Top
Nordic Yearbook of Population Research

Attitudes Towards Filial Responsibility in 11 European Countries
Changes Between 2001 and 2017

Authors

Juha Kääriäinen
Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Finland
Mirkka Danielsbacka
Department of Social Research, University of Turku, Finland
Antti Tanskanen
Population Research Institute, Finland

DOI

https://doi.org/10.23979/fypr.132000

Files

View PDF

Abstract

This study examines how attitudes towards filial responsibility (AFR) have changed in 11 European countries between 2001 and 2017, based on data from the International Social Survey Programme. These countries include various types of welfare states and family traditions. The study also analyses the change in AFR according to the respondents’ gender and age. The findings indicate that in 2017, individuals reported lower filial responsibility than in 2001, with the exception of Great Britain, where the AFR increased. The most substantial decreases in AFR were observed in Hungary, France, Denmark, and Finland. This negative shift is visible in both genders and all age groups, particularly late middle-aged women. However, despite the varying intensity of AFR change, it was challenging to identify clear patterns in the variations between countries. These results highlight potential negative effects on political proposals for long-term care for older adults supported by younger generations.

Files

View PDF

References

Albertini, M., Kohli, M., & Vogel, C. (2007). Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: Common patterns–different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy, 17(4), 319–334.

Anttonen, A., & Sipilä, J. (1996). European social care services: Is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2), 87–100. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-ofthe-

art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158. Bedford, O., & Yeh, K. H. (2021). Evolution of the conceptualization of filial piety in the global context: From skin to skeleton. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. doi:

3389/fpsyg.2021.570547

Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16.

Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 856–870.

Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., & Szydlik, M. (2009). Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25(5), 585–601.

Broese van Groenou, M. I., & De Boer, A. (2016). Providing informal care in a changing society. European Journal of Ageing, 13(3), 271–279.

Calzada, I., & Brooks, C. (2013). The myth of Mediterranean familism: Family values, family structure and public preferences for state intervention in care. European Societies, 15(4), 514–534.

Castiglioni, M., Hărăguş, M., Faludi, C., & Hărăguş, P. T. (2016). Is the family system in Romania similar to those of southern European countries? Comparative Population Studies, 41, 57–86.

Chappell, N. L., & Funk, L. (2012). Filial responsibility: does it matter for care-giving behaviours?. Ageing & Society, 32(7), 1128–1146.

Crawford, R., Stoye, G., & Zaranko, B. (2021). Long-term care spending and hospital use among the older population in England. Journal of Health Economics, 78, 102477.

Daatland, S. O., & Herlofson, K. (2003). “Lost solidarity” or “changed solidarity”: A comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing & Society, 23(5), 537–560.

Daatland, S. O., & Lowenstein, A. (2005). Intergenerational solidarity and the family–welfare state balance. European Journal of Ageing, 2(3), 174–182.

Daatland, S. O., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. A. (2011). Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe. Ageing & Society, 31(7), 1159–1179.

Daatland, S. O., Veenstra, M., & Herlofson, K. (2012). Age and intergenerational attitudes in the family and the welfare state. Advances in Life Course Research, 17(3), 133–144.

Diederich, F., König, H. H., & Brettschneider, C. (2023). The intergenerational transmission of filial norms and children’s provision of long-term care to parents. Ageing & Society, 1–21.

Dykstra, P. A. (2010). Intergenerational family relationships in ageing societies. United Nations.

Dykstra, P. A. (2018). Cross-national differences in intergenerational family relations: The influence of public policy arrangements. Innovation in Aging, 2(1), 1–8.

Dykstra, P., & Djundeva, M. (2020). Policies for later-life families in a comparative European perspective. In R. Nieuwenhuis and W. Van Lancker (Ed.) The Palgrave Handbook of Family Policy (pp. 331–367). Springer Nature.

Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. (2012). Norms of filial obligation in the Netherlands. Population-E, 67, 97–122.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5), 582–602.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Incomplete revolution: Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Polity Press.

European Commission. (2021). Long-Term Care Report: Trends, challenges and opportunities in an ageing society. Volume 1. Social Protection Committee (SPC) and the European Commission (DG EMPL).

Evalue. (2023). European values in education. https://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/maptool.html [accessed 26 October 2023]. (r3/10)

Fernandez, J. L., Snell, T., & Wistow, G. (2013). Changes in the patterns of social care provision in England: 2005/6 to 2012/13. Personal Social Services Research Unit, PSSRU Discussion Paper 286. Retrieved from www.pssru.ac.uk.

Fokkema, T., Ter Bekke, S., Dykstra, P. A., & Outmany, F. (2008). Solidarity between Parents and Their Adult Children in Europe. Amsterdam University Press.

Frericks, P., & Höppner, J. (2018). What about family in European old-age security systems? The complexity of institutional individualisation. Ageing & Society, 38(3), 594–614.

Gans, D., & Silverstein, M. (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 961–976.

Haberkern, K., Schmid, T., & Szydlik, M. (2015). Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states. Ageing & Society, 35(2), 298–320.

Hadler, M., Gundl, F., & Vrečar, B. (2020). The ISSP 2017 survey on social networks and social resources: An overview of country-level results. International Journal of Sociology, 50(2), 87–102.

Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage patterns in perspective. In: Glass, David Victor; Eversley, David Edward Charles (Eds.): Population in History. Essays in Historical Demography. London: Edward Arnold: 101–143.

Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of preindustrial household formation system. Population and Development Review, 8, 449–494.

Hämäläinen, H., & Tanskanen, A.O. (2021). Sandwich generation: Generational transmissions towards adult children and elderly parents. Journal of Family Studies, 27(3), 336–355.

Herlofson, K., Hagestad, G., Slagsvold, B., & Sørensen, A. M. (2011). Intergenerational family responsibility and solidarity in Europe. Multilinks Project, Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), (104 Multilinks Project).

Hsu, H. C., Lew-Ting, C. Y., & Wu, S. C. (2001). Age, period, and cohort effects on the attitude toward supporting parents in Taiwan. The Gerontologist, 41(6), 742–750.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248.

Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.

Laslett, P. (1983). Family and household as work group and kin group: areas of traditional Europe compared. In: Wall, Richard et al. (Eds.): Family forms in Historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112–18115.

Lesthaeghe, R., & van de Kaa, D. J. (1986). Twee demografische transities. Bevolking: groei en krimp, 1986, 9–24.

Lowenstein, A., & Daatland, S.O. (2006). Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context: Evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing & Society, 26(2), 203–223.

Marckmann, B. (2017). All is not relative: Intergenerational norms in Europe. European Societies, 19(4), 466–491.

Mureşan, C., & Hărăguş, P. T. (2015). Norms of filial obligation and actual support to parents in Central and Eastern Europe. Romanian Journal of Population Studies, 9(2).

OECD (2017). Demographic trends, in Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators.

OECD Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2017-73-en [Accessed 28 March 2023].

Plantenga, J., Remery, C., Figueiredo, H., & Smith, M. (2009). Towards a European Union gender equality index. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(1), 19–33.

Ranci, C., & Pavolini, E. (2015). Not all that glitters is gold: Long-term care reforms in the last two decades in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 25(3), 270–285.

Reher, D.S. (1998). Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24 (2), 203–234.

Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Global increases in individualism. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1228–1239.

Sapin, M., Joye, D., Wolf, C., Andersen, J., Bian, Y., Carkoglu, A., Fu, Y-C. Kalaycioglu, E., Marsden, P.V., & Smith, T.W. (2020). The ISSP 2017 social networks and social resources module. International Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 1–25.

Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe?. European Societies, 12(5), 675–696.

Silverstein, M., Gans, D., & Yang, F. M. (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of family Issues, 27(8), 1068-1084.

Stuifbergen, M. C., & Van Delden, J. (2011). Filial obligations to elderly parents: A duty to care? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 14(1), 63–71.

Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2019). Intergenerational family relations. An evolutionary social science approach. Routledge.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. van den Broek, T., Dykstra, P. A., & van der Veen, R. J. (2015). Care ideals in the Netherlands: Shifts between 2002 and 2011. Canadian Journal on Aging, 34(3), 268-281.

Vangen, H., & Herlofson, K. (2023). Why care? How filial responsibility norms and relationship quality matter for subsequent provision of care to ageing parents. Ageing & Society, 1–25.

Wang, Y., Wan, G., & Gu, Y. (2021). Consistency and transformation of filial responsibility attitudes in China: Evidence from panel study of family dynamics of 2004 and 2017. Journal of Family Issues. doi: 10.1177/0192513X211048475

Zigante, V., Fernandez, J. L., & Mazzotta, F. (2021). Changes in the balance between formal and informal care supply in England between 2001 and 2011: Evidence from census data. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 16(2), 232–249.

Details

DOI
Published
May 10, 2024
Issue
Section
Articles
Keywords filial responsibility, attitudes, informal care, welfare state
How to Cite
Kääriäinen, J., Danielsbacka, M., & Tanskanen, A. (2024). Attitudes Towards Filial Responsibility in 11 European Countries: Changes Between 2001 and 2017. Nordic Yearbook of Population Research, 57, 81-106. https://doi.org/10.23979/fypr.132000
License

Copyright (c) 2024 Juha Kääriäinen, Mirkka Danielsbacka, Antti Tanskanen

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with the Nordic Yearbook of Population Research agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  • The license of the published metadata is Creative Commons CC0 4.0 Universal (CC BY 4.0)