The “Kinship Penalty”: Parenthood and In-Law Conflict in Contemporary Finland

  • Mirkka Danielsbacka
  • Antti O. Tanskanen
  • Anna Rotkirch
Research Article

Abstract

Intergenerational relations between affinal kin create both support and tensions to family members. Previous studies indicate that relations with affines may change once a grandchild is involved, yet this has not been explored with respect to conflicts. We use survey data of contemporary Finns (n = 1202) to investigate how parenthood is associated with the likelihood of reporting conflicts with one’s own parents and parents-in-law. Based on inclusive fitness theory, we hypothesise that affinal kin will be treated more like biological kin if a couple has children as compared to childless couples. Results show that overall, Finns reported higher conflict occurrence with their own parents than with their in-laws. Compared to childless couples, parents were as likely to report conflicts with their own parents, but more likely to report conflicts with their parents-in-law. Results were robust after taking into account several sociodemographic factors as well as the contact frequencies and emotional closeness between the parties concerned. Daughters-in-law were more likely to report conflicts when paternal grandmothers provided more grandchild care, indicating that the conflict measure used here is indeed related to investment in offspring. We conclude that shared relatedness to a grandchild renders affines “more like kin” with regards to conflicts, indicating the existence of a “kinship penalty” in family relation in addition to the previously reported “kinship premium”.

Keywords

Affinal kin Conflicts Cross-generational relations Grandchild care Grandparents In-laws Mother-in-law Parenthood 

