strongest predictor is place of residence and the same tendencies are observed. Another predictor of the trip duration to parents home is education. Again, the same tendencies are observed: respondents with lower than secondary education live closer to the parents’ home. The occupational status is a predictor of trip duration to mother‘s home: for the students the trip lasts longer than for employed respondents.

Mother‘s living arrangements is a significant predictor. The trip lasts longer if mother live with other persons compared if she lived alone. When mother live alone, the need to visit her more often is higher because of potential feeling of loneliness.

Contact frequency. The similar factors predict the contact frequency with parents when respondents‘ parents live together. When parents live separately, the common predictors are evaluation of relationships, trip duration and parents‘ living arrangement. Logically, the longer lasts to reach parents‘ home, the rarer the contacts. Another expected result - the higher relationship evaluations predict more frequent contacts. Speaking about living arrangement, the fact that respondents‘ parents live with a partner/spouse impacts rarer contacts compared to parents who live alone. If the loneliness was a possible explanation in the cases discussed above, in this case the consequences of parents‘ divorce and remarriage/ new partnership should be taken into account.

According to White (1992) divorced parents tend to refer lower quality of relationships, rarer contacts and provide less support. However, it is not clear if the negative consequences of parents‘ divorce are related to the fact of divorce itself, to the stress suffered after the divorce or to the conflicts and problems emerged before the divorce (White 1994). If respondents’ parents live with other people, this predicts rarer contacts compared when they live alone.

Additional factors determining the frequency of contacts with mother are gender, place of residence, number of children, with father – respondents‘ education and occupational status.

The contacts with mother are more frequent for women. Most frequently the mother meet 25–39 years women and 30–39 men (Annex 7), though the differences are not significant and age is 8

not a predictor of contact frequency. The intriguing result is that when respondents‘ parents live separately the frequency of contact with father is twice rarer than with mother (the mean of contacts per year with father – 44,26, when with mother – 88,64). Sons are more willing to meet their father when they are in mature and older age (40–49, 50+). Daughters in all age groups meet their fathers rarely; the exception is only the oldest group of respondents (50+). Hence, when parents of respondents live separately, other patterns of interaction are typical (compared to the situation when parents live together): the contacts are rarer; more frequent contacts are typical for older respondents. The fact of parent‘s divorce has no such strong influence on contacts with mother.

A place of residence is a predictor of contact frequency with mother: contacts are more frequent for respondents from rural areas and smaller cities than for respondents from bigger cities.

With every next child the frequency of contact with mother increases about 10 contacts per year.

Respondents having lower than secondary education meet their father less often than respondents with secondary education. The higher education (compared to secondary) is not a significant predictor. The occupational status is other predictor of associational solidarity with father: students meet their father more often than employed ones, which is an opposite tendency from the situation discussed above.

Relationship evaluation. The evaluations of relationships with parents who live separately also have profound differences. The mean of relationship evaluation with father is rather lower - between 5 and 6 in all age groups (when parents live together it was around 8). The relationships with mother are evaluated similarly as in the case when parents live together – more than 8 (Annex 8). Thereby, parental divorce has more affect on the relationships with father than with mother.

The table frequencies by age indicates that the older sons and daughters evaluated the relationships better (Annex 8), yet the age and gender of respondents are not the predictors of relationship evaluation. The common predictors explaining the evaluation of relationship with parents are: the frequency of contacts, evaluation of respondents’ parent relationship up to 15 years and partnership status.

The more frequent contacts cause more positive relationship evaluation with parents. The relationships are valued more positively by not married respondents than by married ones, what contradicts to the tendencies discussed in theoretical part. Apparently some of the factors have different impact when parents live separately.

The better the evaluations of parents‘relationships until the respondent reached 15 years of age, the greater affection between parents and children. This variable has more affect on the relationships with father. When the variable was included into the model, R² change was 11 % (it accounts for almost half of variation of the relationship evaluation with father).

An education is the additional predictor of the affectual solidarity with mother: respondents with lower than secondary education evaluate the relationships more negatively than respondents with secondary education. Respondents living in rural areas evaluate relationships with mother better compared to inhabitants of bigger cities. Another difficult to explain finding – the relationships with mother get better when the trip duration increases.

The additional predictors of affectual solidarity with father are income and health status of respondents; father‘s living arrangements and age. The income has a positive effect of relationships: the higher income of the household, the better relationship evaluations we receive.

The health of father has no significant effect, but the respondent’s health, on the other hand, is a significant predictor. Respondents in bad health evaluate relationships worse than the ones who have no such problems. Father‘s older age effects relationships negatively, since relationships are evaluated worse when fathers are in older age. This allows premising that the age gap might have a negative influence on affectual solidarity with father, but has no effect on relationships with mother.

When father lives with a partner/spouse or with other persons, we see the better relationship evaluation than in the cases when he lives alone. This is an opposite tendency compared to the

9

analysis of frequency of contacts, when such living arrangements (living with partner/spouse or other persons) determine rarer contacts.

In summary, the fact that parents do not live together has more impact on solidarity with father than with mother. Though structural opportunities are favourable, the contacts with father are rarer and relationships are evaluated worse. This finding suggests the importance of therapeutic and other kind of services availability in Lithuania, where the conditions to solve the conflict or ambivalent situations would be created.

3.2. The solidarity and its’ predictors between parents and children (“downward flow”) The purpose of this section is not only to analyse the aspects of solidarity with children, but also to compare the outcome results with the opposite flow. The results of the multiple regression are presented in annex 9.

Trip duration. The predictors of trip duration comprise the characteristics of respondents: education, partnership status, place of resistance and characteristics of children: age, time-period since children left parents‘ home. Parents‘ age has no impact on trip duration to children‘s home, but a significant predictor is the age of children. The older age of children predicts shorter trip duration, thus the residential proximity to children is closer for older respondents. This tendency might be observed from analysis of frequencies (Annex 10): the proportion of respondents whom the trip takes shorter than 15 min. in each age group increases. There are no respondents for whom the trip would take more than 2 hours. Hence, compared to the opposite flow, the structural solidarity is more favourable for parents’ generation.

The longer time-period since children had left parents‘ home predicts the narrower parentchildren residential proximity. The respondent’s or his child’s gender has no significant influence on the trip duration. Lower than secondary education predicts lower levels of structural solidarity.

The cohabiting respondents live closer to children‘s compared to the married ones, but for the notmarried respondents the trip takes longer than for married. Retired respondents live closer to their children than the employed ones, most likely because of their needs of care. The trip lasts longer for respondents from rural areas and smaller towns compared to respondents from biggest cities. The trip for parents living in the biggest cities lasts the shortest since usually their children live closely (due to migration processes).

Contact frequency. The trip duration and the relationship evaluation, the characteristics of children (gender, time-period since children left parents‘ home, biological or adopted children) and socio-demographic characteristics of parents (gender, number of children and place of resistance) predict the frequency of contacts with children.

The longer trip duration, of course, has a negative effect on associational solidarity. If the trip lasts one our longer, the amount of contact decreases in 40 times per year. The evaluation of relationships, contrarily, has a positive effect (the better relationship evaluation causes more frequent contacts with children). If the relationship evaluation is higher at one point, the possibility to contact children increases by 6 meetings per year.

The results of regression revealed that women contact their children more often than men and more frequent contacts are with daughters rather than with sons. It is clear from the table of frequencies (Annex 11) that almost one third of women meet their children very often – few times per week and more often. The greater number of younger than 14 children predicts rarer contacts with adult children whom live separately (with a next child the amount of contacts decrease up to 18 contacts per year). Respondents living in towns meet their children more often than respondents from the biggest cities. A place of residence has no significant effect for the respondents from rural areas (compared to inhabitants of the biggest cities). The longer is the period since children had left parents’ home, the higher is the associational solidarity. This might be related to the elder age of 10

parents when more attention and care is required. Yet neither the age of respondents nor of parents have significant influence on the amount of contacts with children. The contacts with adopted children are rarer than with biological children. At this point the ideas of White (1994) about the influence of remarriage can be taken into account. According to White, the remarriage causes higher stress in all sub-systems of family: between biological children and parents, between parents and step-children, so parental divorce rather weakens the solidarity between parents and children.

Relationship evaluation. The trip duration and frequency of contacts, the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents: gender, partnership status, education and place of resistance, also the characteristics of children: gender, age, time period since left parents‘ home, if children are biological or adopted are significant predictors of affectual solidarity.

The longer trip duration and more frequent contacts predict more positive relationship evaluations. The results of regression showed that women evaluated relationships with children better than men, though the mean of relationship evaluation for men and for women are slightly different (Annex 12). The relationship evaluation can be predicted by child‘s age: the level of affectual solidarity increases with the age. The table (Annex 12) shows how men‘s evaluation of relationships increases in each age group, though the mean of evaluation for women varies. Overall the parent‘s generation gave better evaluations of the relationship than children’s.

The relationships with sons men evaluated more negatively than women; women the relationships with daughters evaluated more positively than with sons (Annex 13). The differences of mean of relationship evaluation are very small, but the results of multiple regression allows predicting that age, gender of children and gender of respondents significantly influence the relationship evaluation. Respondents living apart together evaluate the relationships worse that married respondents. In this case Lithuania corresponds to common tendencies: higher level of affectual solidarity is assessed between married respondents with offspring (White 1994, Rossi 1990). Unemployed respondents evaluate relationships more negatively compared to the employed ones. This tendency also is not exceptional as the higher level of solidarity is more typical for respondents with higher education and income. Yet these criterions do not explain why respondents from rural areas evaluate the relationships with children better than respondents from biggest cities.

