Values attributed to children provide insights into the place of the child in family and society. The place of the child, in turn, is the key to understanding intergenerational dynamics. In this article, a key construct, “value of children,” and several studies using it are examined from the perspective of a theory of family change. This theoretical perspective and the studies shed light on the links between the values attributed to children/expectations from them, and the care of the elderly—two key aspects of the family not commonly studied in intersection. This intersection is analyzed in this article. Research shows that where the values attributed to children define the role of the offspring as the provider for the parents, family care of the elderly becomes the norm. With systematic changes in the socio-cultural-economic context and in the family, this norm undergoes change, also. What changes, what is maintained, and to what degree are empirical questions of significance for the care of the elderly.
AboderinI. (2004). Modernisation and ageing theory revisited: Current explanations of recent developing world and historical Western shifts in material family support for older people. Ageing & Society, 24, 29-50. doi:10.1017//S0144686X03001521
2.
AlbertI.TrommsdorffG.MayerB.SchwarzB. (2005). Value of children in urban and rural Indonesia: Socio-demographic indicators, cultural aspects and empirical findings. In TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (Eds.), The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies (pp. 171-207). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
3.
AtacaB.KagitcibasiC.DiriA. (2005). Turkish family and the value of children: Trends over time. In TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (Eds.), The value of children in cross cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies (pp. 91-119). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
4.
AtacaB.SunarD. (1999). Continuity and change in Turkish urban family life. Psychology and Developing Societies, 11, 77-90.
5.
Aycicegi-DinnA.KagitcibasiC. (2010). The value of children for parents in the minds of emerging adults. Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 174-205.
6.
BeckerG. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In National Bureau of Economic Research (Ed.), Demographic and economic change in developed countries (pp. 209-231). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BettioF.VerashchaginaA. (2010). Long-term care for the elderly—Provisions and providers in 33 European countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
8.
BulataoR. A. (1979). On the nature of the transition in the value of children (Papers of the East-West Population Institute, No. 60-A). Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.
9.
CattellM. G. (1993). Caring for the elderly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ageing International, 20(2), 13-19.
10.
DarrochR. K.MeyerP. A.SingarimbunM. (1981). Two are not enough: The value of children to Javanese and Sudanese parents (Papers of the East-West Population Institute, No. 60-D). Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.
11.
DekovicM.PelsT.ModelS. (Eds.). (2006). Unity and diversity in childrearing: Family life in a multicultural society. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
12.
FawcettJ. T. (1983). Perceptions of the value of children: Satisfactions and costs. In BulataoR.LeeR. D.HollerbachP. E.BongaartsJ. (Eds.), Determinants of fertility in developing countries (Vol. 1, pp. 347-369). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
13.
GeorgasJ.BerryJ. W.vandeVijverF.KagitcibasiC.PoortingaY. H. (Eds.). (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Global Age Watch Index. (2014). Insight report. London, UK: HelpAge International. Retrieved from http://www.helpage.org
15.
HoffmanL. W. (1987). The value of children to parents and child rearing patterns. In KagitcibasiC. (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 159-170). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
16.
HoffmanL. W.HoffmanM. L. (1973). The value of children to parents. In FawcettJ. T. (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on education (pp. 19-76). New York, NY: Basic Books.
17.
JoseP. E.HuntsingerC. S.HuntsingerP. R.LiawF.-R. (2000). Parental values and practices relevant to young children’s social development in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 677-702.
18.
KagitcibasiC. (1982). Old age security value of children and socioeconomic development: Cross-national evidence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 29-42.
19.
KagitcibasiC. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In BermanJ. (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 135-200). Lincoln: Nebraska University Press.
20.
KagitcibasiC. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
KagitcibasiC. (2013). The family and child well-being. In Ben-AriehA.FronesI.CasasF.KorbinE. (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being (pp. 1229-1251). Dordrecht: Springer.
22.
KagitcibasiC.AtacaB. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: International Review, 54, 317-337.
23.
KagitcibasiC.AtacaB.DiriA. (2010). Intergenerational relationships in the family: Ethnic, socio-economic and country variations in Germany, Israel, Palestine, and Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 652-670.
24.
KimU.ParkY.-S.KwonY.-E.KooJ. (2005). Values of children, parent-child relationship, and social change in Korea: Indigenous, cultural, and psychological analysis. Applied Psychology: International Review, 54, 338-354.
25.
KoutrelakosJ. (2004). Acculturation of Greek Americans: Change and continuity in cognitive schemas guiding intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 95-105.
26.
KwakK. (2003). Adolescents and their parents: A review of intergenerational family relations for immigrant and non-immigrant families. Human Development, 46, 15-36.
27.
LubiewskaK. (2008, July). Family model in Poland. Paper presented at the XXIX International Congress of Psychology, Berlin, Germany.
28.
MayerB. (2013). Family change theory: A preliminary evaluation on the basis of recent cross-cultural studies. In AlbertI.FerringD. (Eds.), Intergenerational relations: European perspectives on family and society (pp. 167-187). Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
29.
MayerB.TrommsdorffG.KagitcibasiK.MishraR. M. (2012). Family models of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India. Family Science, 3, 64-74.
30.
McShaneK. E.HastingsP. D.SmylieJ. K.PrinceC. & Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre. (2009). Examining evidence for autonomy and relatedness in urban Inuit parenting. Culture & Psychology, 15, 411-431.
31.
MishraR.MayerB.TrommsdorffG.AlbertI.SchwarzB. (2005). Background and empirical results. In TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (Eds.), The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies (pp. 143-170). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
32.
PhaletK.SchonpflugU. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of collectivism and achievement values in two acculturation contexts: The case of Turkish families in Germany and Turkish and Moroccan families in the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 186-201.
33.
Seidl-de-MouraM. L.LordeloE.VieiraM. L.PiccinniniM. L.SiqueiraJ. O.MagalhãesC. M. C.. . . RimoliA. (2008). Brazilian mothers’ socialization goals: Intracultural differences in seven cities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 465-472.
34.
StewartS. M.BondM. H.DeedsO.ChungS. F. (1999). Intergenerational patterns of values and autonomy expectations in cultures of relatedness and separateness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 575-593.
35.
TrommsdorffG.MayerB. (2012). A cross-cultural study of intergenerational relations. In BertramH.EhlertN. (Eds.), Family, ties, and care: Family transformation in a plural modernity (pp. 315-342). Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
36.
TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (Eds.). (2005). The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
37.
TufanI. (2014). Turkiye’de yasliligin yapisal degisimi [The structural change of aging in Turkey]. Istanbul, Turkey: Koc University Publication.
38.
TulvisteT.MizeraL.De GeerB. (2012). Socialization values in stable and changing societies: A comparative study of Estonian, Swedish, and Russian Estonian mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 480-497.
39.
Turkish Statistics Institute. (2012). Elderly statistics. Available from www.turkstat.gov.tr
40.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2013). World Population Ageing 2013 (ST/ESA/SER.A/348). New York: United Nations publication.
41.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Why population aging matters: A global perspective (Publication No. 07–6134). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
42.
ZhengG.ShiS.TangH. (2005). Population development and the value of children in the People’s Republic of China. In TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (Eds.), The value of children in cross-cultural perspective: Case studies from eight societies (pp. 239-281). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