References

  1. Allen, S. M., & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal gatekeeping: mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anttonen, A. (1999). Child home care allowances: an innovation in Finnish family policy. Studies in social security and health no. 52. Helsinki, Finland: The Social Insurance Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Apostolou, M. (2015). Interparental disagreement over in-law choice. Personal Relationships, 22, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton-Chellew, M. N., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Are affines treated as biological kin? A test of Hughes’s hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 52, 741–746. doi:10.1086/661288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, K. L., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., Fong, D. Y. T., & Leung, W.-C. (2008). Understanding violence against Chinese women in Hong Kong: an analysis of risk factors with a special emphasis on the role of in-law conflict. Violence Against Women, 14, 1295–1312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chong, A., Gordon, A. E., & Don, B. P. (2017). Emotional support from parents and in-laws: the roles of gender and contact. Sex Roles, 76, 369–379. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0587-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, E. J., Preston, M., Raksin, J., & Bengtson, V. L. (1999). Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39, 261–270. doi:10.1093/geront/39.3.261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coall, D. A., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Grandparental investment: past, present, and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 1–59. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09991105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coall, D. A., & Hertwig, R. (2011). Grandparental investment: a relic of the past or a resource for the future? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curry, O., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2013). Altruism in social networks: evidence for a “kinship premium.”. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 283–295. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02119.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Danielsbacka, M., & Tanskanen, A. O. (2012). Adolescent grandchildren’s perceptions of grandparents’ involvement in UK: an interpretation from life course and evolutionary theory perspective. European Journal of Ageing, 9, 329–341. doi:10.1007/s10433-012-0240-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., Hämäläinen, H., Pelkonen, I., Haavio-Mannila, E., Rotkirch, A., Karisto, A., & Roos, J. P. (2013). Sukupolvien vuorovaikutus. Auttaminen ja yhteydenpito suurten ikäluokkien ja heidän lastensa elämässä. In Inter-generational relations: helping and interaction in the life of Finnish baby boomers and their adult children. Helsinki: Finnish Family Federation.Google Scholar
  14. Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., & Rotkirch, A. (2015). Impact of genetic relatedness and emotional closeness on intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 889–907. doi:10.1111/jomf.12206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Euler, H. A. (2011). Grandparents and extended kin. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 181–210). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., & Rohde, P. A. (2001). Relationship-specific closeness of intergenerational family ties. Findings from evolutionary psychology and implications for models of cultural transmission. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fagan, J., & Barnett, M. (2003). The relationship between maternal gatekeeping paternal competence, mothers’ attitude about the father role, and father involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 1020–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, R. L. (1983). Mothers and mothers-in-law. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fowler, C., & Rittenour, C. (2017). A life-span approach to children-in-law’s perceptions of parent-in-law communication. Journal of Family Communication. doi:10.1080/15267431.2017.1281280.
  20. Griffin, A., & West, S. A. (2002). Kin selection: fact and fiction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 15–21. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02355-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagestad, G. O. (2006). Transfers between grandparents and grandchildren: the importance of taking a three-generation perspective. Zeitschrift Familienforschung, 18, 315–332.Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour (I and II). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hank, K., & Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: findings from the 2004 survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hogerbrugge, M. J. A., & Komter, A. E. (2012). Solidarity and ambivalence: comparing two perspectives on intergenerational relations using longitudinal panel data. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67, 372–383. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature. A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  26. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others. The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hughes, A. L. (1988). Evolution and human kinship. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Igel, C., & Szydlik, M. (2011). Grandchild care and welfare state arrangements in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 21, 210–224. doi:10.1177/0958928711401766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jalovaara, M. (2012). Socio-economic resources and first-union formation in Finland, cohorts born 1969–81. Population Studies, 66(1), 69–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas, O., & Kvist, J. (2013). Nordic welfare states. In B. Greve (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of the welfare state (pp. 148–160). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2001). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12, 262–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kulu, H. (2014). Marriage duration and divorce: the seven-year itch or a lifelong itch? Demography, 51, 881–893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lahdenperä, M., Gillespie, D. O., Lummaa, V., & Russel, A. F. (2012). Severe intergenerational reproductive conflict and the evolution of menopause. Ecology Letters, 15, 1283–1290. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01851.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D. C., & Hehman, N. S. (2007). In-law conflict: women’s reproductive lives and the roles of their mothers and husbands among the matrilineal Khasi. Current Anthropology, 48, 861–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linn, R., & Breslerman, S. (1996). Women in conflict: on the moral knowledge of daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law. Journal of Moral Education, 25, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, X. (2009). Ordinal regression analysis: fitting the proportional odds model using Stata, SAS and SPSS. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8, 632–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lüscher, K. (2002). Intergenerational ambivalence: further steps in theory and research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 585–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lüscher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: a new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyngstad, T. H., & Jalovaara, M. (2010). A review of the antecedents of union dissolution. Demographic Research, 23, 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mace, R. (2013). Cooperation and conflict between women in the family. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 22, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: a meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 848–852. doi:10.1037/a0017004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF) (2012). Families [e-publication].ISSN=1798–3231. Annual Review 2011. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [referred: 9.7.2015].Access method: http://www.stat.fi/til/perh/2011/02/perh_2011_02_2012-11-09_tie_001_en.html
  43. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2015). Perinatal statistics—parturients, deliveries and newborns. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) [referred: 29.6.2015].[e-publication]. Access method: http://www.stat.fi/til/sysyvasy/index_en.html.Google Scholar
  44. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2017). Educational structure of population. Helsinki: Statistics Finland [e-publication]. ISSN=2242-2919 [referred: 12.5.2017].Google Scholar
  45. Pillemer, K., Suitor, J. J., Mock, S. E., Sabir, M., Pardo, T. B., & Sechrist, J. (2007). Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: exploring ambivalence within later-life families. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson, J. F. (1975). Interaction in three generation families, parents as mediators: toward a theoretical perspective. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 6, 103–110. doi:10.2190/GPFM-TFM5-9Y8Y-LHAK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: parent-child relations across the life course. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  48. Rotkirch, A. (forthcoming). Evolutionary family sociology. In R. Hopcroft (Ed.), Oxford handbook of evolution, biology and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rotkirch, A., Lyons, M., David-Barrett, T., & Jokela, M. (2014). Gratitude for help among adult friends and siblings. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 673–686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Salmon, C., & Hehman, J. (2014). The evolutionary psychology of sibling conflict and siblicide. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of violence (pp. 137–157). Springer New York: New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salmon, C., & Hehman, J. (2015). Evolutionary perspectives on the nature of sibling conflict: the impact of sex, relatedness, and co-residence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salmon, C., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sear, R., & Coall, D. (2011). How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding and the demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 37, 81–112. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00379.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Strassmann, B. I., & Garrard, W. M. (2011). Alternatives to the grandmother hypothesis: a meta-analysis of the association between grandparental and grandchild survival in patrilineal populations. Human Nature, 22, 201–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Szydlik, M. (2016). Sharing lives: adult children and parents. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2014). Genetic relatedness predicts contact frequencies with siblings, nieces and nephews: results from the generational transmissions in Finland surveys. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 5–11. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tanskanen, A. O., Danielsbacka, M., & Rotkirch, A. (2014). Multi-partner fertility is associated with lower grandparental investment from in-laws in Finland. Advances in Life Course Research, 22, 41–48. doi:10.1016/j.alcr.2014.04.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tanskanen, A. O., Danielsbacka, M., Jokela, M., David-Barret, T., & Rotkirch, A. (2016a). Diluted competition? Conflicts between full and half siblings in two adult generations. Frontiers in Sociology, 1. doi:10.3389/fsoc.2016.00006.
  60. Tanskanen, A. O., Danielsbacka, M., Jokela, M., & Rotkirch, A. (2016b). Sibling conflicts in full- and half-sibling households in the UK. Journal of Biosocial Science, 48. doi:10.1017/S0021932016000043.
  61. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1987). Mothers as mediators of intimacy between grandmothers and their young adult granddaughters. Family Relations, 36, 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Voland, E., & Beise, J. (2005). “The husband’s mother is the devil in house” data on the impact of the mother-in-law on stillbirth mortality in Historical Krummhörn (1750–1874) and some thoughts on the evolution of postgenerative female life. In E. Voland, A. Chasiotis, & W. Schiefenhövel (Eds.), Grandmotherhood: the evolutionary significance of the second half of female life (pp. 239–255). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Waynforth, D. (2011). Grandparental investment and reproductive decisions in the longitudinal 1970 British cohort study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 1155–1160. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1055–1072. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.01055.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirkka Danielsbacka
    • 1
  • Antti O. Tanskanen
    • 1
  • Anna Rotkirch
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Population Research Institute, VäestöliittoHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations