In this study, we examined older people’s views and experiences of family relations in Iceland. The goal was to explore the frequency and kinds of contact, and the support older people received from their adult biological children and stepchildren. We performed cluster sampling covering community centers in municipalities nationwide in Iceland. The questionnaire was answered by 273 older people, including 193 women (75%) and 64 men (25%). The average age was 79 years. About 200 (74%) lived in the capital area of Reykjavik, while 70 (26%) lived in the countryside.
Findings
Older people received more support from biological children than stepchildren. Specifically, differences were found in both frequency and quality of contact. The results revealed gender differences; daughters offering more help and support than sons. Older women have more frequent contact and closer relationships with their biological children than with other children. Relationships with stepchildren were weaker in all respects. These results are discussed in connection to structural and cultural factors, with a focus on the implications of changes in family structure, new communication styles, and effects of media.
Applications
Although the increased frequencies of divorce and stepparenting can affect connections within families, communities commonly disregard the different needs of stepfamilies, sometimes called “stepblindness”. Policy makers and professionals such as social workers need to concede different needs of older people in stepfamilies. Conclusions are drawn from the perspective of welfare policy issues, such as the need of more precise law provisions and implementations on social services for families.
AntonucciT. C.AjrouchK. J.BirdittK. S. (2014).
The Convoy Model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective.The Gerontologist,
54(1), 82–92. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt118
5.
AntonucciT. C.BirdittK. S.AkiyamaH. (2009). Convoys of social relations: An interdisciplinary approach. In BengstonV. L.GansD.PulneyN. M.SilversteinM. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (2nd ed., pp. 247–260).
Springer.
6.
ArberS.TimonenV. (2012). A new look at grandparenting. In ArberS.TimonenV.(Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting. Changing family relationships in global contexts (pp. 1–24).
The Policy Press.
7.
Beck-GernsheimE. (2002). Reinventing the family: In Search of new lifestyles (P. Camiller, Trans.) (p. 138). Polity Press. (Original work published 1998).
8.
BjörnbergU.EkbrandH. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and social structures in Sweden: Class, ethnicity and gender in public and private support patterns. In SaracenoC.(Ed.), Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states. Globalization and welfare series (pp. 236–258).00Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848445147.00017
9.
BossP. (1980).
Normative family stress: Family boundary changes across the life-span. Family Relations,
29, 445–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/584457
10.
Boszormenyi-NagyI.SparkG. M. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy.
Harper & Row.
11.
BourdieuP. (1983). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258).
Greenwood.
12.
ColemanJ. (1988).
Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94, S95–S120. www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
13.
DaatlandS. O.HerlofssonK. (2004). Familie, velferdsstat og aldring. Familiesolidaritet i et europeisk perspektiv [Family, welfare state and ageing. Solidarity between generations in European perspective] (NOVA Rapport 7). Norwegian Social Research.
14.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism.
Polity Press.
FingermanK. L.PillemerK. A.SilversteinM.SuitorJ. J. (2012).
The Baby Boomers’ intergenerational relationships.The Gerontologist,
52,199–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr139
17.
FingermanK. L.KyungminK.TennartP. S.BirdettK. S.ZaritS. H. (2016).
Intergenerational support in a daily context.The Gerontologist,
56, 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv035
18.
FurstenbergF. F. (2005).
Banking on families: How families generate and distribute social capital. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67, 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00177.x
19.
HalldorsdottirV. (2012). Hver er í fjölskyldunni? Skilnadir og stjúptengsl [Who is in the family? Divorces and steprelationships].
Vaka-Helgafell.
JuliusdottirS. (1993). Den kapabla familjen i det isländska samhället. En studie om lojalitet, äktenskapsdynamik och psykosocial anpassning [The capable family in the Icelandic society: A study on loyalities, marital dynamics and adaptation] [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Göteborg and University of Iceland.
22.
JuliusdottirS. (1997). Fjölskyldulíf – Tryggðabönd, kvaðir og réttlæti: Erindi um fjölskyldudyg(g)ðir og hlutverk fjölskyldustefnu [Family life – Devotion, obligation and justice: On family virtues and the essence of a family policy]. In KalmanssonJ. Á., et al. (Eds.), Fjölskyldan og réttlætið (pp. 171–191).
Siðfræðistofnun/Háskólaútgáfan.
23.
JuliusdottirS. (2001). Fjölskyldur vid aldahvörf: Náin tengsl og uppeldisskilyrði barna [Families at 2000: Intimate relationships and childrens conditions].
Háskólaútgáfan.
24.
JuliusdottirS. (2012). Fjölskyldur – umbreytingar, samskipti og skilnaðarmál [Families, transformation processes and divorce]. In EydalG. B.OlafssonS. (Eds.), Þróun velferðarinnar 1988–2008 [Development of the Icelandic Welfare State 1988–2008] (pp. 69–89).
Felagsvísindastofnun.
25.
JuliusdottirS.ArnardottirJ. R.MagnusdottirG. (2008). Ungmenni og ættartengsl: Rannsókn um reynslu og sýn skilnaðarungmenna [Young people and generational ties: A study on young person’s views on parental divorce].
Rannsóknasetur í barna-og fjölskylduvernd og Háskólaútgáfan.
26.
JuliusdottirS.SigurdardottirS. (2014).
Two-generational perspective of post divorce relationships in 16 Icelandic families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,
55(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2013.837708
OlafssonS. (2018). ESPN thematic report on challenges in long-term care.
European Commission.
29.
PezzinL. E.SchoneB. S. (1999).
Parental marital disruption and intergenerational transfers: An analysis of lone elderly parents and their children. Demography,
36, 287–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2648053
PryorJ. (2014). Stepfamilies: A global perspective on research, policy and, practice.
Routledge.
32.
ShapiroA. (2012).
Rethinking marital status: Partnership history and intergenerational relationships in American families. Advances in Life Course Research,
17, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2012.05.003
33.
ShermanC.WebsterN.AntonucciT. (2013).
Dementia caregiving in the context of late‐life remarriage: Support networks, relationship quality, and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family,
75, 1149–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12088
34.
SigurdardottirS. H. (2013). Patterns of care and support in old age (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Health Sciences.
35.
SigurdardottirS. H.JuliusdottirS. (2013).
Reciprocity in relationships and support between grandparents and grandchildren: An Icelandic example. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships,
11, 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2013.782743
36.
SigurdardottirS. H.KåreholtI. (2014).
Informal and formal care of older people in Iceland.Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science,
28, 802–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12114
37.
SigurdardottirS. H.SundstromG.MalmbergB.BravellM. E. (2012).
Needs and care of older people living at home in Iceland.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
40(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494811421976
SuanetB.van der PasS.van TilburgT. G. (2013).
Who is in the stepfamily? Change in stepparents’ family boundaries between 1992 and 2009. Journal of Marriage and Family,
75, 1070–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12053
SzebehelyM. (2005). Nordisk äldreomsorgsforskning – en sammanfattande diskussion [Nordic elder care research – A summary discussion]. In M. Szebehely (Ed.), Äldreomsorgsforskning i Norden. En kunskapsöversikt [Research on eldercare in the Nordic region: A state of knowledge review] (pp. 371–388). Nordiska Ministerrådet [Nordic Council]. Report Tema Nord 2005:508.
