Shared Family Identity, Age Salience, and Intergroup Contact: Investigation of the Grandparent–Grandchild Relationship1

Abstract

This study investigated communicative and relational aspects of the grandparent–grandchild relationship that lead to perceptions of age salience and shared family identity with the grandparent. The perceptions represent manifestations of inter- and intragroup levels of categorization in dealing with the other family member. The association between these group-oriented categorizations and perceptions of intergenerational contact outside of the family was examined. Participants (N = 369) completed questionnaires assessing perceptions of experiences with multiple grandparents. Findings showed that general family identification of the grandchild, parental encouragement, and personal communication (social support and reciprocal self-disclosure) are positively associated with perceptions of shared family identity, whereas intergroup communication (under/overaccommodation) and perceptions of impaired health are associated with age salience. Results suggest that age salience may moderate the relationship between shared family identity and perceptions of older adults in some circumstances.

Keywords:

• Intergenerational Communication
• Grandparent–Grandchild Relations
• Family Identity
• Contact Theory
• Attitudes Towards Older Adults

The authors would like to thank Mary Lee Hummert, Adrianne Kunkel, Michael Dennis, Susan Kemper, Alan Sillars, and three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Notes

This study was part of the first author's doctoral dissertation and portions of the study were presented at the National Communication Association annual meeting, Chicago, 2004.

1. Grandparent accommodation was highly correlated with measures of social support (r=.73, p<.01), self-disclosure (r=.63, p<.01), overaccommodation (r=−.64, p<.01), and underaccommodation (r=−.50, p<.01).

2. LISREL 8.54 was used for analysis. Missing data for analyses (less than 0.1%) was imputed with an Expectation Maximum (EM) estimation. Means and standard deviations were examined pre- and postimputation and no notable changes were present. Models were estimated with Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation.

3. Intercorrelations for indicators of latent constructs are available from the first author by request.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jordan Soliz

Jordan Soliz (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Jake Harwood

Jake Harwood (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) is a Professor in the Communication Department at the University of Arizona