In conclusion, all the predictors included into model mostly explain the frequency of contacts, while the other two dimensions of solidarity remain less covered. It is clear the structural solidarity is more favourable for parents’ generation; moreover, for this generation higher level of affectual solidarity is more specific.

4. The results of qualitative data: the motives of intergenerational support If the qualitative data allowed analysing affectual, associational and structural dimensions of solidarity, interviews with providers and receivers of support allowed looking at functional dimension of solidarity model. In order to attribute the provided and received support to certain group, Parrot and Bengston’s (1999: 85) classification scheme of support forms was applied: 1.

Instrumental support: household chores, transportation and shopping, child care, help when sick; 2.

Expressive support: emotional support, information and advice, discuss important decisions, share leisure time together; and 3.

Financial support: provide financial assistance, manage financial matters.

4.1. The motive of exchange: „why should i bend the stick, if i could not lean on it later?“ The motive of exchange is widely met in the interviews, thus we are going to analyze it deeper. The fragments of the interviews were attributed to the exchange category if the attitude was expressed by the notions of mutual exchange, such as ‘paying back’, ‘investment’, ‘debt’, 11

‘reciprocity’, ‘symbiosis’, ‘mutual support’, by expressions like ‘you get what you give’,’ you give love - get love’ or if thoughts of the interviewees reflected the motives based on the exchange logic in any other way. The logic of the reciprocity often revealed itself very naturally while talking about the given or received support. Usually, there was even no need to ask why. The natural sequence of thoughts and the way how situations were illustrated just reflected the hidden motives. This can also be said about the other kinds of motives. We should emphasize that a group of motives rather that one motive can be noticed in one interview. However, the aim of this article, as we said before, is not to analyze the dominant motives, but rather to examine how the motives are signified and expressed by interviewees.

The motive of exchange was expressed by 3 thematic segments: exchange as reciprocity, investment and social debt.

4.1.1. Exchange based on reciprocity logic Exchange based on reciprocity is often met thematic segment when we analyze the motive of exchange. It is expressed in two ways: (a) without clear identification of the reciprocity logic, but it can be understood by the way how sentences, sequences of narratives are constructed (received and given support is compared, opposed); (b) the logic of reciprocity is conscious and clearly named.

Latent reciprocity. One of the most apparent examples of well expressed logic of latent reciprocity is Ramune’s case. In the interview with Ramune (32 years old), the variety of support forms between her/her sisters and parents are revealed. A construction of the narrative consequently showing the contribution of both generations, implicates the exchange-based logic, which remains latent: We give a hand to parents with hard farm labour. When they get sick, we find doctors, etc… If there will be a need, we will help them financially – for the time being this kind of support is not necessary and they refuse it. Parents help us to do a certain household work. For example, when I moved into my apartment, dad helped me to renovate it, to buy materials and so on... When we need, they help us financially, but we take such support very unwillingly. I find myself very uncomfortably when I have to ask for money, even if I only borrow it. Parents always give us some of their vegetables; my mom gives me some of her cutlets, as when I was studying. I never refuse it, even if I can make it myself, since I know how much joy it gives them to help (Ramune, 32, children generation).

The examples of latent reciprocity were very common in the interviews of the net support flow ‘from above’: older generation provide financial or other material support and the younger generations ‚repay‘ with instrumental and emotional support. Very common situation - when these forms of support become a gratitude for the received goods from the garden from parents living in rural areas. Nevertheless, there were few cases when the latent reciprocity was evident from the opposite net support flow (‘from below’). We can mark several cases when the financial support flows from younger generation: (1) constant and (2) occasional support. The first case might be illustrated by the narrative of Asta (67 years old) who receives financial support from her daughters.

One of the daughters has a well-paid position; the other has assured her well-being by marriage with a foreigner. Asta takes the support from her daughters very naturally. In her narrative the expressed latent logic of exchange is related with an emotional level: You know, I could manage myself, but why should I if I get it with love? I see it… Then why shouldn‘t I take it?

My needs are not the same as of the young person. I work, I have a garden and I treat them with vegetables. They would manage without it, for sure. But it is very nice that it‘s fertilisers-free, natural and mainly for my grandchildren (Asta, 67, children generation).

In the second case, a fragmented support of the younger generation has to do with certain moments, when parents have financial difficulties. Linas, a 26 years old interviewee, whose parents live abroad, does not treat the financial support for parents as something important. He says he has

12

given some money in order they could buy travel tickets or when they had to pay a business tax, but he added: “Well, but that isn‘t serious money“.

The support model from older to younger generations (when the logic of latent reciprocity is expressed) was also noticed in the interviews with the members from oldest generation. The few women (77 years old Violeta and 80 years old Onutė) still manage to provide the financial support for their children from their old-age pensions. However, it is rather characteristic to the interviewees from the rural areas.

With few exceptions discussed above, most often the logic of latent reciprocity is expressed when financial support flows from older generation and emotional, instrumental support - from younger generation.

Manifest reciprocity. By other interviewees, the reciprocity is more clearly named, expressed by such words or phrases as ‘nice exchange’, ‘paying back’, ‘sharing’, ‘exchange’, ‘double situation’, ‘backward response’, ‘symbiosis’. A very clear expression of manifest reciprocity can be noticed in Asta’s interview when she described her relationships with mother.

While discussing about the models of exchange of earlier generations, she remembered mother’s words, expressing the logic of manifest reciprocity: My mother had lived next to the forest. Once a neighbour came and said: “Your daughter looks after you as nobody else“. So my mommy answered very clearly: “Why should I bend the stick if I could not lean on it later?“. It was normal to us that children take care of their parents. And that‘s how it was from one generation to another…

(Asta, 67, parents generation).

Another example of such clearly expressed motivation could be interview with Aiste, 46 years old woman, living in the household of three generations. The logic of manifest exchange comes from the evaluation of the support received from elderly mother: I also get support. It is really mutual here. Actually, I know that people live together, but they eat separately.

And we even eat together. Also, she helps us financially very much. Her pension is not bad. She helps us, she buys... or she has paid the rent for the dormitory of my daughter, for example. Almost three hundreds... I cried that we couldn‘t afford it and she gave from her pension or if we need to buy something, shoes or something... ‘I will give it’. I buy food, for instance, because it is hard to walk for her already. She gives back this money and pays to me a little bit. And I feel bad sometimes (Aiste, 46, children generation).

Though in some situations the support received from elderly parents is indispensable, the other side of the coin (such as dependency, discomfort) also is inevitable. We have met more situations when the help from older generation of the same household was appreciated, at the same time ambivalent aspects were pointed out. It is mostly common among the agents of the so-called “sandwich“ generation. The most common reasons for conflicts are usually defined as domestic ones. The chosen strategy to overcome such conflicts sometimes is a passive one: I still remember mom saying: “Why are you stirring the soup this direction?” She thought that I don‘t stir it to the right direction. So I just amazed and stirred it the other way (Aiste, 46, children generation).

The logic of the manifest exchange is often expressed by putting emphasis on feelings and affection. In that case we can speak about the combined reflection of altruism and exchange motives. A narrative of Birute, 53 years old woman who financially supports her children and looks after her elderly mother, could be an example. The support between children and parents she names as reciprocity, but she also emphasizes the affection. Idealistic, affection-based relationship between parents and children she contrasts with capitalistic laws, common in western countries. Similarly, the affective dimension is woven into the narrative of Violeta, 77 years old interviewee. Here the exchange motive is related with the quality of relationship: 13

If, for example, I get my pension and if she says “give me, mom, we don’t have money”, how could I refuse to give it if we get along so well? She looks after me… How could I refuse? So, our support for each other is mutual…

That’s how it is done, if you get along (Violeta, 77, parents generation).

This opinion confirms a tendency designated by quantitative studies (Bengston and Parrot 1999): the closer relationship causes the higher levels of support between generations. While in some of the interviews the affective relationships are highlighted, in other the laws of the market economy are employed to describe the motives of intergenerational support. Economic terms of exchange are obvious in the narrative of Akvilė, 39 years old interviewee. In her interview extensive intergenerational support is revealed: financial (provided for the parents when they have difficulties, received from them in order to purchase an apartment) and instrumental (parents look after their grandchildren, Akvilė helps with domestic tasks). According to Akvile, the support is based on the model of reciprocity which is to be developed in family, inherited from one generation to another via demonstration effect. From the interview it is clear that the exchange in family is emotion-motivated, but sometimes economic terms of exchange come forward: They [parents] say (and they are ready for it) that in case of any problem, they are coming to live with me. It seems like they gave me the apartment and secured a place for themselves at the same time. I’m joking of course. But I had to confirm it. I responded them that if necessary, I will do it. My sister is responsible to look after grandma because she has promised her an apartment. But, God, these apartments are something like exchange or not… it is not important. With apartment or without it, our relationships would not change, but it is like validation… (Akvilė 39, parents generation).

This case reflects the complexity of relationship and exchange relationships in the family.

The logic of exchange is driven by the set of motives: economic and emotional. Though not in very serious way, certain bargains were noted in the family (“I had to confirm”) which are not only emotion-based, but also interpreted in legal terms. In this case we can remember the ideas of Bernheim et al. (1996) about strategic behavior how parents may use property as a trump to bargain care in old age.

4.1.2. Exchange as a social debt The term of social debt is often met in the literature on exchange motive. The interviews revealed that non-fulfillment of reciprocity awaken the feelings of guilt or inequality. Thus, when there is an opportunity to pay the social debt back, it usually makes interviewee happy. Though Raimonda (44 years old) supports her children and parents financially, she is not expecting the same from children in her old age (she prefers to be able to support herself). The interview revealed how the opportunity to return the social debt works as a compensation mechanism for the previously received support: I wasn‘t very independent, and parents really helped me. From one point of view I did not have much choice; from the other I was very ashamed… because they were forced to help their only child constantly. So, I have made some radical decisions in my life and now I am happy that it is possible to pay my parents back in some way (Raimonda, 44, parents generation).

In her story the logic of manifest exchange is obvious. It is interesting that modern technologies allowed providing support in more neutral way: she transfers some money to parents’ debit card, so called „a granny grant“. It is less demonstrative way to create the giver-receiver relationship. Some researchers (Szydlik 2008) have pointed out that too extensive support from children has a negative impact on their parents as a source of dependency. Raimonda, however, has found a strategy to bypass this problem and creates reciprocity in relationships:

14

As I said, I don‘t push them into corner with my support... Sometimes I even ask to do something for me intentionally, to pickle the cucumbers for me, for instance. They live in the city and have lack of activities, so my intention to use their help make them feel useful (Raimonda, 44, parents generation).

In this way in order to repay the social debt, woman finds flexible strategies allowing to preserve parents’ autonomy. The interviews of the younger generations often revealed the discomfort related to received support. In these cases also other strategies are created to compensate the debt: showing more attention, buying presents etc.

4.1.3. Exchange based on investment logic The logic of exchange as an investment was met in the narratives of both generations. This logic is based on the notion that parents invest to children in the early years of life and later the „investment“ comes back in various forms. Asta uses the concept of investment defining the factors of good parents-children relationships: First of all, it depends on parents. How much you will give, that much you will get back. It is an investment.

How much you invest into the child from the early years... They feel all of it, you won‘t fool child, - that much they pay back (Asta, 67, parents generation).

Another example where exchange is based on investment logic could be insights of Dalia.

She reflects the principle of delayed exchange discussed by Kajimin (2005): parents invest into children‘ education, while children pay back later. Another interviewee, Dalia tells she is planning to return her parents what she has got (the financial support). The principle of reciprocity, in this case, is clearly understood and expressed. Moreover, the reciprocity is related to the fundamental laws how relationships in society are structured: Well, my parents always were saying “you are our investment, when we will get old you are going to work“. I realize it perfectly and I am willing to do it. All depends how much I‘m going to earn. It was really an investment. I could not say that everything has such basis, but our society works in this way, in one way or another (Dalia, 26 children generation).

The interview with Aiste (46 years old) is another example how older generation invests to an education of offspring. In this case not only Aiste’s mother, but all familial network is employed.

Aiste revealed various, unconventional support strategies: her mother and aunt every month had put together 50 litas in order her daughter could take a driving licence. Her position, if such kind of reciprocity is convenient, is not clear, particularly when some doubt is expressed: „Maybe this is how it is supposed to be“.

4.2. The motive of norms: the role of socialization and demonstration effect The quantitative Generation and gender survey revealed strong normative attitudes towards children’s obligations to parents (Gedvilaite-Kordušienė 2009). The interviews also confirm this tendency. The semantic segments of normative motives are responsibility and obligation. The interview with Rasa (51 years old) is the most obvious example how obligations to parents, as normative behavior, has structured the whole life.

Lina was born in exile in Siberia as the only child in the family when mother was 40 years old. When they came back to Lithuania, “it was very difficult to get a normal place to live, to find jobs”. After she finished her studies she was to be sent to work in Klaipėda – as she wanted. However, in the last year of studies her father has died and mother did not want to remain alone. In that situation she has decided to come back. She named it as a very depressing experience for a young person – the loss of independence. From her narrative it is clear that she had no other choice because of her responsibility to parents. According to Lina, the big age difference has made this situation worse. Later

15

this woman met her future husband from abroad, but although she created the mixed family, she refused to move abroad because of responsibilities for mother – her husband came to live in Lithuania.

Interview with Lina revealed how responsibilities for mother have influenced her matrimonial and procreation behavior. Though it is obvious that Lina has made several radical decisions to conform to the needs of her mother, the emphasis on responsibility shows that it was not only a pure altruism, but also the expression of deeply internalized norms. The combination of altruism and norms is a signification of Lina’s motives: As the only child I bear very big responsibility, if there were more children... Why do I have two children with not particularly successful marriage? Despite the fact that I was not sure if am going to live with that man anymore. I didn‘t want them to have their life stuck because of that obligation: when you can not leave, you can not go away, you sacrifice your career, sacrifice the city you want to live in, even sacrifice your love (Lina, 51, parents generation).

It is interesting how the ambivalence comes out in her narrative. Though the moment of sacrifice is very obvious, Lina admits her mother is the closest person to her. Finally, Lina tells about the touching transformation of the relationship and responsibilities: „She was my mother before, now she has become my child“.

The interviews let us to look more carefully to the ways how the attitudes toward intergenerational responsibilities are constructed. We can notice two ways how the grassroots of attitudes are reflected: primary/ secondary socialization and the effect of demonstration. The attitude that children have to look after their parents, according to many interviewees, derives from the model of first socialization, it is imprinted in the childhood. Both generations (parents and children) stressed out the socialization via education. The obvious examples of internalized norms via education could be the phrases: “the willingness to help, I would say, first of all is taken from parents” (67, parents generation); “What mom has said, it stuck in my mind: ‘you will have to look after me’ (30, children generation), “Because my mom always says to me... and dad too. They raised us in order we would look after each other...” (39, children generation). Along with these straightforwardly referred obligations and values other means, such as motives from folklore, were employed in order certain values would be transmitted for the younger generations: I have heard these words for sure: “Children, when we get old, who will look after us?“. Why do you ask? You have children, so we will look after... “That‘s right. And your children will look after you. Do you remember that tale, when the son took his father into the woods? Remember this tale, children. If you are going to take your parents into the woods, then your children will do the same to you“. These words stuck in my mind (Rita, 59, parents generation).

Other, when they speak about their obligations to parents, emphasize the later stages of socialization. Nijolė (30 years) said she had teachers of older age in school whom „have taught us that kind of respect“. Martynas (50 years old), on the other hand, says these attitudes were taught very „harshly“ in the Soviet system and he names the wide field where the cultural attitudes were formed (school, media, tales for children). In his opinion, Soviet cartoons were very educational: „they have indoctrinated that it‘s important to respect the elder, do not hurt someone weaker than you and etc. “ Other source of attitudes’ formation often met in the interviews is the demonstration effect.

It is especially common among the interviewees of children generation. They emphasize the importance of an example seen in the childhood, example transmitted for offspring: Parents took care and are taking care of their parents, thus an example is more crucial than words. (Ramunė, 32, children generation).

It is my responsibility and it is an example to my children. They need to understand that it can‘t be any other way, it is necessary to take care of elderly parents … (Agnė, 35, children generation)

16

The attitudes regarding parents’ responsibilities usually are taken for granted. However, the natural normative principles are shaken when one gets into other cultures. Svaja (47 years old) who lives in USA, hides from her American husband that she still financially supports her son, only because he would not understand it (“It would be hardly apprehensible to him”). The anthropological moment is revealed: the strong ties of norms within the culture. Non comprehensible models of other cultures (such as long-term financial support, alienated relationship) are also emphasized by the interviewees of children generation.

4.3. Attachment and altruism as natural human qualities When the motives of reciprocity are emotion-driven (love and affection are emphasized), such expressions are put into the group of altruism and attachment. In this section the analysis of motives interpreted as emotional we separate into few thematic segments: altruism as unquestioned phenomena, altruism as primordial quality, and reflections of attachment. The first segment was widely met in interviews of both parents and children generations. Most often it is expressed via the logic of the close relationship among parents and children, when reciprocity is seen as natural and not to be questioned: Where are the roots of willingness to help? Simple you love your children... It is just natural, I think (Sonata, 44, parents generation).

Sonata supports both her old parents and 2 grown-up daughters. That support she playfully calls as „mom‘s grant“ and „grandma‘s grant“ accordingly. The desire to help for elderly parents she realizes with attention and financial support, but the instrumental support leaves for themselves since „they manage it perfectly alone“. In this case avoiding of that kind of support is the way to keep parents independent.

Linas, 26 years old father of two children, also explains the mutual support in emotional terms. But in his narrative he clearly separates forms of expressing love comparing her parents and his behavior: love as material support and love leading towards individualization, self-realization: If you love, you can give, but I am not speaking about that kind of love like my parents did… I love you, so I will buy something expensive for you. My love is different… I love you so I want you to become someone ten years later… (Linas, 26, children generation).

The logic of altruism he expressed in this way: “you give and don’t expect to get it back”.

According to Linas, the relationship based on exchange logic is more common in the earlier society than in contemporary, where the relationships between parents and children are based on completely different laws: ‘Those who are born around forties, maybe they still reflect times of the serfdom, where children used to be the working force’. In this way the shift of the value of a child (from a child as working force to the one who is a value himself) is emphasized, the emotional ties are more important than “the use”. This transformation of the child perception was explored in the socio-historical study of family life Centuries of Childhood by Philippe Ariès (1962) where the shift towards relationships based on affection the author links with the bourgeois family at the end of 18th century.

The second thematic segment is altruism derived from the primordial quality of human nature (more biological interpretations). It was more often met among female interviewees of older generation (53, 64, 66 and 80 years old). For instance Augustė her financial support for adult children founds on natural ties to her offspring and does not question where her motivation comes from. When she tries to explain it, she uses biological-social terms:

17

You don‘t even think, you do it automatically. It‘s probably a bond between child and his parents. It is the voice of blood. It is your responsibility or not responsibility, I don’t know, you just do it automatically. No way you think that you suffer from this burden,, it is done automatically (Augustė, 53, parents generation).

Onutė (80 years old) names the intergenerational support as „nature and habit“. By „habit” the norms transmitted from one generation to another are meant, since later she gives detailed story how her father and grandfather helped to everyone who needed support. Elena (66 years old) also links the natural qualities of altruism to her family line and takes it as an example in her life (When you go into people with open heart, you get incredible amount of goodness).

The emphasis on nature is not so common among the younger interviewees, but there are some examples. In the narrative of Mantas the naturalistic and normative aspects are intertwined.

The example about other cultures let him emphasize the importance of family ties: First of all, I can say this exchange is a certain tribal aspect. It is your children, your flesh and blood… If you brought them into this world, you are responsible for them and it should be taken for granted, because those parents who don‘t take care of their children - their children grow up in children‘s home. We could learn something from Muslim societies, where, as far as I know, children‘s home do not exist at all, because it is family’s business. If somebody from a family has a child, but has abandoned him or if parents, God forbid, can‘t raise him or if they die, then their relatives look after them (Mantas, 26, children generation).

The third segment of attachment is best pronounced in the narrative of Augustė. She stresses the importance of preserving of security in the life course. Having both parents gives the sensation of security since one always can appeal to them if needed. In the life course, when parents get older, there is a threat to loose this bond, which is associated with stability and security. The perception of responsibility for oneself probably is one of the later stages of person’s maturity.

It was stressful for me. When my both parents were still alive, I thought that I am backed up in some way. If any misfortune, you can always go there. Or if you have financial difficulties, you can borrow some money or something… But when my father died and when mother has moved in to live with us, it was very stressful. When my mom lived separately I didn’t feel it so much, but now… It is a big stress that I am responsible only for myself. When you know that nobody will help you if something happens. Now, of course, she is getting her pension. But it is not the same as when I used to go to mom’s to ask some money in a critical situation. That’s it, I stand for myself alone.

(Augustė, 53, parents generation).

Auguste’s insights correspond to Cicirelli (1993) ideas of adult attachment model of helping. He states that adult child who is attached in case of parent’s illness or deprivation, provides care in order to maintain the survival of elderly parent and preserve the emotional bond.

In conclusion, the interviews revealed various motives behind the provided support, also various ways the provided and received support is perceived: naturally or with a discomfort, sense of dependency. Ambivalent feelings were very much apparent in the interviews of both generations; also different strategies to overcome the ambivalent situations were met (providing other kind of support, non providing some kind of support in order to preserve independence etc.).

CONCLUSIONS The analysis of qualitative data revealed higher levels of solidarity for parents generation.

The structural opportunities of solidarity are more favourable, also the evaluation of relationships in all age groups is higher for parents generation compared to children‘s generation. The predictors of solidarity comprise the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, children and additional factors.

The analysis of opposite flow revealed that children‘s solidarity with parents is rather different when their parents live together and separately. The levels of solidarity are higher with together living parents and solidarity predictors comprises of socio-demographic characteristics of 18

respondents and additional factors. The solidarity levels with separately living parents are considerably lower, especially with the father. The predictors of solidarity comprise not only characteristics of respondents, but also of parents and additional factors. In most cases (when parents live together and separately) the evaluation of relationships with parents is mostly predicted by the evaluation of parents relationships up to respondent‘s 15 years.

The analysis of qualitative data allowed to extend the analysis and to see various forms of functional solidarity, to analyse how it is perceived by the interviewees and what motives lies behind the support. Exchange motive, based on reciprocity logic is mostly common motive in the interviews. The signification of this motive can be divided into two forms: latent and manifest exchange. Besides the exchange as reciprocity, other thematic groups of exchange were noticed: exchange as an investment, exchange as a social debt. As other groups of motives the norms and altruism/ attachment were analysed. The analysis of motives of norms revealed the roots of intergenerational attitudes’ formation: the strong role of primary and secondary socialization when certain attitudes are being internalized, also the role of demonstration effect, emphasized by younger generations. Altruism motives were signified through the emphasis of emotions, affection.

Few thematic segments were apparent in the interviews: altruism as unquestioned phenomena, altruism as primordial quality, also some reflections of attachment were noticed.

The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods allowed gaining more complete picture of solidarity systems in Lithuania. The analysis of three dimensions of solidarity model (associational, affectual and structural) was complemented with functional dimension. This allowed encompassing the level of action and exploring what meanings the actors confer to intergenerational support.

REFERENCES 1. Altonji, J.G., Hayashi, F., Kotlikoff, L. J. (1992). Is the extended family altruistically linked? Direct tests using micro data. American Economic Review: 1177-1198.

2. Anreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1447-58.

3. Aquilino, W. S. 1999. Two Views of One Relationship: Comparing Parents‘ and YoungAdult Children‘s Reports of the Quality of Intergenerational Relations. Journal of Marriage and Family 61(4): 858–870 4. Bengston, V. L, Giarrusso, R., Mabry, B. J. and M. Silverstein. (2002). Solidarity, Conflict and Ambivalence: Complementary or Competing Perspectives on Intergenerational Relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family 64(3): 568–576.

5. Bengston, V. L. (2001). Beyond the Nuclear Family: the Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds, Journal of Marriage and Family 63(1): 1–16.

6. Bengston, V. L., Richards, L. N. and R. E. Roberts. (1991). Intergenerational Solidarity in Families: Untangling the Ties that Bind” in Susan P. Pfeifer and Marvin B. Sussman (eds.)

Families: Intergenerational and Generational Connections. New York, London: The Haworth Press 7. Bernheim, B. D., Shleifer, A., Summers, L. H. (1986). The strategic bequest motive. Journal of labor economics 4 (3): 151-182.

8. Cicirelli, V. G. (1993). Attachment and obligation as daughters‘ motives for caregiving.

Behaviour and subsequent effect on subjective burden. Psychology and Aging 8: 144-155.

9. Connidis, I. A. (2001). Family Ties and Aging. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

10. Connidis, I. A. and J. A. McMullin. (2002). Ambivalence, Family Ties, and Doing Sociology, Journal of Marriage and the Family 64(3): 594–601.

11. Connidis, I. A. and J. A. McMullin. (2002). Sociological Ambivalence and Family Ties: A Critical Perspective, Journal of Marriage and the Family 64 (3): 558–567.

19

12. Cox, D., Stark, O. (1994). Intergenerational transfers and the demonstration effect. Working paper: Boston College, Harvard University.

13. Gedvilaitė-Kordušienė, M. (2009). Kartų solidarumas ir jį lemiantys veiksniai. Eds. V. Stankūnienė, A. Maslauskaitė. Lietuvos šeima: tarp tradicijos ir naujos realybės. Socialinių tyrimų institutas.

14. Fisher, L. R. (1981). Transitions in the mother-daughter relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 613–622.

15. Hammarström, G. (2005). The Construct of Intergenerational Solidarity in a Lineage Perspective: a Discussion on Underlying Theoretical Assumptions, Journal of Aging Studies 19: 33–51.

16. Kalmijn, M. (2005). Intergenerational Solidarity: A Review of Three Theories and their Evidence. November 24, work in progress.

17. Klauss, D. (2009). Why do adult children support their parents? Journal of Comparative Family Studies.

18. Kohli, M., Kunemund, H. (2003). Intergenerational transfers in the family: what motivates giving? V. L. Bengston and A. Lowenstein (eds.). Global Aging and Challenges to Families.

New York. Aldine de Gruyter, 123-142 19. Lee,G.R., Netzer, J.K., Coward, R.T. (1994). Filial responsibility expectations and patterns of intergenerational assistance. Journal of Marriage and Family 56:559-65.

20. Luescher, K. and K. Pillemer. (1998). Intergenerational Ambivalence: a New Approach to the Study of Parent-Child, Journal of Marriage and the Family 60(2): 413–425.

21. Mikulionienė, S. (2006). Amžiaus struktūra. Ats. red. V. Stankūnienė. Lietuvos gyventojai: struktūra ir demografinė raida. Vilnius: Lietuvos statistikos departamentas, Socialinių tyrimų institutas.

22. Parrot, T. M., Bengston, V. L. (1999). The effects of earlier intergenerational affection, normative expectations, and family conflict on contemporary exchanges of help and support.

Research on Aging 21: 73-105.

23. Rossi, A. S. and P. H. Rossi. (1990). Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relationships Across the Life Course. New York: Alydine De Gruyter.

24. Silverstein, M., Chen, X. and K. Heller. (1996). Too Much of a Good Thing?

Intergenerational Social Support and the Psychological Well-Being of Older Parents, Journal of Marriage and the Family 58(4): 970–982.

25. Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Yang, F. M. (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs.

26. Szydlik, M. (2008). Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict, Journal of Comparative Family Studies January 1: 27–40.

27. Tereškinas A. (2004). Vyrai, vyriškumo formos ir maskulinizmo politika šiuolaikinėje Lietuvoje. Vilnius: VU leidykla.

28. Véron, J. and S. Pennec. (2007). Demographic Context of the Social Contract in Developed Countries: Unity and Diversity. Ages, Generations and the Social Contract. The Demographic Challenges facing the Welfare State. J. Vèron, S. Pennec. J.Legare (eds.).

Netherlands: Springer.

29. Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., Huck, S. M. (1994). Early family relationships, intergenerational solidarity, and support provided to parents by their adult children. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 49: S85-94.

30. White, L. (1992). The Effect of Parental Divorce and Remarriage on Parental Support for Adult Children. Paper read at the NATIONAL Symphosium on Stepfamilies, Pennsylvania State University.

31. White, L. (1994). Growing up with Single Parents and Stepparents: Long-Term Effects on Family Solidarity. Journal of Marriage and Family. 56(4): 935–948.

20

21