European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 181–189 | Cite as

“You’re saying something by giving things to them:” communication and family inheritance

  • Lorna de Witt
  • Lori Campbell
  • Jenny Ploeg
  • Candace L. Kemp
  • Carolyn Rosenthal
Original Investigation

Abstract

The study purpose was to contribute to a more complete understanding of the experience and meaning of family inheritance. The aim of this article is to describe and discuss the meaning of communication in inheritance experiences among Canadian families. A constructivist/interpretive methodological approach guided this research. Participants were recruited through purposive, convenience sampling from two cities and one town in southern and southwestern Ontario, Canada. Fifty face-to-face, semi-structured, audio-taped, in-depth interviews were conducted between June 2006 and April 2007. NVivo software was used to organize and analyze the data. A content analysis method guided data analysis. Participants interpreted the meaning of family structure, relationships, feelings, and past inheritance experiences to construct their family inheritance communication. Analysis of the findings revealed four themes regarding the role of communication in family inheritance including: (a) avoiding conflict and preserving biological ties, (b) resisting conversations about possessions, (c) achieving confidence withpossession communication, and (d) lasting effects. Participants from non-blended and blended families experienced similar inheritance communication challenges related to past experience with their parents’ wills and distribution of their own possessions. Participants with past positive inheritance experiences with parents adopted similar strategies when communicating their own inheritance wishes. Negative messages conveyed to participants by their parent’s wills inspired participants to communicate in opposite ways in their own inheritance planning. The study findings are useful for gerontologists, lawyers, family counselors, and estate planners.

Keywords

Family inheritance Communication Older adults 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada standard research grant (410-2005-2046, P.I. Lori D. Campbell). The manuscript was written as part of the Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population (SEDAPII) program of research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (412-2004-1006, P.I. Byron G. Spencer). We thank all the study participants for sharing their experiences and insights on family inheritance. We thank Jennifer Plenderleith, former Research Associate, Gilbrea Centre for Studies in Aging, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, for her invaluable assistance with this research project.

References

  1. Alwin DF, Wray LA (2005) A life-span developmental perspective on social status and health. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60(Special issue 2):S7–S14. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.Special_Issue_2.S7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angel JL (2008) Inheritance in contemporary America: the social dimensions of giving across generations. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82:1063–1093. doi:10.1086/260265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernheim BD, Shleifer A, Summers LH (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93:1045–1076. doi:10.1086/261351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornat J, Dimmock B, Jones D, Peace S (1999) Stepfamilies and older people: evaluating the implications of family change for an ageing population. Ageing Soc 19(2):239–261. doi:10.1017/S0144686X99007266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen RL (1987) Distributive justice: theory and research. Soc Justice Res 1(1):19–40. doi:10.1007/BF01049382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman M, Ganong LH (1998) Attitudes toward inheritance following divorce and remarriage. J Fam Econ Issues 19(4):289–314. doi:10.1023/A:1022973731765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coleman M, Ganong LH, Hans JD, Sharp EA, Rothrauff TC (2005) Filial obligations in post-divorce stepfamilies. J Divorce Remarriage 43(3/4):1–25. doi:10.1300/J087v43n0_01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95:508–546. doi:10.1086/261470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finch J, Mason J (2000) Passing on: kinship and inheritance in England. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Finch J, Hayes L, Mason J, Masson J, Wallis L (1996) Wills, inheritance, and families. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Fingerman KL, Pillemer KA, Silverstein M, Suitor JJ (2012) The baby boomers’ intergenerational relationships. Gerontologist 52(2):199–209. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fish BM, Kotzer L (2009) Where there’s an inheritance…stories from inside the world of two wills lawyers. Continental Atlantic Publications, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster SE (2007) You can’t take it with you: common-sense estate planning for Canadians, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, MississaugaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ganong L, Coleman M (2006) Patterns of exchange and intergenerational responsibilities after divorce and remarriage. J Aging Stud 20:265–278. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2005.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganong L, Coleman M, McDaniel AK, Killian T (1998) Attitudes regarding obligations to assist an older parent or stepparent following later-life remarriage. J Marriage Fam 60:595–610. doi:10.2307/353531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golish TD (2003) Stepfamily communication strengths: understanding the ties that bind. Hum Commun Res 29(1):41–80. doi:10.1093/hcr/29.1.41 Google Scholar
  19. Hagestad GO, Herlofson K (2007) Micro and macro perspectives on intergenerational relations and transfers in Europe. In: Report from the United Nations expert group meeting on social and economic implications of changing population age structures. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, pp 339–357Google Scholar
  20. Harper S (2006) Addressing the implications of global ageing. J Popul Res 23(2):205–223. doi:10.1007/BF03031816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartog H (2012) Someday all this will be yours: a history of inheritance and old age. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Havens JJ, Schervish PG (2003) Why the $41 trillion wealth transfer estimate is still valid: a review of challenges and questions. J Gift Plan 7(1):11–15, 47–50. http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/research_sites/cwp/pdf/41trillionreview.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2012Google Scholar
  23. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter EG, Rowles GD (2005) Leaving a legacy: toward a typology. J Aging Stud 19:327–347. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2004.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jürges H (2005) Gifts, inheritances, and bequest expectations. In: Börsch-Supan A, Brugiavini A, Jürges H, Mackenbach J, Siegrist J, Weber G (eds) Health, ageing and retirement in Europe—first results from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe. MEA, Mannheim, pp 186–191Google Scholar
  26. Kane RA (1996) From generation to generation: thoughts on legacy. Generations 20:5Google Scholar
  27. Kohli M (2004) Intergenerational transfers and inheritance: a comparative view. Annu Rev Gerontol Geriatr 24:266–289Google Scholar
  28. Morse JM (2000) Determining sample size. Qual Health Res 10:3–5. doi:10.1177/104973200129118183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morse JM (2007) Strategies of intra-project sampling. In: Munhall PA (ed) Nursing research: a qualitative perspective, 4th edn. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, pp 529–539Google Scholar
  30. National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services (2011) Growing older in America: the health and retirement study. Author, Bethesda. http://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health_and_retirement_study.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
  31. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (2011) Succession law reform act. RSO 1990, Chap 26. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s26_e.htm. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
  32. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandstrom KL, Martin DD, Fine GA (2003) Symbolic interactionism at the end of the century. In: Ritzer G, Smart B (eds) Handbook of social theory. Sage, London, pp 217–231Google Scholar
  34. Schwandt TA (1994) Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 118–137Google Scholar
  35. Serido J, Shim S, Mishra A, Tang C (2010) Financial parenting, financial coping behaviors, and well-being of emerging adults. Fam Relat 59:453–464. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00615.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silverstein M, Giarrusso R (2010) Aging and family life: a decade review. J Marriage Fam 72:1039–1058. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silverstein M, Conroy SJ, Wang H, Giarrusso R, Bengtson VL (2002) Reciprocity in parent-child relations over the adult life course. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 57B:S3–S13. doi:10.1093/geronb/57.1.S3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sousa L, Silva AR, Santos L, Patrão M (2010) The family inheritance process: motivations and patterns of interaction. Eur J Ageing 7(5):5–15. doi:10.1007/s10433-010-0139-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Statistics Canada (2012) Portrait of families and living arrangements in Canada: families, households and marital status, 2011 census of population (Catalogue no. 98-312-X2011001). Author, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone RI (2000) Long-term care for the elderly with disabilities: current policy, emerging trends, and implications for the twenty-first century. Milbank Memorial Fund. http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0008stone/LongTermCare_Mech5.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
  41. Stum MS (1999) I just want to be fair: interpersonal justice in intergenerational transfers of non-titled property. Fam Relat 48(2):159–166. doi:10.2307/585079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stum MS (2000) Families and inheritance decisions: examining non-titled property transfers. J Fam Econ Issues 21(2):177–202. doi:10.1023/A:1009478019537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stum MS (2012) Critical conversations about inheritance: can we talk? Financial Security for Later Life. University of Minnesota extension. http://www.extension.umn.edu/family/financial-security/who-gets-grandmas-pie-plate/critical-conversations/. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
  44. Sussman MB, Cates JN, Smith DT (1970) The family and inheritance. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Sweeney MM (2010) Remarriage and stepfamilies: strategic sites for family scholarship in the 21st century. J Marriage Fam 72:667–684. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00724.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Titus SL, Rosenblatt PC, Anderson RM (1979) Family conflict over inheritance of property. Fam Coord 28(3):337–346. doi:10.2307/581946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorna de Witt
    • 1
  • Lori Campbell
    • 2
  • Jenny Ploeg
    • 3
  • Candace L. Kemp
    • 4
  • Carolyn Rosenthal
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Nursing, University of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.Sociology and Health, Aging, and SocietyFaculty of Social Sciences, McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Sociology, The Gerontology InstituteGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  5. 5.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations